With the insidious infusion of affirmative action and victimization ideology into government policy and law and then collaterally into many areas of the private sector, a rampant state of oppression and discrimination has manifested itself. And it continues to noxiously grow.
What are we talking about?
It is discrimination against the white male of the heterosexual variety.
Over time there has been a plethora of discriminating set asides, quotas and other diversity preferences for jobs, schooling, loans, housing, etc.: first for blacks, then other minorities; then women; followed by gay and lesbians and then transgendered. The only group left out of these unconstitutional preferences and the one bearing the full brunt of these institutionalized practices is the straight white male.
This is a reprehensible situation that should not be allowed to persist or exist. It is far more pervasive and discriminatory than most people realize.
The costs of these policies are extremely high, both to the victims and to society. Ultimately we all benefit when the person selected for a position, job or admissions to school is the best one and not the one of politically correct color, religion, sex or sexual preference.
The White Man's Burden
Robin of Berkeley March 09, 2011
I was just filling out an application to be a provider for an insurance panel. And one of the questions they ask is, "Are you a GLBT-owned business?"
GLBT means gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered. I rolled my eyes when I saw this. I thought, "So, if I share my bed with a woman, I would be a superior therapist, a more desirable member of your insurance panel?"
Of course, the questionnaire also asked whether I were a minority- or female-owned business. Apparently, if I were an Asian woman who sleeps with other women, I would be a Most Valuable Player in the psychotherapy world.
What also occurred to me while filling out the application is that every special category exists aside from that of a white, straight male. If someone is gay or a woman or a person of color, the welcome mat is laid out. But what about an ordinary Joe, a working-class stiff from Toledo?
How does he get into college when all the recruitment efforts are aimed at others? And if he does get in, how does he afford it -- especially now, with Obama at the helm?
I heard a while back that ObamaCare snuck a backdoor scheme into ObamaCare, for the government to make student loans, not the banks. If this happens, you better believe that the money will be shelled out based on "social and economic justice."
Some young men turn to the military as a way of accessing needed funds for college. What are the consequences?
They are, in fact, grave: white, working class men are at much higher risk of being mortally wounded in the battleground than their privileged counterparts. And while the working class risk their lives, the snooty elite go to college on daddy's dime.
So let's put the pieces together here: everyone aside from a white, straight guy can obtain all sorts of special help in the form of jobs, financial aid, and college enrollment. On top of this, there are scholarships and grants galore for most people, aside from white males. (There are even college scholarships for illegals.)
But a white guy -- even one with who is broke -- gets very little. He may choose to join the Army instead, and possibly be seriously injured.
What is wrong with this picture?
Of course, I really shouldn't talk since I helped create the mess we're in. As a feminist, I spent much of my youth marching for women's rights. I have expended countless hours complaining about inequities toward women.
But I have seen the light. I now realize that we've created a monster with so many people wailing about sexism and racism and all the other "isms."
After decades of grievances, we haven't turned into a fairer nation; we're simply an angrier one. In the age of Obama, aggrieved groups have joined together to demand their rights, endeavoring to put the white man under their thumb.
Now men are marginalized and demonized. They are given the demoralizing message that they are unnecessary. Of course, this message is fallacious.
The United States would cease to operate if conservative white males went on strike tomorrow (not necessarily a bad idea, by the way). We'd do just fine shorn of most of the metrosexual crowd -- the college professors and the activists. But we'd crash and burn without the manly man. It's he who does the essential work that others cannot, like patrol our streets, extinguish fires, and drive tractors.
As a former progressive, I know how tempting it is to blame others for our own problems. It's easier to implicate the "system" or the Man than to take a good and hard look in the mirror.
But this life is not about "getting mine;" it's about what we have to offer the world. It's about living with dignity and honor, not a thirst for revenge.
Life is not fair; it is not supposed to be fair. Someone, somewhere will always have more, while others will have less. Disappointment is hard-wired into this human realm; and this is just as true for the white man as the person of color.
The Buddha put it this way, that life is composed of the "l0,000 joys and the l0,000 sorrows." We grow old, we get sick, and, one day, we and our bodies will perish.
And when that day happens, we won't take anything with us except for our character -- or lack of it. And there are no amount of laws or affirmative action programs that can change the way the world works.
A frequent American Thinker contributor, Robin is a recovering liberal and a psychotherapist in Berkeley.
The following editorial examines the true racist nature of the Obama Administration which had touted itself as post-racial and forward looking. What we have been encumbered with is a nightmare conflation of liberal bean counting and black liberation theology promoting black dominance, unequal rights, retribution, race wealth transfer to minorities and naked demagoguery and contemptuousness.
All with the blessings of the “man” who was to bring us into a new age.
The View from Crackerland
Robert T. Smith March 07, 2011
Certainly the recent vexation expressed by Eric Holder over being questioned regarding the New Black Panther voter intimidation case -- i.e., his defense of "my people" -- depicts a new low in race relations here in America. The liberal media and many politicians are curiously not outraged at what is an arguably race-based federal civil rights case.
We were told of a post-racial era that all Americans would enjoy as the outcome of the election of America's first African-American president. As so eloquently described by one of Mr. Holder's people, this post-racial era is not so evident in the view from here in Crackerland.
Post-election of President Obama, the only racial agreement apparent to those of us who reside in Crackerland was Eric Holder's admonition that we are cowards to not discuss awkward racial issues here in America. Here, then, is an offering to contribute to the discussion.
Here in Crackerland, there was some consternation when we noticed then-presidential candidate Obama's unique past and the unusual relationships he had throughout his life. There seemed to be an underlying racial anger and confusion as a mixed-race person in his autobiography Dreams from My Father. An example is Mr. Obama's being so moved by the notion that "white folks' greed runs a world in need."
Mr. Obama's long-term black liberation theology minister and mentor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, represents many other African-American religious leaders. These leaders have perspectives and sermons that seem to be a whole lot more about justifying their racism than supporting Christian theology itself. There is an apparent seemless link between black liberation theology and the racist, bigoted radicals in the Nation of Islam and among the New Black Panthers. Our view from Crackerland was of Mr. Obama as a relatively unknown politician infused with an adult life of racist relationships and thoughts.
Here in Crackerland, we noticed an almost 100% voting rate for Mr. Obama from the African-American community. Difficult to miss were the many formerly non-Democrat African-American persons who stated their support for Mr. Obama based solely on his color -- a clearly racist vote.
As viewed from Crackerland, this affiliation between the Democratic Party and the African-American community appears to be based on the promise that the Democrat politicians will provide for the living conditions desired by the African-American community. The individualism of Crackerland recognizes these government-supplied conditions as dehumanizing, reducing people to veritable chattel of the government. Human chattel of the government is not a condition we crackers wish upon any person, irrespective of race.
Here in Crackerland, we took note that Mr. Obama was elected by both cracker and non-cracker alike. However, it didn't take long for the signs of racism to appear in association with our new president.
The invocation by Reverend Lowery at Mr. Obama's swearing in ceremony seemed a bit inappropriate for such an auspicious, racially historic occasion. The Reverend Lowery was intent on bringing racial issues to the forefront, and he used the occasion and captive audience to vent his lingering racism by means of a recitation of hopes for the various non-white races while admonishing those who are white to embrace what is right. This appeared here in Crackerland to imply that whites somehow had prevented and/or are preventing the other races from achieving their desired hopes -- a racist lie.
The history of America we learned here in Crackerland included hundreds of thousands of dead crackers in the Civil War, decades of cracker-led civil rights struggles, an altering of the very foundation of America's Constitution and laws facilitated by the crackers, and billions and probably trillions of cracker dollars poured into the non-cracker communities -- all of which was only incidental in the Reverend Lowery's mind to doing what is right. Arguably, the view from Crackerland was that the Reverend Lowery outed himself as a racist and perhaps a bigot while serving as an integral part of Mr. Obama's historic day for race relations in America.
Here in Crackerland, we pursue happiness for ourselves and our families' benefit, because self and family are the basic building blocks of society. In Crackerland, we set a lofty ideal in our founding documents and celebrate unalienable rights for all men, endowed by our Creator and not arbitrarily assigned by government officials based on race. We inhabitants of Crackerland don't wake up thinking about how to stick it to other Americans, cracker or non-cracker; we work for ours and expect you to work for yours.
We crackers see our pursuit of happiness realized as the property, money, land, and all other possessions we work hard for, and not as community property to be confiscated by government officials and dispensed to others based on racial status and conditions. The relationship between redistributive socialism and black liberation theology in which President Obama has been steeped and which he has embraced in his policy decisions is viewed by us here in Crackerland as both racist and the antithesis of Americanism.
The racism we see from Crackerland in our current Obama administration, those surrounding the administration, and those who support it looks a whole lot more like retribution than like a brave discourse on race relations here in America. We were told of a post-racial era that all Americans would enjoy as the outcome of the election of America's first African-American president, but that is not so evident to many of us here in Crackerland.
Cowards, as Mr. Holder so ineloquently characterized them, should step aside so that this discussion will not have to be absurdly carried on into posterity. With slavery and civil rights issues distant in the rearview mirror of America's history, the changes in our social structure over time, and the integration of all Americans into all portions of our society regardless of race, this black/white race discussion is now bizarre within the context of racial reparations. It can be viewed now only as a purely political power play.
In another outrageous maneuver by Progressives in the federal government, the State Dept. has mandated changes on U.S. passport applications that removes the terms “mother” and “father” and replaces them with the gender neutral terms “parent one” and “parent two”. It also denies that this was motivated by political correctness.
We beg to differ on this. It is clear that not everyone has the traditional mother and father scenario though it would be the overwhelming majority. By not listing “father” and “mother” on the application, this conforms to and advances the Progressive ideology of gender neutral language. It also serves to appease the immeasurably few (radical gay and lesbian rights groups).
Actually, by limiting it to two parents, not every situation is included and there still may be some offended individuals.
We can’t allow this to happen - now can we?
What about children born using a surrogate mother? Was the State Department negligent and insensitive in not providing the affected individual to list this third parent?
If it is really imperative that such a change be made, a simpler solution could have been to list the parents as “Father or Parent 1” and Mother or “Parent 2” – but that would not be in full compliance with Progressive doctrine.
'Mother,' 'Father' Changing to 'Parent One,' 'Parent Two' on Passport Applications
Todd Starnes January 07, 2011 FoxNews.com
The words “mother” and “father” will be removed from U.S. passport applications and replaced with gender neutral terminology, the State Department says.
“The words in the old form were ‘mother’ and ‘father,’” said Brenda Sprague, deputy assistant Secretary of State for Passport Services. "They are now ‘parent one’ and ‘parent two.’"
A statement on the State Department website noted: “These improvements are being made to provide a gender neutral description of a child’s parents and in recognition of different types of families.” The statement didn't note if it was for child applications only.
The State Department said the new passport applications, not yet available to the public, will be available online soon.
Sprague said the decision to remove the traditional parenting names was not an act of political correctness.
“We find that with changes in medical science and reproductive technology that we are confronting situations now that we would not have anticipated 10 or 15 years ago,” she said.
Gay rights groups are applauding the decision.
“Changing the term mother and father to the more global term of parent allows many different types of families to be able to go and apply for a passport for their child without feeling like the government doesn’t recognize their family,” said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of Family Equality Council.
Her organization lobbied the government for several years to remove the words from passport applications.
“Our government needs to recognize that the family structure is changing,” Chrisler said. “The best thing that we can do is support people who are raising kids in loving, stable families.”
But some conservative Christians are outraged over the decision.
“Only in the topsy-turvy world of left-wing political correctness could it be considered an ‘improvement’ for a birth-related document to provide less information about the circumstances of that birth,” Family Research Council president Tony Perkins wrote in a statement to Fox News Radio. “This is clearly designed to advance the causes of same-sex ‘marriage’ and homosexual parenting without statutory authority, and violates the spirit if not the letter of the Defense of Marriage Act.”
Robert Jeffress, pastor of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, agreed. “It’s part of an overall attempt at political correctness to diminish the distinction between men and women and to somehow suggest you don’t need both a father and a mother to raise a child successfully,” said Jeffress. “(This decision) was made to make homosexual couples feel more comfortable in rearing children.”
Chrisler recounted the day she and her female partner tried to get her twin sons passports.
“Even though my partner was their legal mother, had adopted them after I gave birth to them, she still had to put her name in the father field, and that is both discriminatory and makes us feel like second-class citizens,” she said.
Sprague said she would not use the word discriminatory to describe the old passport form.
“I would prefer to use the word imprecise,” she said. “It just didn’t capture the reality of their situation. Clearly, we want to be sensitive to the feelings of other people, but we are also very conscious of our need to introduce the greatest degree of precision to the process.”
Perkins, meanwhile, accused the State Department of disrespecting the law and called on Congress to “take their oversight rule very seriously and intervene in both these circumstances.”
The new gender-neutral passport application will be rolled out in February.
For more than 50 years, liberals have aggressively supported major government programs, legislation and ideologies that have unsurprisingly failed to produce the results they expected or wanted though they vehemently deny such outcomes. More accurately, they have been abject failures with far reaching and long lasting impacts.
Still they persist, staunchly supported by their media lapdogs, and attack those armed with data and better alternatives. They can’t seem to acknowledge the disaster their policies have caused.
In the following editorial, Larry Elder succinctly and lucidly reviews these domestic policies which have been unequivocally disastrous. These include taxes, welfare, education, affirmative action, minimum wage hikes and Obamacare.
What Do Liberals Have To Show For 50 Years Of Horrible Policies?
Larry Elder 12/23/2010
For the past 50 years, the Democrats — and many Republicans who should know better — have been wrong about virtually every major domestic policy issue. Let's review some of them:
• Taxes. The bipartisan extension of the Bush tax cuts represents the latest triumph over the "soak the rich because trickledown doesn't work" leftists.
President Ronald Reagan sharply reduced the top marginal tax rates from 70% to 28%, doubling the Treasury's tax revenue.
President George H.W. Bush raised the income tax rate, as did his successor. But President George W. Bush lowered them to the current 35%.
President Barack Obama repeatedly called the current rate unfair, harmful to the country and a reward to those who "didn't need" the cuts and "didn't ask for" them.
If true, he and his party ditched their moral obligation to oppose the extension. But they didn't, because none of it is true.
Democratic icon John F. Kennedy, who reduced the top marginal rate from more than 90% to 70%, said, "A rising tide lifts all the boats." He was right — and most of the Democratic Party knows it.
• Welfare for the "underclass." When President Lyndon Johnson launched his "War on Poverty," the poverty rate was trending down. When he offered money and benefits to unmarried women, the rate started flat-lining. Women married the government, allowing men to abandon their moral and financial responsibilities.
The percentage of children born outside of marriage — to young, disproportionately uneducated and disproportionately brown and black women — exploded. In 1996, over the objections of many on the left, welfare was reformed. Time limits were imposed, and women no longer received additional benefits if they had more children. The welfare rolls declined. Ten years later, the New York Times wrote: "When the 1996 law was passed ... liberal advocacy groups ... predicted that it would increase child poverty, hunger and homelessness. The predictions were not fulfilled."
• Education. The federal government's increasing involvement with education — what is properly a state and local function — has been costly and ineffective at best, and counterproductive at worst. Title I, a program begun 45 years ago to close the performance gap between urban and suburban schools, burns through more than $15 billion a year, and the performance gap has widened. The feds spend $80 billion a year on K-12 education, as if money is the answer. States like Utah and Iowa spend much less money per student compared with districts like those in New York City and Washington, D.C., with much better results.
Where parents have choices — where the money follows the student rather than the other way around — the students perform better, with higher parental satisfaction. But the teachers' unions and the Democratic Party continue to resist true competition among public, private and parochial schools.
• Gun control. Violent crime occurs disproportionately in urban areas — where Democrats in charge impose the most draconian gun control laws.
Over the objection of those who warn of a "return to the Wild West," 34 states passed laws allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons. Not one state has repealed its law. Professor John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime," says: "There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate: As more people obtain permits, there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect, the murder rate declines by 3%, rape by 2% and robberies by over 2%."
• "Affirmative action." Race-based preferences have been a disaster for college admissions. Students admitted with lesser credentials are more likely to drop out. Had their credentials matched their schools, they would have been far more likely to graduate and thus enter the job market at a more productive level.
Preferences in government hiring and contracting have led to widespread, costly and morale-draining "reverse discrimination" lawsuits. Where preferences have been put to the ballot, voters — even in liberal states like California — have voted against them.
• Minimum wage hikes. Almost all economists agree that minimum wage laws contribute to unemployment among the low-skilled — the very group the "compassionate party" claims to care about.
Economist Walter Williams, 74, in his new autobiography, "Up From the Projects," describes the many low-skilled jobs he took as a teenager. "By today's standards," he wrote, "my youthful employment opportunities might be seen as extraordinary.
That was not the case in the 1940s and 1950s. In fact, as I've reported in some of my research, teenage unemployment among blacks was slightly lower than among whites, and black teens were more active in the labor force as well. All of my classmates, friends and acquaintances who wanted to work found jobs of one sort or another."
• ObamaCare. This ghastly government-directed scheme will inevitably lead to rationing and lower-quality care — all without "bending the cost curve" down as Obama promised.
Any party can have a bad half-century. Merry Christmas.
We have always and vehemently opposed affirmative action or contrived racial diversity for innumerable reasons. It is irrefutably racism – though liberals and Progressives would discount this by stating that it is “only against the oppressive majority” (read: White).
Some call it reverse racism or reverse discrimination but whatever the appellation, it is still discrimination. Technically, it should also be considered to be a violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which guarantees equal rights and protection.
Unfortunately, liberals and Progressives don’t see the noxious ramifications of their actions to all parties involved nor to the negative global effects on society. Such imposed policies have clearly identifiable, permanent and significant impacts some of which are outlined in the editorial below.
Racial demagoguery must cease and affirmative action policies abrogated.
Racial Stupidity and Malevolence
Walter Williams 9/7/2010
The white liberal's agenda, coupled with that of black race hustlers, has had and continues to have a devastating impact on ordinary black people. Perhaps the most debilitating aspect of this liberal malevolence is in the area of education.
Recently, I spoke with a Midwestern university engineering professor who was trying to help an inner-city black student who was admitted to the university's electrical engineering program. The student was sure that he was well prepared for an engineering curriculum; his high school had convinced him of that and the university recruiters supported that notion. His poor performance on the university's math placement exam required that he take remedial math courses. He's failed them and is now on academic probation after two semesters of earning less than a 2.0 grade point average.
The young man and his parents were sure of his preparedness. After all, he had good high school grades, but those grades only meant that he was well behaved. The college recruiters probably knew this youngster didn't have the academic preparation for an electrical engineering curriculum. They were more concerned with racial diversity.
This young man's background is far from unique. Public schools give most black students fraudulent diplomas that certify a 12th-grade achievement level. According to a report by Abigail Thernstrom, "The Racial Gap in Academic Achievement," black students in 12th grade dealt with scientific problems at the level of whites in the sixth grade; they wrote about as well as whites in the eighth grade. The average black high school senior had math skills on a par with a typical white student in the middle of ninth grade. The average 17-year-old black student could only read as well as the typical white child who had not yet reached age 13.
Black youngsters who take the SAT exam earn an average score that's 70 to 80 percent of the score of white students, and keep in mind, the achievement level of white students is nothing to write home about. Under misguided diversity pressures, colleges recruit many black students who are academically ill equipped. Very often, these students become quickly disillusioned, embarrassed and flunk out, or they're steered into curricula that have little or no academic content, or professors practice affirmative-action grading. In any case, the 12 years of poor academic preparation is not repaired in four or five years of college. This is seen by the huge performance gap between blacks and whites on exams for graduate school admittance such as the GRE, MCAT and LSAT.
Is poor academic performance among blacks something immutable or pre-ordained? There is no evidence for such a claim. Let's sample some evidence from earlier periods. In "Assumptions Versus History in Ethnic Education," in Teachers College Record (1981), Dr. Thomas Sowell reports on academic achievement in some of New York city's public schools. He compares test scores for sixth graders in Harlem schools with those in the predominantly white Lower East Side for April 1941 and December 1941.
In paragraph and word meaning, Harlem students, compared to Lower East Side students, scored equally or higher. In 1947 and 1951, Harlem third-graders in paragraph and word meaning, and arithmetic reasoning and computation scored about the same as -- and in some cases, slightly higher, and in others, slightly lower than -- their white Lower East Side counterparts.
Going back to an earlier era, Washington, D.C.'s Dunbar High School's black students scored higher in citywide tests than any of the city's white schools. In fact, from its founding in 1870 to 1955, most of Dunbar's graduates went off to college.
Let's return to the tale of the youngster at the Midwestern college. Recruiting this youngster to be a failure is cruel, psychologically damaging and an embarrassment for his family. But the campus hustlers might come to the aid of the student by convincing him that his academic failure is a result of white racism and Eurocentric values.
Liberals and demagogues steadfastly claim that under-representation of chosen minority groups in selected high profile, income or powerful positions or even the job de jour, can only be possible because of discrimination. There can be and is not any other rational or acceptable explanation so they claim. This is the ideology that Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and their ilk subscribe to and which has become entrenched in our government’s policies.
Unfortunately, this specious explanation results in unwarranted quotas and reverse discrimination and engenders reactive racism, cynicism and frustration. Those who would have been most qualified, deserving and productive and contributed far greater to the welfare of society as a whole have been denied the opportunity because of bean counting. Thus, in the end, we all pay a price for this unfounded, pernicious demagoguery.
Juvenile Jabs Don't Deserve Standing O's
Thomas Sowell 08/09/2010
A graduating senior at Hunter College High School in New York gave a speech that brought a standing ovation from his teachers and got his picture in the New York Times. I hope it doesn't go to his head, because what he said was so illogical that it was an indictment of the mush that is being taught at even our elite educational institutions.
Young Justin Hudson, described as "black and Hispanic," opened by saying how much he appreciated reaching his graduation day at this very select public high school. Then he said, "I don't deserve any of this. And neither do you."
The reason? He and his classmates were there because of "luck and circumstances."
Since Hunter College High School selects its applicants from the whole city on the basis of their test scores, "luck" seems a strange way to characterize why some students are admitted and many others are not. If you can't tell the difference between luck and performance, what has your education given you, except the rhetoric to conceal your confusion from others and perhaps from yourself?
Young Mr. Hudson's concern, apparently, is about what he referred to as the "demographics" of the school — 41% white and 47% Asian, with blacks, Hispanics and others obviously far behind.
"I refuse to accept" that "the distribution of intelligence in this city" varies by neighborhood, he said.
Native intelligence may indeed not vary by neighborhood but actual performance — whether in schools, on the job or elsewhere — involves far more than native intelligence. Wasted intelligence does nothing for an individual or society.
The reason a surgeon can operate on your heart, while someone of equal intelligence who is not a surgeon cannot, is because of what different people actually did with their intelligence. That has always varied, not only from individual to individual but from group to group — and not only in this country, but in countries around the world and across the centuries of human history.
One of the biggest fallacies of our time is the notion that, if all groups are not proportionally represented in institutions, professions or income levels, that shows something wrong with society. The very possibility that people make their own choices, and that those choices have consequences — for themselves and for others — is ignored. Society is the universal scapegoat.
If "luck" is involved, it is the luck to be born into families and communities whose values and choices turn out to be productive for themselves and for others who benefit from the skills they acquire. Observers who blame tests or other criteria for the demographic imbalances which are the rule — not the exception — around the world, are blaming whatever conveys differences for creating those differences.
They blame the messenger who brings bad news.
If test scores are not the same for people from different backgrounds, that is no proof that there is something wrong with the tests. Tests do not exist to show what your potential was when you entered the world but to measure what you have actually accomplished since then, as a guide to what you are likely to continue to do in the future. Tests convey a difference that tests did not create.
But the messenger gets blamed for the bad news.
Similarly, if prices are higher in high-crime neighborhoods, that is often blamed on those who charge those prices, rather than on those who create the higher costs of higher rates of shoplifting, robbery, vandalism and riots, which are passed on to those who shop in those neighborhoods.
The prices convey a reality that the prices did not create. If these prices represent simply "greed" for higher profits, then why do most profit-seeking businesses avoid high-crime neighborhoods like the plague?
It is painful that people with lower incomes often have to pay higher prices, even though most people are not criminals, even in a high-crime neighborhood. But misconstruing the reasons is not going to help anybody, except race hustlers and politicians.
One of the many disservices done to young people by our schools and colleges is giving them the puffed-up notion that they are in a position to pass sweeping judgments on a world that they have barely begun to experience. A standing ovation for childish remarks may produce "self-esteem" but promoting presumptuousness is unlikely to benefit either this student or society.
Affirmative action is a practice that establishes the provision of granting greater rights for particular groups of people over others which, ipso facto, is a violation of the 14th Amendment of our Constitution (unless, of course, it is interpreted as a living, changeable document by a progressive Justice). The way it has been applied in this country is to inequitably, immorally and probably unconstitutionally assign greater rights, opportunities and privileges to blacks at the expense of whites and Asian-Americans.
Is this fair?
Of course not!
This is reverse discrimination, plain and simple. People are being penalized because their skin is white (or they came from China or Japan, etc.). Such a policy fosters resentment from those who are discriminated against and exacerbates racial tensions and is counterproductive.
In the following editorial by Sen. James Webb of Virginia, a Democrat, he calls for the abolishment of this divisive, inequitable, morally wrong and unconstitutional (strictly speaking) policy. He states that:
“Nondiscrimination laws should be applied equally among all citizens, including those who happen to be white. The need for inclusiveness in our society is undeniable and irreversible, both in our markets and in our communities. Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners.”
We strongly agree.
Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege America still owes a debt to its black citizens, but government programs to help all 'people of color' are unfair. They should end.
James Webb July 22, 2010
The NAACP believes the tea party is racist. The tea party believes the NAACP is racist. And Pat Buchanan got into trouble recently by pointing out that if Elena Kagan is confirmed to the Supreme Court, there will not be a single Protestant Justice, although Protestants make up half the U.S. population and dominated the court for generations.
Forty years ago, as the United States experienced the civil rights movement, the supposed monolith of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant dominance served as the whipping post for almost every debate about power and status in America. After a full generation of such debate, WASP elites have fallen by the wayside and a plethora of government-enforced diversity policies have marginalized many white workers. The time has come to cease the false arguments and allow every American the benefit of a fair chance at the future.
I have dedicated my political career to bringing fairness to America's economic system and to our work force, regardless of what people look like or where they may worship. Unfortunately, present-day diversity programs work against that notion, having expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white.
In an odd historical twist that all Americans see but few can understand, many programs allow recently arrived immigrants to move ahead of similarly situated whites whose families have been in the country for generations. These programs have damaged racial harmony. And the more they have grown, the less they have actually helped African-Americans, the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action as it was originally conceived.
Lyndon Johnson's initial program for affirmative action was based on the 13th Amendment and on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which authorized the federal government to take actions in order to eliminate "the badges of slavery." Affirmative action was designed to recognize the uniquely difficult journey of African-Americans. This policy was justifiable and understandable, even to those who came from white cultural groups that had also suffered in socio-economic terms from the Civil War and its aftermath.
The injustices endured by black Americans at the hands of their own government have no parallel in our history, not only during the period of slavery but also in the Jim Crow era that followed. But the extrapolation of this logic to all "people of color"—especially since 1965, when new immigration laws dramatically altered the demographic makeup of the U.S.—moved affirmative action away from remediation and toward discrimination, this time against whites. It has also lessened the focus on assisting African-Americans, who despite a veneer of successful people at the very top still experience high rates of poverty, drug abuse, incarceration and family breakup.
Those who came to this country in recent decades from Asia, Latin America and Africa did not suffer discrimination from our government, and in fact have frequently been the beneficiaries of special government programs. The same cannot be said of many hard-working white Americans, including those whose roots in America go back more than 200 years.
Contrary to assumptions in the law, white America is hardly a monolith. And the journey of white American cultures is so diverse (yes) that one strains to find the logic that could lump them together for the purpose of public policy.
The clearest example of today's misguided policies comes from examining the history of the American South.
The old South was a three-tiered society, with blacks and hard-put whites both dominated by white elites who manipulated racial tensions in order to retain power. At the height of slavery, in 1860, less than 5% of whites in the South owned slaves. The eminent black historian John Hope Franklin wrote that "fully three-fourths of the white people in the South had neither slaves nor an immediate economic interest in the maintenance of slavery."
The Civil War devastated the South, in human and economic terms. And from post-Civil War Reconstruction to the beginning of World War II, the region was a ravaged place, affecting black and white alike.
In 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt created a national commission to study what he termed "the long and ironic history of the despoiling of this truly American section." At that time, most industries in the South were owned by companies outside the region. Of the South's 1.8 million sharecroppers, 1.2 million were white (a mirror of the population, which was 71% white). The illiteracy rate was five times that of the North-Central states and more than twice that of New England and the Middle Atlantic (despite the waves of European immigrants then flowing to those regions). The total endowments of all the colleges and universities in the South were less than the endowments of Harvard and Yale alone. The average schoolchild in the South had $25 a year spent on his or her education, compared to $141 for children in New York.
Generations of such deficiencies do not disappear overnight, and they affect the momentum of a culture. In 1974, a National Opinion Research Center (NORC) study of white ethnic groups showed that white Baptists nationwide averaged only 10.7 years of education, a level almost identical to blacks' average of 10.6 years, and well below that of most other white groups. A recent NORC Social Survey of white adults born after World War II showed that in the years 1980-2000, only 18.4% of white Baptists and 21.8% of Irish Protestants—the principal ethnic group that settled the South—had obtained college degrees, compared to a national average of 30.1%, a Jewish average of 73.3%, and an average among those of Chinese and Indian descent of 61.9%.
Policy makers ignored such disparities within America's white cultures when, in advancing minority diversity programs, they treated whites as a fungible monolith. Also lost on these policy makers were the differences in economic and educational attainment among nonwhite cultures. Thus nonwhite groups received special consideration in a wide variety of areas including business startups, academic admissions, job promotions and lucrative government contracts.
Where should we go from here? Beyond our continuing obligation to assist those African-Americans still in need, government-directed diversity programs should end.
Nondiscrimination laws should be applied equally among all citizens, including those who happen to be white. The need for inclusiveness in our society is undeniable and irreversible, both in our markets and in our communities. Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners. It can do so by ensuring that artificial distinctions such as race do not determine outcomes.
Memo to my fellow politicians: Drop the Procrustean policies and allow harmony to invade the public mindset. Fairness will happen, and bitterness will fade away.
Mr. Webb, a Democrat, is a U.S. senator from Virginia.
With Obama’s ascendancy to the Presidency, Americans are witnessing and experiencing rampant racism and not of whites to blacks but rather the opposite, of blacks to whites. Furthermore, this is being accepted with either in your face glee by many blacks or by a dismissive attitude by the liberal media and politicians.
This acceptance of preferential treatment, privileges, rights, etc. because the facilitator or perpetrator is black (as opposed to white) is unacceptable, discriminatory and illegal.
IT IS RACIST AND MUST BE STOPPED! This must be done by actions including verbally, protests, laws and lawsuits.
There must be no tolerance of this black on white (or on any other race/color)!
Stories similar to the one below has become quite commonplace throughout the country with liberals claiming that such actions are “providing more equal opportunities or leveling the playing field”. Such claims are demagoguery but are used to obtain advantages for blacks at the expense of others. There are plenty disadvantaged whites or Hispanics who are being discriminated against by these actions.
You can just imagine the national outrage and uproar (including visits by Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton) if there was a school field trip for (poor) whites that excluded blacks. We didn’t hear a peep from these racist demagogues that white children were excluded.
Double standards are not acceptable!!
Field trip for black students sparks controversy at Ann Arbor elementary school
David Jesse AnnArbor.com Staff May 3, 2010
An Ann Arbor elementary school principal used a letter home to parents tonight to defend a field trip for black students as part of his school’s efforts to close the achievement gap between white and black students.
Dicken Elementary School Principal Mike Madison wrote the letter to parents following several days of controversy at the school after a field trip last week in which black students got to hear a rocket scientist.
Principal Mike Madison is shown at Forsythe in this 2005 file photo.
“In hindsight, this field trip could have been approached and arranged in a better way," Madison wrote. "But as I reflect upon the look of excitement, enthusiasm and energy that I saw in these children’s eyes as they stood in the presence of a renowned African American rocket scientist in a very successful position, it gave the kids an opportunity to see this type of achievement is possible for even them.
“It was not a wasted venture for I know one day they might want to aspire to be the first astronaut or scientist standing on the Planet Mars.
“I also think it’s important that you know that I have talked to the children who did not go on the field trip, and I think they have a better understanding of the purpose of the AA Lunch Bunch now, as I hope you do. I’m sorry if any kids were upset by the field trip or my discussion afterwards with them, and I have let them know that.
“The intent of our field trip was not to segregate or exclude students as has been reported, but rather to address the societal issues, roadblocks and challenges that our African American children will face as they pursue a successful academic education here in our community.”
A handful of parents have complained to district administrators about the trip, the group and Madison. More than a half-dozen parents contacted AnnArbor.com to raise the complaints, but none would agree to talk on the record, citing concerns of reprisals to their children by Madison.
While there’s no clear agreement between the two sides about exactly what happened, most of the controversy centers on a field trip taken last week by the Lunch Bunch for African American boys and girls to hear a black rocket engineer talk.
District spokeswoman Liz Margolis said after the trip was over, those who went returned to their fifth-grade class and were greeted by boos by those who didn’t go on the trip. Margolis said Madison, who is black, heard the boos, and went to talk to the class. She said he and the class had a “discussion” about race issues.
“He wasn’t yelling at them. He was very passionate about it,” Margolis said.
Parents have complained he was yelling at the class and belittled a Muslim girl who said she also had experienced racism and discrimination.
The program itself began earlier this year after the school received its latest achievement results. Margolis said the Lunch Bunch came from the school’s School Improvement Team and is tied to that team’s goals. She said several other schools in the district have similar programs targeting specific subgroups of students who are at risk.
According to meeting minutes, Madison introduced the club to the PTO in February as part of the school and district’s equity work.
Parent Vicki Haviland, who is white and has three children at Dicken, said she is supportive of the overall program. Haviland is the secretary of the Dicken PTO and has filed papers for the open school board seat.
“I think the African-American Lunch Bunch is totally in line with the district’s equity work,” she said. “I think the field trip was a fine idea.”
She said she hopes the school and the district would “do a better job in talking about (race in education). Clearly there are people who don’t feel heard about it.”
David Jesse covers K-12 education for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org or at 734-623-2534.
The following are some of the comments that readers made to the above article:
I propose Dicken create a "Whites Only Lunch Bunch Club."
By creating and sanctioning both the "African American Lunch Bunch Club" and sponsoring the "blacks only" field trip, Madison is in direct violation of the Non-Discrimination Policy of the Ann Arbor Public Schools (Board Policy 2050). That policy reads as follows: No person shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination in any educational program or activity available in any school on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, creed, political belief, age, national origin, linguistic and language differences, sexual orientation, gender expression, socioeconomic status, height, weight, marital or familial status, or disability.
Michael Madison's actions are also in direct violation of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative which states that a "public college or university, community college, or school district shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."
Madison writes, "The intent of our field trip was not to segregate or exclude students as has been reported, but rather to address the societal issues, roadblocks and challenges that our African American children will face as they pursue a successful academic education here in our community."
If this had been a "whites only" field trip you'd have Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and every other noise maker heading to Ann Arbor screaming racial injustice and demanding that the person or persons involved in arranging this field trip be relieved of their duties. Why is it when it's the other way around, nothing is ever said or done???
Can you imagine the fallout if whites only were taken on a field leaving black kids behind.Jesse Jackson,Farakon,Al Sharpton etc.would be here in 12 hours flat with their mugs on national tv.That being said the parents who complained but refuse to be named are spineless.Way to stand up for your beliefs.I hope you sleep well and are proud of yourselves.Lame excuse given too.
But the field trip was by invitation only and only black students were invited to attend. Madison used skin color as the sole criteria for determining who could experience this special field trip. When there wasn't enough room for all the black children to attend, he "uninvited" some of the black girls. I wonder what Madison would have done had there not been enough room for all of the black boys? Sent the light-skinned black boys back to their classrooms?
Madison also wrote in his email message to parents this evening, "Even though I am the principal of Dicken school, these strategies and interventions were not made in isolation by myself. The entire staff at Dicken decided that we needed to do something different."
Embarrassing attempt by Madison to "share the blame" for HIS ridiculous decision to give special privileges to children based solely on the color of their skin.
What the article fails to mention is that Madison is a black male and that he doles out special attention and privileges not to underachieving children, physically disadvantaged children, economically disadvantaged children, or all non-white children - just black children specifically. Privileges at Dicken Elementary School are based solely on skin color. There's nothing subtle about it, Michael Madison and the Ann Arbor School District are engaging in discriminatory practices.
Mr. Madison has taken, and will continue to take a lot of heat for this effort. In retrospect, it is easy to label this particular initative as a bad idea, at least in the way it was implemented. But let's cut him some slack. The achievement gap is a persistent problem, one that calls for special attention and out-of-the-box thinking. This was a sincere and heartfelt attempt to provide African American students with a unique opportunity to meet with a strong positive role model. Rather than sounding the alarm of indignation at reverse discrimination, let's look at this as a learning experience about how to introduce the issue of race (which people are very reluctant to discuss openly and honestly) into the classroom.
Madison just doesn't get it. Closing the achievement gap is a noble cause and I fully support it. What I don't support is excluding children out based solely on the color of their skin.
Madison has created an extremely hostile and divisive atmosphere at Dicken Elementary School.
P.S. Madison, you didn't apologize to all the children who weren't invited. My children did not get an apology from you. The only children who received an apology from you were the ones you berated and bullied for voicing their displeasure at being excluded, the ones you brought to tears, the ones who needed to be counseled after your angry tirade (because they are not black).
Madison starts to apologize and acknowledge he messed up, but catches himself and writes, "But as I reflect upon the look of excitement, enthusiasm and energy that I saw in these children’s eyes as they stood in the presence of a renowned African American rocket scientist in a very successful position, it gave the kids an opportunity to see this type of achievement is possible for even them."
But Madison, why did only the black children get to have such a wonderful experience? I wish you could have seen excitement, enthusiasm and energy in my children's eyes.
Andrew Thomas: I agree with your sentiment, but there are other ways to think outside the box and to accomplish these goals without engaging in blatant discrimination.
If white students had been invited to go they would have had a chance to see that a black man could achieve things that they might only associate whites. The school missed a very good opportunity to help break some racial stereotypies. Seems like a wasted opportunity.
And lest anyone believe otherwise, there were black children on that field trip who come from financially-privileged families.
If you believe in genetic mental equality, then the black achievement gap in the Ann Arbor school district is a function of nurture, not nature. The fact that there is a persistent achievement gap for black students in AA schools despite the tons of extra resources AA pumps into special emphasis programs speaks to the failure of the parents of these children.
Madison needs to listen to Bill Cosby and transmit some serious heat to the parents of these underperforming children. The AA school district is obviosuly bending over backwards to help them... and its not working. If you want to escape the soft discriination of low expectations- move into the Saline school system. AA is headed downhill.
I think all parents should join hands and and formally and peacefully protest the school, and then take a class action lawsuit againts # 1 the county. # 2 the school, and #3 Mike Madison!
This is a blatant abuse of his powers and he is no less guilty!
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” - Chief Justice Roberts
What happen to M. L. King's "I have a Dream" speech where people were judge by what they did and not their color? We should outlaw all racial groups and just be AMERICANS!
In our recent post, we noted that virtually all of the news media as well as Obama and many in Congress avoided calling the gunman who killed 13 people and wounded 30 at Fort Hood a “terrorist”. That was because he was a Muslim - so we shouldn’t “offend” him. Even with the well chronicled vitriol that he spewed in the presence of others about the righteousness of radical Islam, the virtues of jihad and terrorist attacks and his devoutness to Islam – "let’s not jump to conclusions".
We say: Bull S..t. Tell that to the devastated and forever affected families of the murdered innocent victims who died and to those who were injured.
We refuse to subscribe to a policy of political correctness and don’t think that you should either. Hiding or camouflaging reality and truth and burying your head in the sand may just result in the rest of you being buried too…
The following editorial from IBD discusses “political correctness”, the ubiquitous cancer that is destroying our rights, freedoms and safety.
Suicide By PC
War On Terror: The No. 1 lesson of the Fort Hood massacre is that political correctness kills. But instead of learning this lesson, the Pentagon is repeating the mistake, putting more soldiers at risk.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey warns that making the connection between Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's terrorist act and his Islamic faith could "cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers."
Yet ignoring that connection, despite one red flag after another, is what allowed Hasan allegedly to carry out his own violent backlash against non-Muslim soldiers.
Just a few months ago, Hasan was promoted to major. He passed a security clearance despite evidence he openly engaged in anti-American rants, and even discussed cutting the throats of infidels during a PowerPoint presentation. Now there are reports that U.S. intelligence intercepted contacts between Hasan and al-Qaida.
But shhh! This isn't about Islam. Close your eyes. Look the other way. Do not make the connection.
"It would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here," Casey said on Sunday's morning shows.
Really? Tell that to the victims of the Muslim terrorist who shouted "Allahu Akbar!" before pumping fellow soldiers full of bullets at close range. Tell it to their grieving families.
Diversity is a good thing only if Muslims embrace the military's mission. Of course many do, but a growing number object to fighting Muslims abroad. By our count, at least a dozen Muslims in uniform have been charged or convicted of terror or spying since 9/11, including Hasan. That's a sectarian pattern, not a random act by a lone gunman, as the media have portrayed it.
The prize for digging up the most imaginative excuse for Hasan's actions goes to ABC News. The network speculated he may have suffered from "second-hand trauma" — "like second-hand smoke" — from counseling soldiers with post traumatic stress disorder.
You see, Hasan had never actually been deployed, never seen combat, as first assumed. So the initial spin that he suffered PTSD no longer worked. Unless he suffered combat stress by proxy. So now it's "second-hand trauma." Anything but jihad.
But let's be fair. At least ABC reported that Hasan was Muslim. Over at Fox News, host Shephard Smith refused to even mention Hasan's name. And he's still waiting on a motive. "As journalists," the anchor said Monday, "we can't report what the motive was, because at this point, we don't know what his motive was."
Seems Fox has caught the PC virus.
Meanwhile, our commander in chief refuses to call the attack terrorism. And he seemed to take news of the military massacre glibly. Briefed on the shooting before an appearance at a Democrat event, he walked up to the podium grinning. Then, in a bizarre non-sequitur, he gave a "shout out" to a Democrat supporter, infuriating soldiers across the country, and rightfully so.
Surely the Homeland Security secretary would tell it like it is. No such luck. Janet Napolitano issued a warning to Americans from the UAE against any anti-Muslim backlash. She said she'd work with Muslim groups, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, to deflect any bigotry. To hear her, Islam was the real victim of the Islam-inspired terrorism.
Democrats aren't the only ones in denial. "It's certainly not about his religion," intoned GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham.
Passing out Qurans the morning of the shooting. Nope, no religion here! Proselytizing fellow soldiers to Islam. Not religion.
Close your eyes. Look the other way.
This PC insanity is literally killing us now. We are committing politically correct suicide. If the military is now too PC to protect its own troops from Islamic fanatics on its own soil, how can we be sure it can protect the rest of us?