April 26, 2009

Supreme Court Justices and Ricci

From my new VDARE.com column:

Last week, the Ricci reverse discrimination case came up before the Supreme Court for oral questioning. A lawyer representing the New Haven firemen—who are suing the city for refusing to promote them for the last half decade because zero blacks passed the 2003 promotional exams—was grilled by the liberal justices. The Obama Administration’s representative, Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler , and a lawyer representing the city were roasted by the conservative justices.

New Haven’s attorney claimed that the city had strong evidence for discarding the test as invalid after finding out the results by race. But Justice Samuel Alito pointed out the preposterousness of that claim in a scalding rhetorical question:

"[The city] chose the company that framed the test, and then as soon as it saw the results, it decided it wasn't going to go forward with the promotions. The company offered to validate the test. The City refused to pay for that, even though that was part of its contract with the company. And all it has is this testimony by a competitor, Mr. Hornick, who said—who hadn't seen the test, and he said, I could do a better test—you should make the promotions based on this, but I could give you—I could draw up a better test, and by the way, here's my business card if you want to hire me in the future.

“How's that a strong basis in the evidence?"

Nor was Chief Justice John Roberts impressed by New Haven’s claim that they had to junk the completed test results because of the danger of being sued for discrimination against blacks under the “disparate impact” interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. (Which is now, apparently, more important than the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment). He said:
"CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: It seems to me an odd argument to say that you can violate the Constitution because you have to comply with the statute."

Deputy Solicitor General Ed Kneedler barely got a chance to open his mouth before Roberts scoffed at the Obama Administration’s sincerity on race:
"MR. KNEEDLER: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: This Court has long recognized that Title VII prohibits not only intentional discrimination but acts that are discriminatory in their operation.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: With respect to both blacks and whites, correct?

MR. KNEEDLER: Yes.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So, can you assure me that the government's position would be the same if this test—black applicants—firefighters scored highest on this test in disproportionate numbers, and the City said we don't like that result, we think there should be more whites on the fire department, and so we're going to throw the test out? The government of United States would adopt the same position?"

The last thing Obama wants is for the Supreme Court to issue a landmark, precedent-setting decision in the Ricci case. The public finds the courageous fireman plaintiffs to be sympathetic and the justice of their complaint to be commonsensical. Quotas could easily be scuppered based on this case.

Accordingly, the Administration is calling for the case to be remanded all the way back to a jury trial over whether the city acted with racial malice—i.e., Obama wants Ricci to go away, far away.

In reality, however, Ricci is not an unusual case with particularly complicated facts. It’s just business as usual in American society.

When President Obama graduated from Harvard Law School, he chose, out of hundreds of job offers, to work for a Chicago law firm that specialized in suing over purported discrimination against blacks. For example, as I point out in America’s Half-Blood Prince: Barack Obama’s “Story of Race and Inheritance,” Obama made one of his rare court appearances to accuse Citibank of not giving enough mortgage money to minorities. The Chicago Sun-Times reported in 2007:
"Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods." [As Lawyer Obama Was Strong, Silent Type December 17, 2007 By Abdon M. Pallasch]

(By the way, how’s that working out for us these days?)

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

45 comments:

testing99 said...

It's a done deal to KEEP Affirmative Action.

Affirmative Action (sorry Steve you're dead wrong here) is VERY popular among key groups and WILL be kept:

1. Women. Women LOVE Affirmative Action not only because they benefit but because it punishes their main competitors: Straight White Men. That it also keeps Beta Males from achieving any kind of status/power makes their dating life easier by winnowing out Joe Average guys. Women of course HATE HATE HATE the Beta Male, so even if they got no benefit at all they'd still want AA just to punish those they hate.

2. Black/Hispanic coalition leaders, such as Gavin Newsome, Tony Villaraigosa, and some guy you might have heard of. Name of Barack Hussein Obama.

3. SWPL Yuppies, who find Affirmative Action keeps troublesome ordinary guys at bay.

4. Gays, and various cultural allies like Entertainment folks, Media, etc. love AA for the same reason: it targets Joe Average keeps them down.

It will be a slam dunk 5-4 decision, with the Media, Women, Gays, etc roundly cheering the decision.

Steve you just don't get it. Fireman are liked, but when they run up against AA most of America (that is those who are not Straight White Men of Blue/White collar class) take the other side.

The media, entertainment folks, every Dem politico, and Women are all on the side of New Haven against the White Firefighters.

THAT will not change until there is a sea-change in terms of political, social, and cultural power. One that requires Women to spell "Beta Males" P-R-O-T-E-C-T-I-O-N. In an uncertain, economically and personal safety stressed world.

Right now most women don't need or want a husband, single motherhood is both fashionable and a major portion of births (28-41% depending on how you count White births), and most women are single. For the first time in US Census Bureau history.

AA will stay because women want it to stay. It will be defended because women want it to be defended. The only way it goes is if women want it gone and that would require so much massive changes in marriage rates, and how women view men in general, I don't ever see it happening.

Anonymous said...

"By 2009, however, the scientific evidence relevant to Ricci is now overwhelming that the EEOC’s Four-Fifths Rule is absurd."

I object to the use of the word "now" there. The evidence was always overwhelming. IQ testing started before WWI. And before IQ testing started most people already had a good idea of which groups were intelligent and which ones weren't.

Social science is not like particle physics. It will never, ever tell us anything that's at the same time true and surprising to an observant person who hasn't been thoroughly brainwashed.

Non-fraudulent advances in social science simply confirm stereotypes. This is because stereotypes are true. You can usually ask your mother or uncle or whoever and get the same level of understanding.

latewhitehope said...

Steve...

I have nothing substantive to say but THANK YOU!

It is so hard to find information on these proceedings. After all these years of systemic discrimination against whites, it's amazing to me that this case got up to the highest court. I am almost ashamed of myself for thinking that if the firefighters had been offered a generous settlement in a lower court, this case would have been resolved without any greater implications.

And to point out the Obama administration's tacit acceptance of anti-white racism, and his own race-extortion history, only emphasizes the importance of this case at this exact moment in history.

I want you to know that someday I will be telling my children and grandchildren about the heroic Steve Sailer, who fought against all odds to help restore sanity and equality to our country.

AllanF said...

"Perhaps, though, Kennedy might surprise us."

After his uber-statist Kelo ruling, it would be a surprise indeed.

Ronald Reagan said...

T99: Women of course HATE HATE HATE the Beta Male...."Well, there he goes again...."

Yogi Berra said...

T99: One that requires Women to spell "Beta Males" P-R-O-T-E-C-T-I-O-N."It's deja vu all over again...."

Jesus H. Christ said...

T99: Women LOVE Affirmative Action not only because they benefit but because it punishes their main competitors: Straight White Men.For the love of Me, testing99, would you stop beating that dead horse?

Dead Horse said...

Stop beating me, T99. PLEASE.

testing99 said...

I can't help it guys.

I have to be vigilant about analyzing these trends and spreading the word.

As a beta male, I'm part of a group that's disproportionately negatively affected by these trends.

testing99 said...

It's true. As pointed out, the social science has been around for decades about Disparate Impact, and how no matter how you norm tests, some groups will ALWAYS statistically speaking score significantly lower.

Yet political support for AA has NEVER been higher.

Now why is that?

You can say that there is some mysterious "conspiracy" involving the usual suspects, "Jews" and various puppet masters of the Trilateral Commission or Bilderbergers or UFOs working for Dennis Kucinich or what have you, but that does not explain the broad and deep support for Affirmative Action among women.

For folks who pride themselves on not having any blinders, you sure have a whole bunch.

Advancement in careers is a zero-sum game. If someone else gets a promotion, you do not. White women find most men their race a competitor, not a mate. Attitudes like Megan McCain or Posh Spice's are common (both noted their dislike for most straight men). It would be shocking if they did not have them, since they are in direct economic competition with men.

It's not merely the tick-box of AA that makes women support it on their own. It's that they get so much more out of it. Removal of competitors, clearing the dating field, and so on.

As Steve pointed out in TPM, married women overwhelming vote conservative, single women overwhelmingly vote liberal. That is probably changing however as marriage changes.

THIS means that the politics of AA will ensure a 5-4 holding for New Haven.

"This is yet another of the inexorable signs that there is no going back to a world where we can assume that marriage is the main institution that organizes people’s lives,” said Prof. Stephanie Coontz, director of public education for the Council on Contemporary Families, a nonprofit research group. “Most of these women will marry, or have married. But on average, Americans now spend half their adult lives outside marriage.”

[Admittedly the article is filled with the female-oriented anecdotal crap that animates most SWPL stuff in the NYT. But I'm too lazy to google the damn Census Bureau link for you. Stats seem solid though.]
-------------
If marriage is only a temporary thing (which is what the institution is now), there is no reason for women to support White Male Firefighters, instead of Diversity and AA which benefits them directly and indirectly.

It's an uncomfortable truth you don't like. Any more than Black folks like hearing about the reality of race-normed test scores. But there it is.

The Supreme Court follows politics, not the law. It always has. I don't see any change in the politics.

headache said...

This proves that t99 is a bot which recycles standard text and shuffles the order randomly.

Seriously though, some of his statements make sense. In South Africa these types of discrimination cases have been before the courts regularly since the end of Apartheid. Every time both the judges and the government said flat-out that AA is there to stay because it benefits the majority at the expense of the minority. This is of course contrary to minority rights, which is a growing issue as the empires become ever larger. At least in the US the majority is white, so you may have a chance. If AA were to fall in the US it would also be good news for whites in South Africa.

Truth(er) said...

Well, if testing99 is correct, then America is really enemy territory.

Then we need pandemics and social instability and foreign invasion.

Or, we operate to subvert the companies and governments we work for.

Truther(er) said...

For the Betas:

Pretend that you are gay and sue the shit out of the companies for any discriminatory behavior.

Keanu Reeves said...

FYI, "testing99" comments frequently at Roissy's blog as "whiskey."

http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/the-feminization-of-the-western-white-male/#comment-69919

Oh, and in his comment that's linked above, he says that iSteve has too many anti-Semites and "that's what" is wrong with iSteve: "Vorenus’s comment is what’s wrong with Isteve. Too many people filled with hatred/contempt for Jews which is to my mind both a sign of a weak mind and a dangerous attitude generally for anyone."

"Whiskey", better know as "testing99" at iSteve, blogs here:

http://whiskeys-place.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

to satisfy the 4/5ths rule when two groups are separated by 1 standard deviation (at their means) in terms of actual performance, just set the pass rate for the higher-scoring group to 96%. the lower-scoring group will pass at 77%. this also has the advantage of making the test nearly useless -- the equivalent of an IQ threshold of 74.

Anonymous said...

Keanu Reeves,
thanks for the info. Then "testing99" aka "evil neocon", aka "whiskey" must be Jewish, or at worst a "Christian-Zionist". If the latter, why the problem with babes? Most pentecostal churches are filled with fairly pleasant chicks, maybe not model material but just a notch lower. Seems the guy has high standards.

Anonymous said...

testing99 said...
Vorenus’s comment is what’s wrong with Isteve. Too many people filled with hatred/contempt for Jews which is to my mind both a sign of a weak mind and a dangerous attitude generally for anyone
.

Whereas testing's monomaniacal hatred/contempt for WASPs and women is both a sign of a strong mind and a healthy attitude generally for anyone.

Anonymous said...

"Then testing99 aka evil neocon, aka whiskey must be Jewish, or at worst a Christian-Zionist."

I doubt he's a Christian-Zionist. A Christian-Zionist probably wouldn't be trying to present himself as some slickly cynical master pick-up artist. He's almost certainly a secular but very ethnocentric Jew with a shiksa fetish. A "player" version of Spengler, if you will.

L. Ron Hoover said...

"Oh, and in his comment that's linked above, he says that iSteve has too many anti-Semites"

So what? Plenty of people, myself included, agree with testing99 on that point.

You seem to think you've found some damning evidence about testing99 but what you've uncovered is that he expresses the same opinions he expresses here under other names on other blogs. So do many of us, "Keanu Reeves".

rob said...

Testing, if you've been reading isteve since he moved to blogspot, and I don't know if you have, cuz that evil neocon fellow who used to comment was here, and then he wasn't, and you are. And you sure do sound alike. Will you admit to having used that handle?

If you won't be honest about that, you don't have much credibility for honesty on anything else.

Anyway, 'Jupiter' got (quite reasonably) banned for repeating the same comment over and over. Bear it in mind.

I see why you don't update your blog often. Your oft-repeated comment is meagre thought to support a blog.

Jody: hispanic is a euphemism for Mestizo. You told us. We know that now. You can stop telling us.

Back to you testing: You know how Jody makes the same comment over and over? Doesn't that get old?
Can you generalize that to another commenter?

josh said...

T99 isn't beating a dead horse any more than Steve is. I think he has some valid points.

Henry Canaday said...

The other way to meet the four-fifths rule is to screen the test- takers beforehand. Major testers for corporate hiring, especially in sales positions, can prove that their tests, or "assessments," both 1) strongly correlate to on-job performance and 2) comply with EEOC guidelines.

At first this claim struck me as a rather unlikely hat trick. Then I learned that these often expensive tests are given only at the final stage of selection, usually to the top three or four applicants. By this time, everyone still in the candidate pool has very strong credentials, in terms of education or proven performance in similar jobs. They are not drawn from a random pool of each ethnic group.

Voila, a great test, and no EEOC violation. But this approach gives up what might be one strong advantage of personality assessments: the ability to spot the 'diamond in the rough' without the normal credentials who has the basic ability to do a job very well.

ben tillman said...

Women LOVE Affirmative Action....You have never presented a shred of evidence for this assertion. Where I live (Dallas), my experience indicates that college-educated women want to stay at home with their children. They most assuredly do not support discrimination against their husbands and potential husbands. It may be different where you live, but if you're going to make a sweeping generalization like that you need to back it up.

none of the above said...

This is the sort of policy that can survive only by remaining hidden in most of its details. Once it's out in the open, subject to open public debate, it's sunk.

The media used to be pretty good about keeping a lid on this kind of discussion. The New York Times would have some detailed story on it, but it would carefully tiptoe around the details, would avoid certain observations or discussions, etc. The tone of the debate would be managed.

That is going away, and it's a very good thing. In ten years, public discourse in the US will look radically different. You can see this with some of the discussion of this case, and even more with recent discussion of wiretapping and torture. This is like the Berlin wall beginning to come down. Nobody can say quite what it will look like when we're done.

Φ said...

So, lemme get this straight:

When the question is the poor test results of black firmen, the Obama administration wants the Court to keep the "disparate impact" / "business necessity" standard, and also pretend that firefighting incompetence has no life-threatening implications.

When the question is the discrimination against white firemen, the Obama administration wants the Court to invent and apply a new standard called "racial animosity" and make the white firemen prove it.

Um . . . yeah, that's fair.

Anonymous said...

Whereas testing's monomaniacal hatred/contempt for WASPs and women is both a sign of a strong mind and a healthy attitude generally for anyone.

And you're an anti-semite (aka a Nazi who would gas every Jew in the world if given the chance) for noticing the double-standard.

Anonymous said...

testing99's comments about women seem to be coming from his inability to sleep with them. Seriously, nearly every post of Roissy's attracts a ridiculous amount of comments because the majority of his readers are betas who can get laid. You just FEEL the sexual frustration in those comments, just as you can feel it in t99's tirades against women.

Anonymous said...

testing99's game plan:

1. Set up camp on isteve and defecate on WASPs and women 24/7.

2. ?????

3. Profit (by turning all isteve readers into Zionists)

Svigor said...

You can say that there is some mysterious "conspiracy" involving the usual suspects, "Jews" and various puppet masters of the Trilateral Commission or Bilderbergers or UFOs working for Dennis Kucinich or what have you, but that does not explain the broad and deep support for Affirmative Action among women.Evil Neocon, everyone here knows you're full of shit, because you never mention the media's central role.

It's possible to play coy, or genuinely disagree on the JQ, and still call out the media for that role.

You don't. Ergo, you're full of shit.

Svigor said...

So what? Plenty of people, myself included, agree with testing99 on that point.

You seem to think you've found some damning evidence about testing99 but what you've uncovered is that he expresses the same opinions he expresses here under other names on other blogs. So do many of us, "Keanu Reeves".
I can reduce the whole conversation to its key points:

Me: bla bla bla, bla bla bla.

Opponent: bla bla bla, bla bla bla bla.

Me/Opponent: well, clearly we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Me: yep. So let us have for ourselves what Jews have for themselves in Israel, and we can agree to disagree in peace.

Opponent: *crickets chirping*

Anonymous said...

"Right now most women don't need or want a husband, single motherhood is both fashionable and a major portion of births (28-41% depending on how you count White births), and most women are single. For the first time in US Census Bureau history." testing99

For argument's sake, I'll accept your figures noting most women as single, testing99. And I'll assume that you or whoever has factored out girls under a certain age from "single women".

What you seem to miss is that a large number of single women are women in their 60's or older who have simply outlived their husbands.

Trust me on this: These elderly widows are not fans of AA. Most of them didn't benefit from it; and because they are now often living on pensions and SS from their husbands, they may actually have been hurt by it if their husbands were white and didn't get the promotion and thus the raise because of AA.

Now these older widows may vote Democratic for other reasons, Social Security and Medicare, for example. But trust me - they are not proponents of AA.

And while we are on this topic, AA is far more beneficial to college-educated women than it is to the average working class woman, who is generally stuck in a largely female job. Hardly surprising in that the higher up the job scale you go, the more minorities are the major beneficiaries of AA. Most community colleges will accept nearly anybody. It's only when you get to truly competitive colleges that AA matters.


D Flinchum

josh said...

You might be interested to know that our idiot mayor Daley here in Chicago--your old hometown--- has passed an Imperial edict that 40% of all business involved in the Olympics of 2016 will be set aside for minorities and women;i.e. dummies who dont know how to do the job. Basically he is going to tear up alot of neighborhoods (and do a hell of a lot of environmental damage as he tears down the Michael Reese complex to put up "green buildings" lol.what a c---sucker!!)A lot of blacks and "hispanics"----a briedf aside: A local "hispanic leader" made a reference to his people getting their "share". Their share?!?!?!-- alot of these jerks have to be paid of bogtime to be quiet as Daley does his thing for these lousy Olympics,which promise cost overruns and wasted taxpayer money out the ass!! Whether women want it or not,AA has got to be destroyed.or at least emasculated to the point where it survives only as a showpiece. Its pure utter garbage. White men need to speak out much much more forecfully,w/o the slightest bit of hesitation or doubt.Too many people have this idiot mindset of,"Oh dear,we should help the dear minorities...I guess its the CHRISTIAN thing to do (emphasis neeeds no explanation!) POSTSCIPT: testing 99 is a BETA MALE?? Dude I had you down as Ultra Alpha!!!!

Big Bill said...

@Truther(er): Pretend that you are gay and sue the shit out of the companies for any discriminatory behavior.

This, gentlemen, is a distinct possibility, as is declaring yourself "black", "hispanic", or transsexual.

You get to pick your preferred group, and HR really has to meet its racial numbers so it is not going to challenge you. Some protective coloration is helpful, such as a membership to GLAAD, or the NAACP, and a pimped up "black roots" DNA test (in case they ask about your birth certificate), or a "corrected" birth certificate, which is permissible in almost all states.

Large corporations need the most blacks and women they can get. So help them out!

[I wouldn't use the sodomite/drag queen thing outside of California, though.]

David said...

t99 is actually right about women professionals in the workplace (dunno about the dating scene...t99 and I evidently aren't dating the same women).

The age 25-35 set of Female Professionals ("the Sisterhood") does not like white men. At. All. Unless of course, the men are homosexual. Even then, "one is enough."

They don't hire white men and they dislike their presence in a workplace. Men "take too much initiative," are "aggressive," and don't "fit into our sewing circle." (Real-life quotes.)

Men shouldn't look for office jobs, but should be self-employed, start a business. The women have a lock on most office buildings. At worst try to be a salesmen; then you might get in.

(Posters over age 50: your reminiscences are not current reality. "Why, Caspar Huntington is the current Manager of Amalgamated's Managing Department. So what's David talking about? Caspar has many years to go before retirement - six, in fact. I went to high school with Caspar in 1970 and we came up through the ranks together...land of opportunity...isn't it wonderful my daughter was promoted...young men today are inexplicably worthless...blah blah blah...")

TGGP said...

AA is not popular. When up to a vote, even if both political parties & the state government and big businesses favor it, people will vote it down in referendums. If T99 was serious he'd look into the General Social Survey or something for evidence, but instead he blathers on supported by nothing but his own say so. Kind of like Spengler (I'm agnostic on whether T99 is jewish and frankly don't care). The majority of all women strongly oppose giving preferences in hiring to blacks. Just run JOBAFF and SEX in the GSS.

TGGP said...

The results of my fact-checking in the GSS are here.

Truth(er) said...

Hold on...

The 51% majority single-female is not as monolithic as it first seems.

There is, for example, some element of double-counting. Single black/Hispanic women may support AA, but they do so because they are minorities, not single women. Collectively, they represent about 15% of the population.

This reduces The 51% to 36%.

You then have to remove women female widowers. This may reduce the woman percentage to 30%.

Ideally, the focus should be on women between the ages of 25-35. What percentage are they? 10% or less?

So this idea that single-women are such massive supporters of AA because they want to do in Beta males is a little overstated.

Anonymous said...

For all his ranting and raving t99 seems more alpha than beta to me. If in real life he's anything as pushy as on the blog, he sure ain't beta. I got a feeling he was aiming high at some über-babe and got egg on his face. Now we have to listen to all that frustration encapsulated in some theory about single vs. married women etc. The tension between young women and males is as old as history. It’s what the mating game is all about. Most if the tension between young women and men at the workplace has more to do with the classic mating game than any deep political discourse. Sexual attractiveness or disgust are two sides of the coin, and what goes on in the street also happens in the office. That's all there’s to it. AA hiring of women has only increased the tension.

none of the above said...

Yeah, T99's rants about how women hate men and wish nearly all of them ill are almost exactly the equivalent of two really dismal kinds of common rant in the big wide world:

a. The feminist rant about how men all hate women, and everything that's wrong with the speaker's life is the fault of the Patriarchy.

b. The racial rant about how whites all hate blacks, and everything that's wrong with the speaker's life is the fault of white supremacy.

There's a whiff of truth in all those rants, of course. Women can be pretty cruel to beta men, some guys really do like smacking their wives around (though I think it's a matter of "I'm bigger than you and I can get away with it" rather than ideology), and some whites really are looking for a chance to screw over blacks.

But in all those cases, the rare places where "they're out to get us" turns into a tiresome all-purpose excuse for failure of every kind. Somehow, it's womens' fault that T99 can't find a job, or mens' fault that women starve themselves to look like models dressed by gay designers, or whites' fault that black kids do poorly in school.

Anonymous said...

"Advancement in careers is a zero-sum game. If someone else gets a promotion, you do not. White women find most men their race a competitor, not a mate. Attitudes like Megan McCain or Posh Spice's are common (both noted their dislike for most straight men). It would be shocking if they did not have them, since they are in direct economic competition with men."

Lots of men competing to be professionally married to former England captain David Beckham?

Anonymous said...

"The age 25-35 set of Female Professionals ("the Sisterhood") does not like white men. At. All. ....

They don't hire white men and they dislike their presence in a workplace. Men "take too much initiative," are "aggressive," and don't "fit into our sewing circle." (Real-life quotes.)"

I can easily believe that female professionals aged 25-35 are big supporters of AA. That college-educated age group tends to be looking toward advanced or professional degrees and getting jobs in the right place or at the right firm. Everybody is looking for the angle that makes them stand out, AA being one angle, well placed parents being another, an Ivy League undergraduate degree being a third. However female professionals aged 25-35 supporting AA does not = "single women" supporting AA.

Some of you are too young to remember but not too terribly long ago discrimintion against women was both widespread and legal. Jobs were listed in the newspaper under MEN and WOMEN. Women could be doing the exact same job as a man and be paid less - often a lot less. Women were expected to train young men who then became their bosses or got the promotions that the women who trained them were more than qualified for.

The rationale was that men supported families and women didn't. This idea prevailed even when there were women who supported families and "confirmed bachelors" who didn't.

Senator Howard Smith, a very conservative member of the Virginia Byrd Machine, added sex as a category of discrimination to be made illegal by the Civil Rights Act because he was hoping that it would be the poisoned pill that caused the defeat of the entire CRA. It didn't.

Sex discrimination was wrong then when it worked against women and it is wrong now under AA when it works against white men. It's bad for men, bad for women, and bad for the country in general.

D Flinchum

Anonymous said...

Make that CONGRESSMAN Howard Smith.

D Flinchum

phillipa said...

"beating a dead horse." Like "skinning a cat" and "killing two birds with one stone" these allusions to animal cruelty are disturbing adn Testing99 is becoming synonomous withe one of them.

Testing99, I know many white women, many single white, urban females, who heartily support the elimination of AA. They actually believe that they can make it on their own merit. Well. We'll see.
And you'd be amazed at how many are secretly or honestly race realists. Women are, after all, the main recipients of sexual harrassment, ranging from vile commentary to rape & murder, from black males. Of course any race can do this, blah, blah. But take away the black perps and you have a pretty small number, mostly acquaintances.
Any time she thinks of going through a "bad" neighborhood, you know what she's thinking.
Women are a lot more race realist than you think. It's just that we feel we must act like we're playing nice. There is also, despite everything, a tendency for women to empathize with other peoples' stories, so if they are subjected to an excessive number of black victim stories (Tony Morrison, Color Purple, latest WAPO series on the nice honor student in jail for armed robbery, etc.) they find it hard to see what's actually in front of them. But that's only until they have to walk past a bunch of blacks late at night.

Blode0322 said...

So what if what testing99 has to say about affirmative action isn't true? That's hardly the point. The point is that affirmative action, as currently structured by judicial fiat, must be done covertly and thus must generate paranoia. The racial quotas cannot be admitted to, because the Supreme Court has banned them. The racial quotas must be used, because the Supreme Court has also allowed companies and colleges to be sued for numerically underrepresenting blacks or other minorities.

Enforced lying, enforced hypocrisy ... enforced paranoia and conspiracy theories. I seem to remember EA Blair having something similar to say about fighting alongside communists in the Spanish Civil War ... once the paranoia starts marching it is difficult to stop, partly because the people who cause the paranoia can always use "paranoia!" as an insult and a reason not to trust their victims.

none of the above said...

Blode: More to the point, the overt quotas will not play, politically, in a world where all political discussion isn't carefully managed.