Category Archives: Affirmative Action

Why we will win

We know the DC Empire is immoral and spending itself into oblivion. It’s unsustainable, largely because its own ideology is killing it, just as socialism killed the Soviet Union. The Empire’s central article of faith about the equality of all peoples and cultures dictates that Western standards are no better than others.

The latest manifestation of this is a real doozy: There’s a bizarre new style of college-level debate that’s replacing real debate. Instead of making a logical case for or against a debate topic, participants change the topic at will, ignore the rules, and base the power of their arguments not on the standard of logic but on which debater has more “nigga authenticity.”

No, I’m not making this up. It’s from an Atlantic article entitled, so help me, “Does Traditional College Debate Reinforce White Privilege?” Here’s an excerpt:

Many of their arguments, based on personal memoir and rap music, completely ignored the stated resolution, and instead asserted that the framework of collegiate debate has historically privileged straight, white, middle-class students.

Indeed, to prevail using the new approach, students don’t necessarily have to develop high-level research skills or marshal evidence from published scholarship. They also might not need to have the intellectual acuity required for arguing both sides of a resolution.

This “new approach” means that instead of presenting relevant facts to build a case, the “debaters” scream, curse, toss insults, and demand they be declared the winner. Not everyone in collegiate debating likes what they see:

[Debate coach] Aaron Hardy and others are also disappointed with what they perceive as a lack of civility and decorum at recent competitions, and believe that the alternative-style debaters have contributed to this environment. “Judges have been very angry, coaches have screamed and yelled. People have given profanity-laced tirades, thrown furniture, and both sides of the ideological divide have used racial slurs,” he said.

The Western ideals of objectivity and detached reason are dismissed as tools of oppression of minorities whose cultures stress subjective, emotional justifications for making choices. The Atlantic article continues:

Liberal law professors have been making this point for decades. “Various procedures—regardless of whether we’re talking about debate formats or law—have the ability to hide the subjective experiences that shape these seemingly ‘objective’ and ‘rational’ rules,” said UC Hastings Law School professor Osagie Obasogie, who teaches critical race theory. “This is the power of racial subordination: making the viewpoint of the dominant group seem like the only true reality.”

If you’re not familiar with “critical race theory,” here’s a definition from one of its proponents: CRT as applied to court cases, for example, “seeks to highlight the ways in which the law is not neutral and objective, but designed to support White supremacy and the subordination of people of color.” It’s Cultural Marxism, which sees everyone and everything through the lenses of socialist ideology. If minorities aren’t as successful as the majority, it’s all due to oppression. Period.

Can you imagine the real-world consequences if abiding by the rules of logic are discarded? Imagine if the NASA engineers during the Apollo 13 crisis, instead of scrambling to find a way to rescue the stranded astronauts when the ship’s air supply was running out, just stood and screamed “Screw the time limit!” and declared the problem solved?

This country has been propping up its official ideology through willful blindness. But despite affirmative action, prohibitions against the use of IQ tests, and racial gerrymandering, sooner or later reality is going to smack us in the face. Signs of that are already evident, and the longer we make believe everyone’s equal, and that Western standards are no better than others, the worse things will get.

Hipster Racism

Mitt Romney, back in the day, supported bailing out all those who found themselves a loser when the mortgage backed securities were revealed as worthless and the collateral calls were made.  One of those companies, GE, owner of MSNBC, made out okay–good to employ Alan Greenspan’s wife after all.

MSNBC, is a worthless cable channel, literally, as nobody watches it.  Street theater with the up-and-coming is all they have left, and hence the comments about the Romney Christmas card, where Mitt clearly uses children as a political prop–unless this card was not meant for public consumption–with the newest Romney, an adopted ‘African-American’ child, seated on his lap.  If it looks like a “see, I am not a racist” sort of pandering, it is a fair and reasonable observation (of course the MSNBC host is walking back, short lived street theater.)

And at the same time, if the angle the MSNBC team was working is that adoption should be done within the most similar circumstances, that is a fair point as well, and the conservative point up until the 1970s, where black social workers were adamant that whites should not adopt black babies.  It should be further noted Mitt Romney supports homosexuals adopting children (reducing supply) and signed the surrogate contract for his son Tagg (that included an abortion clause, and not just for life of the mother.)

The predictable response from Conservative Inc., was to play the victim–look at those liberal racists! as they start showcasing their bona fides as the true promoters of ‘diversity’ (which is code word–wait, you have heard this one before.)

The whole thing is embarrassing and pathetic, in light of Mr. Robertson over at Duck Dynasty running rings around the media.  Classic pathetic Romney and all that–he must seriously be thinking of running again.

 

Pentagon considering affirmative action in combat

What killed the Soviet Union? Communism: The regime’s central ideology condemned its people to poverty and mediocrity. One day, they’d had enough.

What’s killing the DC Empire? Its other-worldly fixation on equality. Here’s the latest update on our own slow-motion suicide:

Senior military personnel are considering new giving women different military training than men, The Washington Times reports.

The effort was proposed by Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Niki Tsongas at a recent House Armed Services Committee hearing because so far, she says training systems do not “maximize the success of women.”

Though the armed services have promised that combat standards will be the same regardless of gender, senior officers are considering initially separate training systems.

That second paragraph is a killer: Tsongas couldn’t come right out and say that women couldn’t compete with men as soldiers — instead, Political Correctness® dictated that the problem be expressed in terms of the training failing to “maximize the success of women.” Got that? After all, the whole point of military training is validating equality, rather than creating a fighting force that can defend the nation.

Every day the bucket goes down to the well. One day the bottom will drop out.

Florida Passes Plan For Racially-Based Academic Goals

After years of stubbornly trying to implement pie-in-the-sky goals that assumed all children are above average, one state school board has decided to give reality a try:

The Florida State Board of Education passed a plan that sets goals for students in math and reading based upon their race.

On Tuesday, the board passed a revised strategic plan that says that by 2018, it wants 90 percent of Asian students, 88 percent of white students, 81 percent of Hispanics and 74 percent of black students to be reading at or above grade level. For math, the goals are 92 percent of Asian kids to be proficient, whites at 86 percent, Hispanics at 80 percent and blacks at 74 percent.

Naturally, this evoked the expected howls of protest from the usual suspects:

But Palm Beach County School Board vice-chairwoman Debra Robinson isn’t buying the rationale. …

Robinson called the state board’s actions essentially “proclaiming racism” and said she wants Palm Beach County to continue to educate every child with the same expectations, regardless of race.

Handy word, “racism.” In this case, Robinson is using it to defend the old “anti-racist” policy of penalizing teachers and dooming children to failure in the name of upholding ideological bias. “You’re equal, dammit! Act that way!”

The cult of egalitarian multiculturalism is collapsing before our eyes.

Augusta: The Great Leap Forward

I searched the ‘net for the loopiest reaction to the news that Augusta National Golf Club has knuckled under and agreed to admit women. I found it at the Washington Post:

The recent token actions at the Augusta National Golf Club and the repugnant comments of Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) serve as the best public reminders of how entrenched male domination and arrogance carry the power to wound women deeply — and the fight that must be waged to stop them.

Both actions force the public mind to return to the often overlooked crime of gender abuse and domination. They arrive at a perilous time in this highly politically charged season to demonstrate the abusive power privileged men have to define the role of women, to exclude them from normal affairs of society and to act as if male birthright has made them the center of the universe.

Got that? If a private club is allowed to exercise freedom of association, and to organize itself along lines that violate (or worse, ignore!) the absolutes of Cultural Marxism, why, that’s a crime! And a fight “must be waged” against those who commit such crimes.

News flash: That fight is well under way. In case you hadn’t noticed, the forces of Cultural Marxism are winning.

Yes, that’s how far we’ve sunk, ladies and gentlemen. No aspect of our lives can escape the reach of radical egalitarianism, which is our beloved central government’s core value and justification. And what better way for Augusta to honor that value than to offer membership to Darla Moore, a banker, and Condi Rice, a war criminal who famously invoked the Civil Rights movement to justify the government’s wars? The representation of heartless plutocracy and militarism is picture perfect.

So what’s next for Augusta? Should the club install ladies’ tees? Or would shorter yardage goals for women constitute yet another assertion that women aren’t as capable as “privileged men”?

I don’t know what I’d do in their position. I really don’t. But then, the absurdities of make-believe equality — or “Potemkin parity” — are just part of the institutionalized insanity we must submit to. There’s plenty more to come.

Racism strikes at Thomas Jefferson High!

There’s a discrepancy of outcomes at a prestigious public school – clearly this is a case of White privilege! The NAACP and the “Coalition of Silence” spring into action!

Will the Department of Education’s latest lawsuit against a state school uncover this latest conspiracy against minority children? Click here for the answer!

Obama Wants to Increase Affirmative Action

Apparently the Obama regime is trying to muscle colleges and universities to increase their race-based affirmative action quotas.  As noted by Steve Sailer, “the Affirmative Action President wants, unsurprisingly, more Affirmative Action.”  The NY Times reports:

“The Obama administration on Friday urged colleges and universities to get creative in improving racial diversity at their campuses, throwing out a Bush-era interpretation of recent Supreme Court rulings that limited affirmative action in admissions.”

This is part of Obama’s new election strategy.  As reported by the NY Times last week, the Democratic Party is now openly abandoning working-class whites in favor of blacks and mestizos.  In other words, give your new constituency more goodies (college admission handouts), while screwing over your old European-American constituency.

Unfortunately, college seats are a finite resource.  For every affirmative action token, it means that a more qualified white person will be turned down.  Furthermore, two recent studies show that lower-income whites already are the most discriminated against group in college admissions.

Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Radford have found:

“When lower-class whites are matched with lower-class blacks and other non-whites the degree of the non-white advantage becomes astronomical: lower-class Asian applicants are seven times as likely to be accepted to the competitive private institutions as similarly qualified whites, lower-class Hispanic applicants eight times as likely, and lower-class blacks ten times as likely. These are enormous differences and reflect the fact that lower-class whites were rarely accepted to the private institutions Espenshade and Radford surveyed. Their diversity-enhancement value was obviously rated very low.”

And at the University of Wisconsin-Madison it gets even worse:

“(Madison, WI) Two studies released today by the Center for Equal Opportunity reveal severe discrimination based on race and ethnicity in undergraduate and law school admissions at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, with African Americans and Latinos given preference over whites and Asians.

The studies are based on data supplied by the schools themselves, some of which the university had refused to turn over until a lawsuit was filed by CEO and successfully taken all the way to the state supreme court.

The odds ratio favoring African Americans and Hispanics over whites was 576-to-1 and 504-to-1, respectively, using the SAT and class rank while controlling for other factors. Thus, the median composite SAT score for black admittees was 150 points lower than for whites and Asians, and the Latino median SAT score was 100 points lower. Using the ACT, the odds ratios climbed to 1330-to-1 and 1494-to-1, respectively, for African Americans and Hispanics over whites.”

So, what Obama is pursing cannot even fall under the rubric of “liberal justice,” but rather is only a naked use of power to aid in the dispossession of European Americans from the very institutions their ancestors built.

American Lysenkoism

Without differences, there are no unique perspectives. Without unique perspectives, there is no innovation.


So says an ad for Lockheed Martin, which features a photo of a Black woman and an Asian woman beaming over a model F-22 fighter jet. It’s not clear if their evident pride is from the weapon these multicultural Vulcanettes have apparently forged, or from their invention of “innovation” itself. The ad concludes:

One company. One team. Where diversity contributes to mission success.

“Diversity” figures prominently in American business and government. A recent release from General Patrick J. O’Reilly of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, entitled “We’re Diverse and Mission Ready,” cites “diversity” as an agency priority: “Our inclusive workforce consists of a balanced cross-section of individuals working in various disciplines. Together, they enable us to advance all facets of our engineering and acquisition responsibilities.”

That settles it: We’re in the grip of Trofim Lysenko’s legacy. Continue reading

Obama, Affirmative Action, and Bad Grammar

People have long wondered how dependent Barack Obama has been on affirmative action.  Both in college and as president Obama’s writings and comments give the impression that he is in over his head.  There not only are the obvious gaffes (such as Obama stating the US has 57 states) but Obama seems to lack a basic understanding of English grammar.  Jack Cashill recently pointed out a letter Obama wrote to Harvard Law Review defending affirmative action:

The response is classic Obama: patronizing, dishonest, syntactically muddled, and grammatically challenged.  In the very first sentence Obama leads with his signature failing, one on full display in his earlier published work: his inability to make subject and predicate agree.

“Since the merits of the Law Review’s selection policy has been the subject of commentary for the last three issues,” wrote Obama, “I’d like to take the time to clarify exactly how our selection process works.”

If Obama were as smart as a fifth-grader, he would know, of course, that “merits … have.”  Were there such a thing as a literary Darwin Award, Obama could have won it on this on one sentence alone.  He had vindicated Chen in his first ten words.

Although the letter is fewer than a thousand words long, Obama repeats the subject-predicate error at least two more times.  In one sentence, he seemingly cannot make up his mind as to which verb option is correct so he tries both: “Approximately half of this first batch is chosen … the other half are selected … ”

Another distinctive Obama flaw is to allow a string of words to float in space.  Please note the unanchored phrase in italics at the end of this sentence:

“No editors on the Review will ever know whether any given editor was selected on the basis of grades, writing competition, or affirmative action, and no editors who were selected with affirmative action in mind.”  Huh?

The next lengthy sentence highlights a few superficial style flaws and a much deeper flaw in Obama’s political philosophy.

“I would therefore agree with the suggestion that in the future, our concern in this area is most appropriately directed at any employer who would even insinuate that someone with Mr. Chen’s extraordinary record of academic success might be somehow unqualified for work in a corporate law firm, or that such success might be somehow undeserved.”

Obama would finish his acclaimed memoir, Dreams from My Father, about four years later.  Prior to Dreams, and for the nine years following, everything Obama wrote was, like the above sentence, an uninspired assemblage of words with a nearly random application of commas and tenses.

Unaided, Obama tends to the awkward, passive, and verbose.  The phrase “our concern in this area is most appropriately directed at any employer” would more profitably read, “we should focus on the employer.” “Concern” is simply the wrong word.

Scarier than Obama’s style, however, is his thinking.  A neophyte race-hustler after his three years in Chicago, Obama is keen to browbeat those who would “even insinuate” that affirmative action rewards the undeserving, results in inappropriate job placements, or stigmatizes its presumed beneficiaries.

And now the Washington Times reports on a new book, Obama Grammar: Using the President’s Bloopers to Improve Your English, by William Proctor:

Here comes “Obama Grammar: Using the President’s Bloopers to Improve Your English,” a new book that parses Mr. Obama’s command of the language, or lack thereof.

“The first wordsmith is, in fact, an occasional stem-winder who is grammatically challenged,” says author and Harvard-educated historian William Proctor, who pored over 3,000 pages of the president’s official speeches and remarks. He’s convinced that Americans — particularly students — can learn a little something from Mr. Obama.

“His speeches reveal that at this point, he is simply not in the same rhetorical-grammatical league as a Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan,” Mr. Proctor says. “Even as we explore Mr. Obama’s errors, we should not lapse into smug, finger-pointing complacency. His mistakes should serve as a reminder to the rest of us that we, too, may need to clean up our technical language skills.”

Non-Whites Favored 1494-to-1 over whites in admissions at University of Wisconsin-Madison

The Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) has released a startling report showing that non-whites (blacks and mestizos) are favored up to 1,494 to 1 over whites in admissions at the University of Wisconsin-Madison:

(Madison, WI) Two studies released today by the Center for Equal Opportunity reveal severe discrimination based on race and ethnicity in undergraduate and law school admissions at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, with African Americans and Latinos given preference over whites and Asians.

The studies are based on data supplied by the schools themselves, some of which the university had refused to turn over until a lawsuit was filed by CEO and successfully taken all the way to the state supreme court.

The odds ratio favoring African Americans and Hispanics over whites was 576-to-1 and 504-to-1, respectively, using the SAT and class rank while controlling for other factors. Thus, the median composite SAT score for black admittees was 150 points lower than for whites and Asians, and the Latino median SAT score was 100 points lower. Using the ACT, the odds ratios climbed to 1330-to-1 and 1494-to-1, respectively, for African Americans and Hispanics over whites.

For law school admissions, the racial discrimination found was also severe, with the weight given to ethnicity much greater than given to, for example, Wisconsin residency. Thus, an out-of-state black applicant with grades and LSAT scores at the median for that group would have had a 7 out 10 chance of admission and an out-of-state Hispanic a 1 out of 3 chance—but an in-state Asian with those grades and scores had a 1 out of 6 chance and an in-state white only a 1 out of 10 chance.

CEO chairman Linda Chavez noted: “This is the most severe undergraduate admissions discrimination that CEO has ever found in the dozens of studies it has published over the last 15 years.” Chavez also noted: “The studies show that literally hundreds of students applying as undergrads or to the law school are rejected in favor of students with lower test scores and grades, and the reason is that they have the wrong skin color or their parents came from the wrong countries.”

Roger Clegg added: “The latest census figures have dramatically underscored that America is increasingly multiethnic and multiracial. In such country, is simply untenable for our institutions—including public universities—to engage in politically correct but divisive and unfair discrimination.”

When one considers that Wisconsin is largely white (blacks and Hispanics only constitute about 12% of the population), Wisconsin-Madison must  be engaging in severe discrimination of favoring less qualified out-of-state blacks and Hispanics over more qualified in-state whites.  The anti-white discrimination at UW-Madison is even greater than the nation-wide findings by Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Radford last year:

When lower-class whites are matched with lower-class blacks and other non-whites the degree of the non-white advantage becomes astronomical: lower-class Asian applicants are seven times as likely to be accepted to the competitive private institutions as similarly qualified whites, lower-class Hispanic applicants eight times as likely, and lower-class blacks ten times as likely. These are enormous differences and reflect the fact that lower-class whites were rarely accepted to the private institutions Espenshade and Radford surveyed. Their diversity-enhancement value was obviously rated very low.

It should be noted, however, that while the study by CEO is certainly welcome as it shows the degree to which European Americans are being dispossessed from from the very institutions their ancestors built, Linda Chavez is either confused or dishonest.  It indeed seems absurd that Chavez is bemoaning something (Hispanic affirmative action) which is a direct consequence of something she supports (mass immigration).  Also, mind you, it was Linda Chavez (along with Dinesh D’Souza, et al.) who lobbied the Washington Times to fire Sam Francis (who, at the time, to the distaste of neocons like Chavez and D’Souza, was being too vocal in his criticism of anti-white discrimination).

HT:  DM

The Black-White Achievement Gap “closed” — almost!


Now here’s an inspiring story — a Jamaican immigrant becomes a teacher, then rises over the years into the government educational system hierarchy, where she lowers the Black-White achievement gap. Educrats and politicians all over the nation swoon:

In addition to serving as Atlanta Public Schools superintendent, Dr. Beverly Hall is chair of the Advisory Board of the Harvard Urban Superintendents Program, where she serves as a mentor superintendent to participants in the doctoral program. She also is a member of the Teaching Commission, which develops specific policy recommendations to deal with the teaching crisis in America.

Dr. Hall is the recipient of many local and national honors, including the American Association of School Administrators’ 2006 Effie H. Jones Humanitarian Award, the Martin Luther King Jr. “Ground Crew” Award, the Big Brothers Big Sisters Legacy Award and the Atlanta Urban Debate League’s award named in her honor, the Beverly L. Hall Urban Debate Administrator of the Year Award.

Here’s a video of Dr. Hall wowing Congress’ Education and Labor committee. Could the position of Education Secretary be far behind, where, from such a lofty fulcrum, she could move the entire education system?

But rumors circulated that her miraculous results were phony. Dr. Hall ordered an internal investigation that concluded there were no problems [?!]. However, a state investigation has revealed a wide-spread, coordinated effort to pump up scores:

Georgia investigators have found evidence of cheating at close to 80 percent of the Atlanta schools where they examined the 2009 administration of state tests.

The 48,000-student Atlanta district has been under a cloud for the past two years, ever since an Atlanta Journal-Constitution analysis found improbably high results on the state’s Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests, or CRCT.

So now we’re looking at a criminal case against both Dr. Hall and her assistant Kathy Augustine.

Have we learned anything? When the next miracle worker proclaims he’s found the secret to making all children above average, will we believe him?

Of course we will. There’s something bigger at stake here than just a vast conspiracy to commit educational fraud. The real issue is the government’s commitment to equality, to the notion that all good things come from government itself, and that its citizens, especially schoolchildren, are its passive raw materials.

The issue here is not whether Hall broke a few rules. She did. But if Dr. Hall is guilty, then isn’t this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? Isn’t this an indictment of our entire American society, and its pursuit of diversity? Well, you can do whatever you want, but we’re not going to sit here and listen to condemnations against the United States of America!

Take it away, Otter:

Race, the Left and Ron Paul

I remember Princeton scholar Cornel West asking on a radio show “How many blacks have go down for Obama?” This was after the whole Shirley Sherrod brouhahah (actually she’s now back working for the USDA) and it’s an interesting question. West of course is taking a lot of heat on the Left for basically describing Obama as a “corporate puppet” which is something you’ll hear here and websites like Lew Rockwell.com and The New American.

Not that West is becoming a conservative but the attention and reaction he’s receiving is good demonstration of what the term “closing ranks” means. Those outside the fortress had better learn what the word “Incoming!” means.

In such West could commiserate with Ron Paul, because even though Paul is probably the only Republican who be willing to actually help African-Americans instead of just being a symbol (and according to West not a very “black” one at that) by calling off the Federal War on Drugs and prevent blacks who join the military from being cannon fodder for the Empire, those who surround and protect the President within the castle walls will make sure RP’s message never gets inside.

If Paul does well then certainly the infamous “newsletters” and his lack of fealty to the shibboleth of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in a phony concern of retroactive voting, plus some other things, will be brought up again and again just to others on the Left who might be attracted to Paul on certain issues, at least to offer a protest vote since the white Left has no intention of challenging Obama’s nomination from the Democratic Party. It is not doing so largely because of race. So the far Left sits trapped, wedded to Presidency it cannot overthrown but cannot influence. Those who might have an interest in Paul will be branded racists by the same  persons even if they cannot admit to themselves that because of race they must be silent as Obama rules.

There are a lot more contradictions race brings out in the Left (such as in France where the Left deals with immigration through censorship rather than at the border, showing what they really feel about freedom of speech) in comparison to the “values” it supposedly believes in. Free speech is shackled by political correctness, economic justice by unlimited immigration, peace by the terrorists within, feminism and homosexual rights by tolerance of more socially conservative (Islamic) immigrant cultures. It easy to attack outside the fortress but it doesn’t strengthen the foundation from the rot of hypocrisy.

Did Clyburn Get His Limo?

With his fall from the number 2 spot, Clyburn lost his taxpayer-funded limousine service around D.C. He cried racist, so a new number 3 spot is being created especially for him:

Under an arrangement worked out in private, officials said late Friday that Clyburn would instead receive a new position, title unknown and duties undescribed, explicitly labeled the third-ranking post in leadership.

The maneuvering was described by Democratic officials after Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., issued a vaguely worded statement saying she intends to nominate Clyburn to a new No. 3 post. The statement made no mention of Hoyer, and officials who filled in the details did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not permitted to speak publicly about the matter.

The AP doesn’t even mention a limo. Did Clyburn get his limo, or is Washington racist?

Update: The new Democratic House post will be called “assistant leader”.

To be poor and white in the Age of Obama

During Obama’s recent speech in Austin, he laments that not enough non-whites are graduating from college:

[O]ver half our minority students don’t earn a degree even after six years.

And then prattles on about “lifting graduation rates.”

What exactly does this mean? How does he intend to “lift graduation rates” of minorities?  By lowering standards?  If these people are not graduating in six years, then there is probably some greater problem where standards will have to be lowered.  Does Obama intend to divert resources away from whites to non-whites to improve non-whites’ chances of graduating? Does he plan to follow his plan for the financial sector (fire whites and replace them white minorities) via a new affirmative action initiative?

What Obama fails to mention in his speech, however, is that lower-income European Americans (poor whites) are now the most discriminated against group of people in college admissions. As recently noted by Russell K. Nieli:

Lower-class Asian applicants are seven times as likely to be accepted to the competitive private institutions as similarly qualified whites, lower-class Hispanic applicants eight times as likely, and lower-class blacks ten times as likely.

In other words, poor whites much less likely to be admitted to college than poor Asians, blacks or mestizos – even if the poor whites have higher test scores.  And mass immigration only makes it worse for European Americans, as “disparate impact” quotas will reduce  the available seats for whites as the non-white immigrant population increases.

Thus, since Obama is about “fairness” and “opportunity” and all that, what will he do to “lift the admission rates” of poor whites?

Whitey, pack up your desk!

This week indeed has been a bad week for European Americans. First, we hear how poor whites are the most discriminated against in college admissions. Second, we learn that the Obama Regime, during the auto bailouts, deliberately targeted white-owned dealerships for closure.   Earlier today we find out that the Obama Regime, via the tyranny of federal courts, has sided with Mexico and mestizo invaders against American citizens trying to enforce laws.  And finally today we discover a little-noticed provision in the Obama Regime’s financial regulatory bill that gives the federal government more power to compel financial firms to replace whites with minorities. Investor’s Business Daily reports:

Yes, the bill gives Treasury the power to liquidate banks that pose a threat to financial stability. But it essentially exempts minority-owned banks and those approved by Acorn-style urban organizers.

“The orderly liquidation plan shall take into account actions to avoid or mitigate potential adverse effects on low-income, minority or underserved communities affected by the failure of the covered financial company,” it says.

{snip}

Sen. Richard Shelby and other GOP conferees moved to strike the language, arguing that making an exception for minority neighborhoods defeats the whole purpose of reform, which is to protect all consumers against systemic risk.

But Sen. Chris Dodd, who’s running the conference committee with his fellow Democrat, Rep. Barney Frank, shot them down by suggesting that they wanted to deny minorities access to credit.

{snip}

Studies show that CRA home loans have much higher failure rates. {snip}

Another section of the bill requires the proposed Financial Stability Oversight Council (headed by the Treasury secretary) to consider a zombie institution’s “importance as a source of credit for low-income, minority or underserved communities” before winding it down. {snip}

{snip}

The bill mandates placement of a diversity czar in each federal financial agency—including the Fed and its 12 regional banks.

Establishing a so-called Office of Minority and Women Inclusion within each agency is the idea of Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters, a Congressional Black Caucus leader and conferee.

According to her amendment to the bill, “Each agency shall take affirmative steps to seek diversity in the workplace of the agency, at all levels of the agency,” including:

* Recruiting at “historically black colleges and Hispanic-serving institutions.”

* Recruiting in urban communities.

* Placing ads in African-American and Spanish newspapers.

* “Partnering with organizations that are focused on developing opportunities for minorities.”

{snip}

Each agency, in turn, is required to report to Congress detailed information describing the actions it took to diversify its staff and contract with minority-owned firms. Which means they’ll do what their diversity officers advise. No official—particularly no regional Fed bank president—wants to be dragged before Barney Frank’s panel and accused of racism.

Still, as insurance, the bill also calls for an audit of Fed “governance” to examine, among other things, “the extent to which the current system of appointing Federal Reserve bank directors effectively represents the public without discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, sex or national origin.”

From a chain email:

The widsespread discrimination against European Americans should be unsurprising.

All other racial groups have powers lobbying on their behalf. Blacks have the NAACP, mestizos have La Raza, Asians have the 80-20 Initiative, Indians have USINPAC, etc. What do European Americans have?

When groups E, D, C & B lobby on behalf of their ethnic interests, and group A does nothing, group A is bound to be shafted.  And all the while this is taking place, many whites pursue the “ostrich strategy”. They stick their heads in the sand and wish it were otherwise.

Poor Whites Most Discriminated Against in College Admissions

A new study (by Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade and his colleague Alexandria Radford) indicates that lower-income European Americans (i.e. poor white people) are the most discriminated against group of people in college admissions. Russell K. Nieli writes of the study:

When lower-class whites are matched with lower-class blacks and other non-whites the degree of the non-white advantage becomes astronomical: lower-class Asian applicants are seven times as likely to be accepted to the competitive private institutions as similarly qualified whites, lower-class Hispanic applicants eight times as likely, and lower-class blacks ten times as likely. These are enormous differences and reflect the fact that lower-class whites were rarely accepted to the private institutions Espenshade and Radford surveyed. Their diversity-enhancement value was obviously rated very low.

HT:  Steve Sailer

Addendum:  For more discrimination against whites, check out the Bill Gates scholarships.

Gates Foundation Scholarships: Whites Need Not Apply

Like others, when I first heard the rumor that Bill Gates scholarships excluded European Americans, I thought the rumor must be an exaggeration. I was wrong. The scholarship application FAQ’s page clearly states:

Students are eligible to be considered for a GMS scholarship if they: Are African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian Pacific Islander American or Hispanic American…..

What ethnic groups comprise Asian Pacific Islander Americans?

Asian Pacific Islander Americans include persons having origin from Asia and/or the Pacific Islands. Asian includes persons having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent. Pacific Islander includes persons having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawai’i, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. Citizens of the republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau are also eligible to be nominated.

So, basically, almost anyone can apply — anyone except a white person.

As Rob Sanchez points out, this should be no surprise:

Theodore Cross, writer at the The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, wrote a paper in 1999 that discusses the history of the Bill Gates scholarship: “Bill Gates’ Gift to Racial Preferences in Higher Education“. Make no mistake, Cross thinks it’s a darn good idea that Gates discriminates against whites, and he isn’t very subtle about it either:

“Racial conservatives are correct. The huge billion-dollar Gates Millennium Scholarship program is racially discriminatory. The terms could not be cleaner. Whites may not apply!”

Obama, Affirmative Action King of the World

obama-smoking-2Apparently the committee behind the Nobel Peace Prize has taken up the banner of affirmative action by delivering the award to Barack Obama, who curiously has done little to promote peace (he’s currently waging two Wilsonian wars in the Middle East, and may start a third). But they, in their wisdom, did not award Obama because of what he has done, but because of what he might do, a “down payment on the future.”

This blatant affirmative action is no surprise considering Obama’s career has largely been one of affirmative action (i.e. guilt-ridden white liberals promoting him to positions for which he’s unqualified).

Here’s a brief history  of Obama benefiting from affirmative action:

COLLEGE: Obama admitted to doing hard drugs (crack?) during high-school, performed mediocrely at Occidental College, and yet was accepted into Columbia University as a transfer student. (How many pot-smoking white males do you know who slacked off in high school and college to have been accepted into an Ivy League school?)

LAW SCHOOL: Although Obama probably only had around a 3.3 GPA (or lower) for his undergraduate courses, he was accepted into Harvard Law School. (N.B.  Even Obama has admitted that he was accepted to Harvard Law via affirmative action. Again, how many white males do you know being accepted into Harvard Law School with GPAs of 3.3?)

HARVARD LAW REVIEW EDITOR: Although no AA policy was in place at the Harvard Law Review, Harvard Law never had a black law review editor, and everyone felt it was about time. Enter Obama.

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO FACULTY: Interestingly, Obama was hired to teach constitutional law, although he had not published a single serious article  and appears to know very little about the United States. (How many white-male academics do you know  hired by top-tier institutions without a single publication under their belts?)

The presidency, in fact, may be Obama’s only accomplishment without aid of affirmative action. He had much help, however: the fact that the media would allow no real criticism, and McCain refused to criticize the Great One in any meaningful way.

I suppose the Nobel Peace Prize is a fitting addition for someone who has done so little to advance so far.