Category Archives: Affirmative Action

June 16, 2013

Discrimination by another name

The Supreme Court has another opportunity to strike it down.

The Supreme Court has a new opportunity to set aside a government program that long ago passed its “sell by” date. In Fisher v. University of Texas, the court can strike a blow for good racial relations as well.

Abigail Fisher brought a lawsuit against the University of Texas for denying her admission to the university on the basis of race. The university allows lesser-qualified students who didn’t graduate near the top of their high school class to enroll anyway, but only if they are included in a minority. Miss Fisher, who lived in Sugar Land, Texas, near Houston, is white.

More than a century ago, humorist Finley Peter Dunne observed that, “No matter whether the Constitution follows the flag or not, the Supreme Court follows the election returns,” colorfully observing that justices have tailored their interpretations of the law to follow social and political trends and accommodate public opinion. The observation remains valid today, and here it could encourage the right outcome.

Decades after the imposition of affirmative action, Americans have come to realize that discriminatory admissions policies of any kind are inherently wrong. A Washington Post-ABC News poll published Wednesday found that 76 percent of Americans polled say colleges and universities taking race into account in selecting prospective students use a measurement that has outlived its usefulness. There was no difference between whites and blacks in the response.

[...]

Complete text linked here.


June 15, 2013

Migrants Get Half Of UK Jobs: Brits Lose Out On New Posts

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said: “Foreign-born men have reversed the pre-financial crisis shortfall and are now doing better than native-born men.”


Ukip leader Nigel Farage has been hugely critical of the immigration situation

Foreign workers have marched into more than half of the new jobs in Britain.

An estimated 225,000 people out of the 423,000 who found work in the last year were not born in the UK, says the Office for National Statistics.

MigrationWatch UK boss Sir Andrew Green said: “It is time for a thorough assessment of the impact of immigration on the employment of British workers.

“What is clear is that British-born workers have hardly benefited at all from the expansion of employment in the last 10 years or so.”

And in January a flood of Romanians and Bulgarians is expected when labour movement restrictions are lifted.

Other research revealed UK jobs are more likely to go to foreign men than male British workers.

[...]

Complete text linked here.


June 8, 2013

The End of the Old Order by Victor Davis Hanson

Scan the government grandees caught up in the current administration’s ballooning IRS, Associated Press, and Benghazi scandals. In each case, a blue-chip Ivy League degree was no guarantee that our best and brightest technocrats would prove transparent or act honorably. What difference did it make that Press Secretary Jay Carney, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder, President Barack Obama, and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice had degrees from prestigious universities when they misled the American people or Congress?

Ideas of the 1960s have grown reactionary in our world, which is vastly different from the America of a half-century ago.

Take well-meaning subsidies for those over age 62. Why are there still senior discounts, vast expansions in Social Security and Medicare, and generous public pensions? Five decades ago all that made sense. There was no such thing as double-dipping. Seniors often were physically worn out from blue-collar jobs. They were usually poorer and frequently sicker than society in general. Many people died not long after they retired.

Not now. Seniors often live a quarter-century or longer after retirement from mostly white-collar jobs, drawing subsidies from those least able to pay for them. Most seniors are not like today’s strapped youth, scrimping for a down-payment on a house. Most are not struggling to find even part-time work. None are paying off crushing student loans. In a calcified economy, why would an affluent couple in their early 60s earn a “senior discount” at a movie, while the struggling young couple with three children in the same ticket line does not?

Affirmative action and enforced “diversity” were originally designed to give a boost to those who were victims of historical bias from the supposedly oppressive white-majority society. Is that still true, a half-century after these assumptions became institutionalized? Through greater immigration and intermarriage, America has become a multiracial nation. Skin color, general appearance, accent, or the sound of one’s name cannot so easily identify either the “oppressors” or the “victims.”

[...]

Complete text linked here.


June 4, 2013

Amnesty will Lead to More Affirmative Action

Racial preferences and reverse discrimination will worsen if amnesty passes. This is entirely predictable, and it requires no foresight to understand that people who benefit from the regime of reverse discrimination will gladly promote that regime with their votes. The only way to slow down the victim lobby is to stop amnesty, and enhance enforcement immediately.

Of all the consequences that would result from amnesty, one that hasn’t been discussed enough is the expansion of affirmative action.

Affirmative action takes existing racial grievances, institutionalizes them, and then magnifies them. As Shelby Steele noted, affirmative action encourages “a victim-focused identity in minorities” and fosters “a parasitic diversity industry”.

Affirmative action policies will benefit minority immigrants, and minority immigrants will naturally support affirmative action policies. How do we know? Because Hispanics are telling pollsters so.

Sixty-five percent of Hispanics believe that affirmative action should be used to ensure that more Hispanics get to college or university, and 68% support affirmative action in employment, according to a 2011 Angus Reid opinion poll. A 2012 Georgetown University poll showed that 63% of young Hispanics (18-24) support affirmative action to “redress past discrimination,” along with 75% of young blacks, but only 19% of whites.

[...]

Complete text linked here.


June 3, 2013

Met police in talks over law change to allow positive discrimination

Assistant commissioner says Scotland Yard is looking at 50-50 white and minority ethnic recruitment – banned under current law.


The increasing proportion of minority ethnic Londoners means the Met police has never been less representative.

Scotland Yard has discussed with the government a radical change in race relations law to allow positive discrimination in recruitment, as the growth of London’s ethnic minority populations makes the gap between the police ranks and those they serve wider than ever.

In a Guardian interview, the Metropolitan police assistant commissioner Simon Byrne said the plans the Met were examining would mean they “could only recruit, in very broad terms, a white officer if you can recruit a black or minority ethnic person at the same” time.

Byrne said current law “doesn’t allow us to be as bold as we could be”. Nine out of 10 Met officers are white, while the latest census data shows London’s population is 40% minority ethnic.

The senior officer said the “50-50″ plans amounted to “positive discrimination” which would require a change in the law. Talks were still ongoing with the government at the time of the interview, conducted the day before the Woolwich terror attack, an episode that highlighted religious and racial issues in the capital.

Some police chiefs fear overly white forces, especially in urban areas, risk damaging the legitimacy of policing as they exercise the power of the state over increasingly ethnically diverse populations.

[...]

Complete text linked here.


June 2, 2013

Temps win $334,000 settlement in reverse-discrimination case

PBM agreed to settle the dispute before the case made it to court. In addition to the monetary payout, PBM must annually train its managers and supervisors on national-origin discrimination and post a notice informing employees of the settlement.

PBM Graphics, a Research Triangle printing firm, has agreed to settle a national-origin EEOC discrimination claim filed by temporary workers who claim the firm unfairly favored His­­panic temps over non-Hispanics.

According to the complaint, PBM divided its temporary workforce into a core group and a group that was only used as needed. The workers claimed the core group, which re­­­ceived more regular work and better assignments, was disproportionately Hispanic. The as-needed group was largely non-Hispanic.

EEOC investigators found that the group assignments had little to do with the workers’ skills or experience. In fact, they appeared to be organized mainly according to the workers’ national origins.

[...]

Complete text linked here.


May 21, 2013

TN Labor Department loses ruling in reverse discrimination case

Federal judge upholds reverse discrimination lawsuit against former top state official.


Karla Davis, former state commissioner for Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development

A federal judge has ruled that a former top state Labor Department official can proceed with his suit charging that the former head of the state agency conspired with top aides to fire him and other longtime employees because they are white.

In a 20-page ruling, U.S. District Senior Judge John T. Nixon rejected arguments by the state that Donald B. Ingram, the former administrator of the Division of Employment Security, had failed to provide sufficient evidence of reverse discrimination.

Ingram was fired a year ago by former Labor and Workforce Development Commissioner Karla Davis.

“Ingram has alleged that he is Caucasian and that Davis and her two collaborators are African-American,” Nixon wrote, noting that Ingram also charged that Davis and her two top aides “engaged in a campaign to terminate or force out long term employees, virtually every one of whom was Caucasian and replaced them with African-American employees.”

[...]

Complete text linked here.


May 19, 2013

Northwestern student govt nominee’s confirmation blocked because he is a ‘heterosexual white male’

Ian Coley, a student on the Associate Student Government Diversity and Inclusion Committee, later said white heterosexual males are not qualified to hold the position of associate vice president of diversity and inclusion.


Stephen Piotrkowski was apparently denied a position on Northwestern’s student government because he is a “heterosexual white male.”

A student’s bid to become associate vice president of diversity and inclusion at Northwestern University was derailed last Wednesday over accusations that his status as a white heterosexual male would make it impossible for him to perform the position’s duties.

The Wednesday hearing began with student senator Jesse Seitz reportedly asking the nominee, Stephen Piotrkowski, how he could possibly interact and serve a minority community as a white male.

Piotrkowski reportedly attempted to appeal to the Student Senate on the grounds that he identifies as a religious minority and has a lesbian sister, but it was to no avail.

After about thirty more minutes of questioning, the Senate voted to block Piotrkowski’s appointment.

[...]

Complete text linked here.


May 16, 2013

Diversity Discourages Self-Initiative by Mychal Massie

“Diversity infuses into the mind of the so-called minority that they should be rewarded based on the color of their skin, not the value of their work. And not that only, but diversity also devalues the incentive to master said academics or skill requisite to compete on a level playing field. After all, why should a person work as hard if they know they are walking through the door with an edge based on color of skin?”

No single word and/or theory is more important in the vernacular of today’s higher education than “diversity.” In the Spring Edition of City Journal, Heather MacDonald writes a revealing (if you’re a liberal or if you’ve been living on another planet) article pursuant to the millions the budget-strapped University of California squanders “on mindless diversity programs.”

I recommend your reading Heather’s excellent work. That said, I’m sure as friends of many years, she won’t mind my using her essay as a spring board to reinforce a position I’ve argued since 1972. Heather wrote:

“It’s impossible to overstate the extent to which the diversity ideology has encroached upon UC’s collective psyche and mission. No administrator, no regent, no academic dean or chair can open his mouth for long without professing fealty to diversity. It is the one constant in every university endeavor; it impinges on hiring, distorts the curriculum, and sucks up vast amounts of faculty time and taxpayer resources. The university’s budget problems have not touched it. In September 2012, for instance, as the university system faced the threat of another $250 million in state funding cuts on top of the $1 billion lost since 2007, UC San Diego hired its first vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion. This new diversocrat would pull in a starting salary of $250,000, plus a relocation allowance of $60,000, a temporary housing allowance of $13,500, and the reimbursement of all moving expenses. (A pricey but appropriately “diverse” female-owned executive search firm had found this latest diversity accretion.) [...]

[...]

Complete text linked here.


May 9, 2013

Workers Claim Race Bias as Farms Rely on Immigrants

The suit is one of a number of legal actions containing similar complaints against farms, including a large one in Moultrie, Ga., where Americans said they had been fired because of their race and national origin, given less desirable jobs and provided with fewer work opportunities than Mexican guest workers.


Working for hours on end under a punishing sun, the pickers are said to be crowded into squalid camps, driven without a break and even cheated of wages.

For years, labor unions and immigrant rights activists have accused large-scale farmers, like those harvesting sweet Vidalia onions here this month, of exploiting Mexican guest workers. Working for hours on end under a punishing sun, the pickers are said to be crowded into squalid camps, driven without a break and even cheated of wages.

But as Congress weighs immigration legislation expected to expand the guest worker program, another group is increasingly crying foul — Americans, mostly black, who live near the farms and say they want the field work but cannot get it because it is going to Mexicans. They contend that they are illegally discouraged from applying for work and treated shabbily by farmers who prefer the foreigners for their malleability.

“They like the Mexicans because they are scared and will do anything they tell them to,” said Sherry Tomason, who worked for seven years in the fields here, then quit. Last month she and other local residents filed a federal lawsuit against a large grower of onions, Stanley Farms, alleging that it mistreated them and paid them less than it paid the Mexicans.

The suit is one of a number of legal actions containing similar complaints against farms, including a large one in Moultrie, Ga., where Americans said they had been fired because of their race and national origin, given less desirable jobs and provided with fewer work opportunities than Mexican guest workers. Under a consent decree with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the farm, Southern Valley, agreed to make certain changes.

[...]

Complete text linked here.