Below is my column in the Hill on a variety of proposals that could rekindle the debate over “reverse discrimination” in the federal courts. Many of the proposals seek to adopt exclusive racial classifications that will collide with existing precedent under both statutory and constitutional law. If this movement is to result in lasting reforms, these threshold legal challenges should be considered.
Here is the column:
In 1976, Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall lambasted the “illogic” of civil rights advocates insisting that laws against discrimination should protect only minorities from discrimination. The first African American justice and civil rights litigator declared that whites also deserved such protections. Today, as bizarre as it may seem, he could be denounced as enabling claims of “reverse discrimination.” Yet this debate could find its way back to the Supreme Court, given the array of controversies over the use of race as a threshold criteria for benefits or penalties.
The Black Lives Matter movement was premised on the need to recognize the inequities and abuse of African Americans exclusively, rather than a broader position that “all lives matter.” The protests have convinced many of us about the importance of that recognition. But cities and states are turning to reforms where that racial exclusivity presents a potentially insurmountable barrier. Relying on threshold exclusions of all but one or two races could rekindle the debate over “reverse discrimination” and what constitutes discrimination versus affirmative action.
Marshall is an interesting figure at the crossroads of that debate. While ruling that whites are protected from racial discrimination under laws like Title VII, he supported affirmative action and dissented from the 1978 decision in the Allan Bakke case to reject reverse discrimination claims. He maintained that there was much to be done to correct the continuing depravations of racism since the Supreme Court “did not prohibit the most ingenious and pervasive forms of discrimination” against blacks. He stated, “I cannot believe that this same Constitution stands as a barrier.”
The question is where to draw that line and whether, as a number of commentators have asked, “reverse discrimination” is “even a thing.” That issue came up when Gary Garrels, a senior curator at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, resigned after he was denounced as a racist. The reason? While supporting diversity of the artists exhibited in the famed collection, Garrels said, “We will definitely still continue to collect white artists.” He reportedly also said a ban on acquiring art from white artists would be “reverse discrimination.” A petition calling for his firing said the terms “reverse discrimination” and “reverse racism” are offensive forms of “white supremacist and racist language.”
This instance highlights the limitations and the lingering debate over such distinctions. His colleagues had every right to express their views of his comments, and his decision to resign was a private decision. However, his objection to the use of race as an exclusive criteria to be in the collection captured the uncertainty between discrimination and diversification, a line that has occupied the Supreme Court for decades without a clear resolution in college admissions and other areas.
One possible case may arise in Seattle, where city council members have called to cut the police budget by 50 percent. Doing so would require firing a significant number of police officers, which is also popular. But that puts the city council in a quandary, as firing half of the department would start with the most junior officers, many of whom are minorities. Thus, defunding the police in the name of racial justice would lead to firing minority officers. The solution, according to city council member Lisa Herbold, could be simple: fire the white officers. Her proposal is striking in both its illegality and its popularity.
In his 1976 opinion in the Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company case, Marshall ruled for two white employees fired after a theft. While a black employee also was held responsible, only the two white employees were fired. Marshall said that discriminating against them made a mockery of laws against discrimination. In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled against New Haven after white firefighters and a Hispanic firefighter challenged the city when it refused to certify results of promotion exams in order to promote black firefighters who did not perform as well. The Supreme Court held that the refusal to certify was unlawful discrimination.
While the Supreme Court has allowed race to be considered as a factor in some college admissions cases, it has struck down certain programs that crossed the line into discrimination. The position of many of the justices on this is summed up by Chief Justice John Roberts in a 2007 decision in which he wrote, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discrimination on the basis of race.”
Of course, what is discrimination to some is affirmative action to others. The California Faculty Association has called for a wide array of reforms, including “free tuition for all Black, Native, and Indigenous students.” The California legislature is moving to undo “reverse discrimination” rules, and state senators voted to approve a ballot measure for the election this fall revoking Proposition 209, the 1996 state amendment banning any consideration of race or ethnicity in admissions decisions at public universities. Governor Gavin Newsom supports that revocation.
The California proposals could present another array of challenges over what are benefits to particular insular groups and what are penalties for those excluded. It is easier to benefit an insular group than it is to penalize other groups based on race. That line can become murky. Past cases have argued that state funds work as a zero sum game, where the increase of funds from one purpose means the reduction of available funds for other purposes. If the proposal is adopted to give free tuition for minority students, the loss of revenue would be considerable for state schools.
As the nation moves toward concrete reforms, these criteria will have to be addressed in the courts. The exclusive reference to one or two racial groups will be met with judicial suspicion under governing case law. That is why we need a civil debate not over whether to implement reforms but how to do so. It cannot happen if concerns raised by people like Garrels are denounced as dog whistles or white supremacy.
The translation of this important social movement into needed legislative reforms will not be easy if it relies on threshold benefits or penalties based on a single classification or exclusion. We must have that discussion now so we do not waste years in unsuccessful litigation instead of using our energy to forge something that passes constitutional muster.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.
This is why I’ve been arguing that conservatives and moderates get behind a new surge of HumDev non-profits, with better incentives for competent, impactful social entrepreneurs to found them, and disincentives for shysters. The Bush 43 doctrine of “the opportunity society” is slowly developing, and showing remarkable successes iconically, but really never got systematized with private sector energies and creativities unleashed. The mantra of the coming HumDev decade is: opportunity to self-develop everywhere and at every turn where some is desired. The rules for selecting and serving clients need to be postracial, or using the less-inspired double-negative wonkspeak, non-discriminatory.
The starting point is to talk with social entrepreneurs who are obtaining good human development milestones and metrics, and ask: What could be done in terms of entity, taxation and estate philanthropy law to make your reach and impact ever greater and more rewarding and desirable as a career? The answers will pour forth on how to accelerate private sector-run human development opportunities.
One idea is for the government to match philanthropic gifting to HumDevs with a voucher given to every citizen yearly. This is very different from Andrew Yang’s UBI proposal in that the taxpayers are investing in your personal growth, not your immediate consumption. The concept of a HumDev voucher posits a practical alternative to reparations, avoiding its eligibility nightmare, pumping tax money into human capital development owned by the individual, and creating situations where the individual must exert effort in exchange for the “hand up”.
If done properly, the HumDev economy can grow out to take over from government bureaucracies the botched “social services” sector, and replace it with a private HumDev sector that spurs competition, innovation and sector growth that accordians with need (e.g., engages idle talent during a recession).
We can do this as moderates-conservatives, but it will require a proactive voice ready with a better alternative to reparations, reverse-racism and more bungled bureaucratic social services.
Anyone who uses the character string ‘impactful’ is begging to be ignored.
I like the focus on human development but the private sector is even more corrupt than the govt. You mentioned that key phrase, “If done properly”, unfortunately, too many HumDev non-profits are run by grifters and it’s their goal to never find solutions because they’d be out of a job. In this current corrupt climate, where is the will to force non-profits or govt to be honest? Which isn’t to say that we shouldn’t try something. We need very local implementations where the “social workers” know every single one of their clients.
Are you serious? The “black lives matter” movement was founded as a protest against the minuscule loss of blacks to white police in protest of the George Zimmerman verdict, never mind that Zimmerman is mixed race and wasn’t police. It’s a movement organized by Marxists and founded on Marxist principles with the goal of destabilizing the country and establishing a black-run Marxist state. Discrimination is not even a factor.
Having a credible counterproposal to BLM’s thuggish, authoritarian mindset which addresses increasing opportunity to develop skills and character — a counterproposal that builds off of free-market principles, and getting government out of the social services debacle — and one that taps into the natural generosity to “give back” as one sees fit (as opposed to taxation) — this is a smart political response to the woke left. A response of “no!” is a forfeit. The idea that abundant opportunity coupled with self-starting-energy leads out of poverty and despair is the core American value. So, the competition of ideas turns to: how best to flood people with opportunity? Especially when people are stuck.
It’s a huge strategic mistake for conservatives to sit out this intellectual competition, and let the progressives think they’re the only bold thinkers — especially when the left is so mired in tired, old ideas from an old playbook.
Once we dispose of merit in selection then it is hard to sort out preference scales for other claims by victim hierarchy. We must measure victimhood rather than quality and deliver rewards accordingly. Already we see victims fighting each other for preferences, displaying their fake wounds like street beggars.
It is witless and should be mocked at every opportunity.
Reposted from below
Factors other than merit have always been part of higher education and none more so than before integration and continuing through today with high tuition.
Nothing to boast of.
Factors other than merit have always been part of higher education and none more so than before integration and continuing through today with high tuition.
1. It’s a fee-for-service activity. It doesn’t survive without revenue. “High tuition” is a form of price discrimination. Discounts are offered for various parties that are deemed valuable per institutional policy
2. The ‘factors other than merit’ would be (1) sex, (2) confession, and (3) legacy status; (4) sports
a. It was (and should be) very common to have separate institutions for men and women, which allow for the avoidance of occasions of sin, the avoidance of certain classroom dynamics, course offerings adapted to aggregate preferences, and distinct disciplinary regimes.
b. Confessional institutions had architectonic missions which were foundational. It was the whole point of the institution to offer research and instruction within a certain scaffolding. Of course, today’s academics are attempting to establish an ersatz mission making use of a nonsense catechism very few people find anything but repellent, and in particular to make public institutions their personal sandboxes.
c. Legacies help build a donor constituency. At the institution I know best, about 8% of entering classes were commonly legacies. The thing is, people tend to resemble their parents in terms of their preparation. People for whom legacy status is decisive are a minority of that minority (I’ve seen a datum of 80% of all legacies meeting common-and-garden standards at one institution). The mulligan legacies are scattered socially, not readily recognizable to themselves or the faculty, not given much institutional solicitude, and not given to advertising their status.
d. Athletic scholarships were uncommon prior to 1952, antedating AA by less than 20 years. Collegiate sports are another source of corruption in higher education, not an argument for augmenting corruption.
3. Racial segregation was the mode only with public systems in the South. I’m not seeing how bad practices ca. 1920 justify bad practices a century later.
One thing they did not have in 1920 was a secure command of statistical techniques and data processing technology to have a mechanistic admissions process. They did commonly have entrance examinations.
You’re always on the side of injustice. Every bloody issue.
Regarding CFA’s demand for, “free tuition for all Black, Native, and Indigenous students.”
First, free tuition is the best way to ensure a low quality student and sub-par mediocrity. People who pay for an education with their own, hard-earned money almost always make superior students.
Second, “free” tuition, is a lie as is their goal. What they really want is to enrich themselves off of American workers while they indoctrinate as many children as they can, to further mire them in a morass of ideological furor while their neighborhoods sink further and further into abject poverty and crime, and increasing dependence upon the largess of the Leftist chairmen.
The Left starts fires then offers to put them out. But they don’t put them out. They feed the flames.
What begins as a one-time donation to a glorious cause, ends in repeat payments of protection money.
The problem, of course, is that education is a commodity. It’s never free, merely cross-subsidized. Doing so on communal lines is gross in essence and imprudent.
Note, we do not have unlimited resources for schooling. There are always competing claims. We’ve not had universal tertiary schooling (and did not and should not have universal secondary schooling) because there comes a point where marginal social benefit equals the opportunity cost of keeping potential workers in school. As society has grown more affluent, there has been a tendency to locate that tipping point later and later. (As late as 1902, the town I grew up in, which then had about 150,000 residents, could be served by a single high school which enveloped maybe 15% of the population between 12 and 18; as late as 1929, it was the mode for youngsters from wage-earning families to leave school at 14 or 15; most youngsters between the ages of 14 and 18 were not enrolled in school).
We don’t live in a world where all the children are above average. We live in a world where people’s purposes and capacities vary, and there is all kinds of work to be done. The conventions of tertiary schooling are not optimal for preparing a great many people (I would argue most people) to take their position in the labor force. As for liberal education, only an odd minority are suitable for it in any format; few people have the makings of an intellectual hobbyist.
Puking tuition money from the public treasury into the extant (corrupt) system is the last thing we ought to do.
absurd notes: “as late as 1929, it was the mode for youngsters from wage-earning families to leave school at 14 or 15; most youngsters between the ages of 14 and 18 were not enrolled in school.”
And I think this was a better model than the one we came to embrace. In many cases, it’s already evident by grade three who should be proceeding on to secondary education, and who really needs to start being introduced to alternatives.
We don’t live in a world where physical labor has value, so while I question you sending your kids to the factory and the field at 15, most of the rest of us are not that stupid.
We don’t live in a world where physical labor has value, so while I question you sending your kids to the factory and the field at 15, most of the rest of us are not that stupid.
Don’t sell yourself short. Your comment actually validates his premise. Physical labor always has value. The fact that it’s not valued is a reflection on liberal education.
Olly, it’s a reflection on science, human progress, and mechanism including robots. So yes, in that sense it is a “reflection on liberal education”, and thankfully so.
I didn’t know MAGA people literally meant “like in the 19th century.
Solid caste system argument clearly showing its limitations within its own prose, Absurd.
You are probably correct, but ‘free tuition’ is also a very easy way for them to indoctrinate as may young people as possible, and all at tax payer’s expense. There is nothing noble in a single ambition coming out of the modern DNC, not one, but as usual, they will wrap it up in pretty words as if it were so. The trolls I get, Turley – he cannot possibly be this obtuse.
I think Professor Turley sees very clearly. I appreciate his approach and his view point – even when it clashes with my own. The more rabid among us accuse him of playing on both teams, but he’s far more objective than they could stand to be.
ABC is reporting 63 shot, 12 dead, this weekend in Chicago.
Black Lives DON’T Matter. Not in Chicago, Baltimore, St. Louis, Detroit, etc.
And here I thought everything would be peaceful once they took a few statues down.
Leftist Creed:
“Upon this pile of bodies we shall, ‘build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name, otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.'”
“Reverse discrimination” is a dumb phrase. Period. Put a period after “discrimination”.
There is a lot of itShay on the ouYay in this article.
And the all white jury agreed.
If the students in a class have tested in the 99th percentile, how well will a student who is at the 75th percentile perform in it?
Advancing people based on anything other than merit does them a disservice as they’re being set up for failure when they could have easily performed in most colleges.
Good question. Elite schools like Harvard have been admitting much lower scoring NAMs for decades. If they are supposedly able to pass then why aren’t they admitting lower scoring asians and whites, too? Surely, they are skipping hidden Einsteins who don’t test well. It’s about time that these schools give honest accounts of these students. Are their grades boosted, do they exclusively go into the easiest majors, do they need extraordinary assistance? Anecdotal accounts from some professors from other schools indicate that students overall are of poorer quality than in the past.
Reverse discrimination my a**. Uncivil, unlawful, and unreasonable discrimination
is discrimination, PERIOD. Nothing “reverse” about it. Including the word, reverse,
implies that white people, and only white people, precipitated discrimination and as
such, cannot and do not experience racial discrimination An irrational and self-
serving indoctrination. The deceitful and manipulative left does not have a monopoly
on discrimination. Stop the identity politics.
I disagree with just one thing that you wrote – “The deceitful and manipulative left does not have a monopoly on discrimination.”
Yes, they do. The source of much of the discrimination in this country has historically come from the Left and the Democrat party in particular, and that is still the case. Either through maliciousness or unutterable folly – every policy they push based on discrimination hurts EVERYONE – but most especially the groups they’re actively grooming. Look at the state of minority groups that are under Leftist control.
Bob Woodson on blacks killing other blacks, and especially their children!
“How would reparations or ending ‘systemic racism’ have prevented this slaughter of our children? Black America must come together and confront this enemy from within. Making demands on white people to rescue us from ourselves is lunacy.” — Robert L. Woodson, Founder and President, The Woodson Center / 1776 Unites
What do you suppose the crime rate would look like after these neighborhoods are flooded with a sudden, massive influx of cash. Do people seriously think the violent elements in these neighborhoods will be content with their check for $290,329.10, knowing that everyone else on the block also got a check for $290,329.10 – assuming they get that much after the Democrat Chairpersons are finished skimming.
When do we get affirmative action in the NFL and the NBA? Looks like a racial imbalance in those sports.
You have got to be kidding!
What are ‘historically black’ colleges?
I want more short, fat, myopic midgets in the NBA. End discrimination against the RollyPoly!
They are busy passing the ball on JT’s blog to know anything about sprinting down a court.
Just saying
Once we dispose of merit in selection then it is hard to sort out preference scales for other claims by victim hierarchy. We must measure victimhood rather than quality and deliver rewards accordingly. Already we see victims fighting each other for preferences, displaying their fake wounds like street beggars.
It is witless and should be mocked at every opportunity.
I grew up in a decidedly working-class household. My father never earned more than $13,000 per annum in his life. My mother was a housewife in those quaint “Ozzie and Harriet” days in the 1950’s.
I was the first in my family ever to have gone to college. I graduated in the top 10% of my undergraduate class at Cornell, class of 1970. I scored a 768 on the LSAY (law boards), placing me in the 99th percentile. I applied to Harvard Law (ranked 2nd), made it to the Waiting List, and got no further. I had to settle for the University of Michigan Law (ranked 4th). And I never looked back.
Were black kids with lesser grades and law boards admitted to Harvard that year? Of course. At least if Harvard had been “up front” about its admissions practices, I would have saved $35 and not applied.
Getting back to the present: do you think I would submit to surgery by a black physician? I have never been faced with that choice, but you can bet I would feel that affirmative action be a factor in my decision.
As for the desire of a group of Seattle zealots of the far-Left persuasion to fire only Caucasian police officers, there is no way anyone with any legitimate claim to Constitutional analysis can defend the proposal on any basis. And there is no way any jurist — even one appointed by Obama — could fail to strike down such an action.
Anyone, be it lawyer or judge, who even tried to justify such an action belongs in Stalin’s Russia or Kim’s North Korea or some other one-party-state Leviathan.
“And there is no way any jurist — even one appointed by Obama — could fail to strike down such an action.”
***
Don’t underestimate the radicalism of Obama judges.
arthurjmaurello….I appreciate your honesty…..Great comment.
There. This is much more in your wheel house than trying to clean up for Kayleigh by attacking Chuck Todd.
Legal contrarian? >> insightful, creative, challenging commentary.
Rest room attendent for the flagrantly corrupt, inept and incompetent Trump administration? >>> F minus.
JT: “His colleagues had every right to express their views of his comments, and his decision to resign was a private decision.”
His decision was a “personal” one, but it most certainly wasn’t “private.”
I suspect he personally decided to bow to the vicious harrassment.
This was a ludicrous comment by JT. His colleagues had a legal right but not a moral one to express their views. Frankly, his colleagues’ comments were on the same level as ones espoused by David Duke. Duke is anti-black, they are anti-white. Neither belongs in polite society. And that’s the problem, our society has lost every sense of civility and morality. Just because you can say something, doesn’t mean you should and we should be outraged that anti-white hatred is being mainstreamed. It’s telling that Nick Cannon was censured for being anti-semitic but not for being anti-white. It’s unbelievable that we have top politicians like Pelosi who shrug about “people will do what they do”. There MUST be a social contract between people in order for a society to be successful. A morality code that people follow to maintain and build social capital. In the majority of places where Democrats rule or are diverse, social capital is low. Harvard’s Robert Putnam’s research into diversity showed that diversity lowers social capital and degrades trust across groups. Where social capital is highest is across the conservative west, mid-west and in northern NE. To be sure, the moral and oligarchic corruption that the Democrats support are spreading like a cancer across the entire US.
The translation of this important social movement into needed legislative reforms will not be easy if it relies on threshold benefits or penalties based on a single classification or exclusion.
Again, gentry liberals and black chauvinists haven’t addressed ‘important social issues’ since around about 1971. Black Lives Matter is an absolutely valueless humbug cause.
When I read language like “Gentry liberals” I wonder what the writer thinks of billionaire reactionaries or tv host presidents? The Republican Party wants us to go back to the “good old days” when women and minorities knew their place and stayed there.
I fear absolutes. Absolutes make discussion impossible and that’s not productive. However, I hear the frustration of people who have been watching what happens on the streets. It’s understandable that they react angrily. Republicans love to argue just calm down but that’s not what they mean they mean shut up and let’s us do whatever we want.
There is a lot of absolutist BS coming from the right. Our President has now decided that storm troopers in Portland are a good idea. Is that ok with you.
I agree with Marshall but I don’t agree with Trump, Pence or any of the other members of that group who want to hide behind “reverse discrimination” to solidly their authoritarian positions.
When I read language like “Gentry liberals” I wonder what the writer thinks of billionaire reactionaries or tv host presidents? The Republican Party wants us to go back to the “good old days” when women and minorities knew their place and stayed there.
It’s always diversions with you jerks. I don’t think anything at all about them. The ghost of HL Hunt isn’t making anyone’s world worse as far as I’m aware. What I think of Donald Trump, who is primarily a real estate and resorts impresario, is that he has some skills, some deficiencies, some good instincts, and some bad habits. That’s what any person of sense thinks about him.
And, no, that isn’t the object of the Republican Party, in black letters or implicitly, Frauds like you cannot argue any point, so you post random smears. If you’d bother to listen to actual Republican voters, something you lack the capacity to do, what you’ll discover is that they’d like the officious bums in this world to leave them alone and quit injecting political struggle in to every conceivable sphere of life and they’d like the law enforced without fear or favor and they’d like knuckleheads in legislatures and in the bureaucracy to quit dreaming up and implementing schemes that generate more problems than they solve.
Justice…….my god, when did you write this comment…..!958?? The Republican Party wants us to go back to the good ol days when women and minorities knew their place? LOL Let’s see…….ya mean like the Dems and LBJ’s wimmin knowing their place? And Bill Clinton’s wimmin? And Stokely Carmichael telling his wimmin that their place in the Civil Rts movement was “prone”. And the way the Dems dismissed Shirley Chisholm in 1968 and patted her on the head for being such a good little colored girl, playing by the rules of “no girls allowed” in Presidential boys club? Shirley said she was always discriminated against MORE for being a woman, than being black. But the Dems sure fixed that, didn;t they, with a parade of Democratic Female Presidential candidates since the ’60’s. LOL.
As always, racial preference schemes were an imposition of the professional-managerial class (especially the bar) on a populace that did not want such a policy. It was done in contravention of statutory law and legislative history. It’s one of the sterling examples of how democratic institutions in this country are a sham.
The problem with AA is grossly manifest as we speak, but could have been identified at any time over the last 50 years. When the logic of it is followed, the essential purpose of businesses, schools, and public agencies is subverted to the task of patronage programs for the preferred clients of the bien-pensant class. Because the corruption of institutional purposes generates a menu of costs, it also generates complaint about those costs. The response of the professional-managerial class has been to abuse the complainers in various ways (foremost among them, firings) It’s getting escalatingly unsustainable.
Another problem has been malinvestment in regard to the human capital of the black population. A generation ago, Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom examined what available data was public information and concluded that about 30% of the black law students in the U.S. (ca. 1997) would not have been admitted to any law school had they been white and most of the rest were mismatched – at 3d tier institutions when they matched 4th tier, at 2d tier when they matched 3d tier, and so forth. The boneheads who run American higher education have exacerbated the problem severely in the intervening years. We have reason to believe that 30% to 50% of the whole population of black students at baccalaureate granting institutions consist of people who would be in community colleges or out working were there no mulligans granted them in the admissions process. And, of course, the rest are mismatched, and dissatisfied because they’re having trouble keeping up with the rest of the class and most of their (black) friends are having similar trouble.
Quit wasting everyone’s time and money. Have impersonal admissions processes to tertiary institutions. At the secondary level, redeploy funds and manpower from academic programs to vocational-technical programs. Right now, voTech accounts for < 5% of the teaching manpower in secondary schools when it should account for about 1/3.
With regard to the black population, what would benefit the wage-earning majority of blacks is consistently disregarded in favor of ineffectual programs that serve only to manufacture jobs and emotional self-satisfaction for gentry liberals. It is poisonous.
Uh, professor: that is not why BLM was founded, and the movement not about ‘important social issues’. They proclaim this in so many words themselves, and their behavior speaks for itself. This was apparent even at the time of their ‘founding’. That’s an impressive tower you’ve got there, and it is astonishing to me how tone deaf so many truly otherwise exceptional people are in this country at present.
James……in my opinion, they’re not tone deaf. They just hate Trump that much….BUT more importantly, the Dems HAVE to win the White House so that the Obama scandal can be killed off, once and for all. Thst is absolutely essential!
Making white and only white workers meet to face their racism and read or read from White Fragility is reverse racism. Some employment attorneys are going to make bank.
“If these quotas worked, why are we still doing them 50 years later?”
Because laws can not fix what is wrong with about 50%-75% of blacks. As long as that number of blacks live up to worst trashy stereotypes, then they will be doomed to continue to live poorly.
In the year 2020, blacks are to blame for their own problems.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky,
Seems wordpress hates the Spanish Language now?
Oky1 says:
July 20, 2020 at 10:27 AM
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Squeeky,
You see for everyone to be equal everyone needs Fed Regs that demand everyone gets a participation trophy.
100/110 pound women can’t carry as heavy a pack in the military as males, so some how it increases our military strength if the mil drops the pack weight for everyone. Same for cops & fire fighters. drop the old standards. I’m sure the Chicom military will understand & cut us some slack.
And you know the (Edited for wordpress) (Spanish: Dark Males/Females) are such candy azzes & are unable to drive Nascar we have to remove all Lee’s battle flag everywhere & have all those Whites/etc., slow down & pull over so Bubba “Smallet” Wallace, the Racist, can have a chance racing.
Legislation usually has and administrative rules must have a reasoned justification to support them. Doing something simply because it feels good or is “woke” has never been a reasoned justification to impose the government’s will on its citizens. So, the question is this: Are there facts or data which say that without special treatment, blacks are incapable of making it on their own? And, the law or rule must keep in mind the difference between being incapable of making it and choosing not to do so. For all those who support giving blacks a special place in line, are you prepared to say that blacks simply cannot compete with other races or ethnic groups because they aren’t up to it? And, if there are no facts or data to support such a conclusion, how is it that you are not just as much a racist as those you condemn?
For all those who support giving blacks a special place in line, are you prepared to say that blacks simply cannot compete with other races or ethnic groups because they aren’t up to it?
What they’re saying is that blacks are valuable just breathing in and out. They don’t have that attitude toward their students generally, most of whom they despise in an off-hand sort of way. In fact, the Official Idea at most campuses incorporates the assumption that men are defective women and that whites are defective unless they have a seal of approval from a professional-managerial character or one of their clients.
What gentry liberals end up promoting is narcissism and megalomania among blacks. That’s not good for anyone.
https://catalog.colgate.edu/preview_course_nopop.php?catoid=8&coid=13715
There’s a man named Jeffrey Spires who is paid a salary to teach this course.
“For all those who support giving blacks a special place in line, are you prepared to say that blacks simply cannot compete with other races or ethnic groups because they aren’t up to it?”
The Left’s arguments for why blacks need special treatment lines up with he same arguments that slaveholders used. You know why? It’s the same ideology.
Modern Leftists: “It’s in their best interest.”
Slaveholders: “It’s for their own good.”
Modern Leftists: “It’s impossible for blacks to succeed in a white country.”
Slaveholders: “Blacks can’t compete with whites.”
Modern Leftists: “Their very DNA has been marked by slavery.”
Slaveholders: “Slavery is in their DNA.”
Many years ago, I applied to the Berkeley school of Optometry. This was during the time that the older gentleman was refused admittance to UC Davis Veterinary school due to age. I was told that I should plan on applying about three times ( three years) as I was a white male and they had quotas. This was verbally told to me. I don’t have too much problem with this if the winning candidate was my equal or better in ever way other than race but sadly often compromises are made. I made a good life from myself in another field that perhaps my “White Privilege” enabled. If these quotas worked, why are we still doing them 50 years later?
Presbyopia affects everyone
😜