The Congressional Research Service has issued a study entitled “Survey of Federal Laws Containing Goals, Set-Asides, Priorities, or Other Preferences Based on Race, Gender, or Ethnicity” that details 276 federal statutes that grant preferences in employment, contracting, or awarding federal benefits on the basis of membership in a preferred class (in 1995 there were 172 such statutes). The figure doesn’t include the numerous agency regulations that also discriminate in favor of preferred classes.
In the last few years, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has examined several preferential programs of the federal government. Many of these programs violate the Supreme Court’s standards in Adarand Constructors v. Pena. Nonetheless, the appetite of Congress and federal agencies for programs and practices that count on the basis of race, sex, and ethnicity remains undiminished.
When first employed more than 40 years ago, part of the rationale for affirmative-action programs was that they were necessary to remedy specific instances of discrimination by the federal government against certain minority groups. Yet the further we get from the era of widespread discrimination against certain minority groups , the more the federal government discriminates in favor of such groups.
Then:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Now:
"I have a dream that I will be able to hold onto elected office by creating special treatment for my constituents not based on the content of their character, but on the color of their skin (or their gender, their national origin, or whatever other demographic will give me campaign contributions and vote for me)."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSome corrections are going to have to be made. And when the low-achieving people begin to have to face being honestly evaluated, admitted, hired, and compensated in a competitive economy, they are going to be even less happy than they usually are. They will riot, of course...and it may already be starting, even though their preferential treatment is still on the upswing, as of now. But the "silent majority" has noticed and is seething with anger at the incessant demands coupled with the pathetic failures of "urban" males and their murderous crimes in the news everyday. It is what it is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLat week there was a link in the Web Briefing to a discussion of a new study that show that Caucasians see discrimination against them as growing and in the particular study for white they believed that there is more discrimination against Whites than against African Americans.
As expected all of the liberals were apoplectic about this and said that whites were just whining. There was no discussion of De-facto vs De-Jure (sp) discrimination.
Do I believe that de-facto discrimination against African and Hispanic Americans is much greater than against pasty white Americans? Yep, absolutely. This report certainly supports the position that there is more de-jure discrimination against pasty white Americans.
The big question is how can you deal with de-facto discrimination by adopting de-jure discrimination or if you should even try.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHey Affirmative Action works. Do you think we'd have a Barack Obama as President without it? He's the original Affirmative Action Kid. Only to be closely followed by Affirmative Action Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, without which affirmative action, he'd never have a writing job ever, anywhere. Well maybe Eric Holder as the Affirmative Action Attorney General makes the close second. Or maybe it's Affirmative Action Michelle on her no show job.
But with stellar graduates like these - as long as these corruptables are in power, do you really think the federal government will finally get away from the color of our skin? Not a chance in hades.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNotice how carefully Mr. Kirsanow phrases this post:
"In the last few years, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has examined several preferential programs of the federal government. Many of these programs violate the Supreme Court’s standards in Adarand Constructors v. Pena. Nonetheless, the appetite of Congress and federal agencies for programs and practices that count on the basis of race, sex, and ethnicity remains undiminished."
You'll notice he doesn't say - or even imply - that federal programs that engage in race, sex or ethnic preferences are unconstitutional. He knows full well that the Constitution says nothing from which you can reasonably infer that there is any restriction on the power of the Federal Government to employ such preferences. The Court fabricated the concept because its members felt "uncomfortable" not holding the Federal Government to a standard to which it was holding the states - even though, quite clearly, the Equal Protection Clause is distinct from the Due Process Clause and specifically applies only to the states.
Indeed, even Justices such as Clarence Thomas, who pretend to believe in "original public meaning", "original intent", etc. have turned their back on such theories and, in order to boost their self-esteem, have played along with the fabrication in order to exercise the raw power necessary to keep the Federal Government from engaging in such practices.
That aside, I might give Governmental officials a bit of a break in holding them to the requirement of abiding by the "standards" set forth in Adarand Constructors.
Here is the official breakdown of the opinion:
"O'CONNOR, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion with respect to Parts I, II, III-A, III-B, III-D, and IV, which was for the Court except insofar as it might be inconsistent with the views expressed in the concurrence of SCALIA, J., and an opinion with respect to Part III-C. Parts I, II, III-A, III-B, III-D, and IV of that opinion were joined by REHNQUIST, C. J., and KENNEDY and THOMAS, JJ., and by
SCALIA, J., to the extent heretofore indicated; and Part III -C was joined by KENNEDY, J. SCALIA, J., post, p. 239, and THOMAS, J., post, p. 240, filed opinions concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, J., joined, post, p. 242. SOUTER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG and BREYER, JJ., joined, post, p. 264. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BREYER, J., joined, post, p. 271."
Just try to make sense out of that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt needs to be seen as what it is: corruption. That's what govt favoritism has always been and always will be.
The whole idea of the United States was to get away from favoritism of any kind. That's what the Rule of Law is all about. That it was wrongly applied earlier in our history does not justify applying it wrongly today.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse