Affirmative Action—An Obsolete Idea ⋆ Politicrossing
Connect with us

News

Affirmative Action—An Obsolete Idea

Published

on

The recent Supreme Court ruling that struck down affirmative action in college admissions supports the conclusion of my new book, The War on Whites, that affirmative action is a bad idea.

 

The hiring obstacles to minorities that existed 50 years ago have been swept away. Competent blacks and Hispanics have no difficulty getting a job or being admitted to college. In today’s job market, says Heather Mac Donald in When Race Trumps Merit, if people of color are not hired in greater numbers it is not because of racism, but because they don’t meet the job qualifications.

Employers are eager for the chance to hire minority applicants. “One would have difficulty finding an elite institution today that does not pressure its managers to hire and promote as many blacks and Hispanics as possible,” Mac Donald said. This is especially true in our universities. “There is not a single faculty that is not desperately trying to find underrepresented minorities or women to hire.”

If you are a qualified person of color, you don’t need affirmative action. Only unqualified people need affirmative action. Affirmative action means lowering standards. The Left would like to see our standards lowered across the board, which would “level the playing field” and reduce our competitiveness in the world. Should we seek “social justice” by lowering the standards to the lowest denominator via affirmative action, or should we require the lowest denominator—minority students, for example—to meet the higher standard? Lowering standards has given us an educational system that is producing substandard results. Statistics that show the U.S. lagging behind in educational accomplishments are proof that the Left is succeeding.

Attorney and former Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz brings up another negative outcome of affirmative action—it is anti-white. Qualified white job candidates are regularly passed over for minority candidates with fewer qualifications. For example, Heather Mac Donald found that blacks and Hispanics are promoted ahead of whites in the New York Police Department. “Blacks and Hispanics became detectives almost five years earlier than whites and took half the time as whites did to be appointed to deputy inspector or deputy chief.”

A UCLA study revealed that colleges that allow racial preferences give blacks more than a 5-1 advantage over whites in the admission process. “Students are encouraged in their application to indicate that they are nonwhite in order to gain entry,” says Scott Greer in No Campus for White Men. Unfortunately, it does not always do justice to the intended beneficiaries. Blacks, the strongest defenders of affirmative action, can suffer negative consequences from racial preferences.

Affirmative action recipients at colleges and universities experience a high dropout rate. Mismatch theorydescribes the many minority students who are accepted at schools beyond their aptitude, creating a sense of failure, depression, and alienation. “The students struggle academically because they got into a school that was beyond their skill level thanks to racial preferences in college admissions,” Greer explains. “Instead of blaming a system that judges them by their skin color, or their own failures to study, they blame the invisible systemic racism of the schools they attend for why their grades aren’t so great.”

In The Diversity Delusion, Heather Mac Donald describes the history of affirmative action at California universities, offering an accurate view of what is taking place nationally. The results have been predictable: affirmative action students meet with failure. One Berkeley professor confessed that “they admitted people who could barely read. There was a huge drop-out rate of affirmative action admits by mid-terms. No one had taught them the need to go to class. So we started introducing BS majors, in an effort to make the university ready for them, rather than making them ready for the university.”

Arguments for affirmative action omit the question of why minorities need racial or gender preferences in the first place. Students are not rejected for admission to elite universities because they are the wrong race, but due to inadequate educational preparation and lack of family support for education as a worthwhile goal. Affirmative action doesn’t work because it fails to address either of those issues.

Another major drawback of affirmative action is the implication that minorities are inferior and therefore unable to achieve without special assistance. “Affirmative action,” says Shelby Steele in White Guilt, “explicitly violates many [American] principles—equal protection under the law, meritorious advancement—that the King-era civil rights movement fought for.”

Merit—not affirmative action—is enforced in the NBA, whose players are 74 percent black. All that matters is how well you play basketball. For the same reason, merit ought to be applied to airline pilots, Marines, and brain surgeons. When I am flying over the Pacific Ocean, I want the most qualified pilot at the controls. At 30,000 feet, who wants an affirmative action pilot sitting in the cockpit? As a former Marine, I appreciate that combat units should not have their standards lowered simply to accommodate women or transgenders. When I am being operated on for a brain tumor, I don’t want to look up and see the winner of this year’s social justice award.

Affirmative action may have looked good in 1960, but the country has moved on.

Ed Brodow (www.edbrodowpolitics.com) is a conservative political commentator and author of the No. 1 Amazon Best Seller, THE WAR ON WHITES: How Hating White People Became the New National Sport.

We'd love to hear your thoughts about this article. Please take a minute to share them in the comment section by clicking here. Or carry the conversation over on your favorite social network by clicking one of the share buttons below.


Ed Brodow (www.edbrodowpolitics.com) is a conservative political commentator and author of ten books. His new book is THE WAR ON WHITES: How Hating White People Became the New National Sport, available at Amazon.com.



 
 
 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.



Elections

Will Democrats Do What They Must?

Published

on

On a warm August evening in 1974, President Richard M. Nixon said from the Oval Office that he was resigning, becoming the first president to do so. He confessed that he no longer had “a strong enough political base in the Congress” to finish his term.

Sen. Barry Goldwater, Ariz., the 1964 GOP presidential nominee, was a respected conservative leader in a Senate whose Republican ranks were less conservative than now. In a May 1973 interview with Time magazine, Goldwater had given an early warning, “If it can be proved that he (Nixon) lied, resignation would have to be considered. It would be quick. Everything would be over, ended. It wouldn’t drag out like impeachment.”

At a regular Senate Republican Conference lunch on august 6 of 1974, Goldwater had fumed: “There are only so many lies you can take, and now there has been one too many. Nixon should get his ass out of the White House today!” When he went to see President Nixon, Goldwater confided, “There’s not more than 15 senators for you.” After that showdown, the curtain on President Nixon’s presidency came down three days later.

In this challenging time in our history when President Biden’s competency is under serious question, will Democrat leaders have the courage to do the same? With this report, more Democrats and Independents will be less inclined to vote for Biden. That may very well impact the future of many Democrat politicians whose own election could be impacted if their voting base stays home. After his Wednesday night address, the evidence that Biden is in trouble is plainly obvious.

President Biden’s poll numbers are now at an all time low. The shocking Department of Justice Special Counsel Robert Hur report suggests that Biden should not be indicted because Biden is “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” that a jury would be unlikely to convict. The Special Counsel also noted that Biden “willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen;” he noted that such actions “present serious risks to national security.” It is clearly a risk for Biden to remain in office.

When President Biden addressed the country after the report was disclosed, he asserted that his memory was fine, and the report confirms that he was not indicted and did nothing wrong. His comments to the press questions were combative and defensive. He took no personal responsibility, blaming his staff for the faulty storage of classified documents. His message was strident and clear-Trump is guilty, and I did nothing wrong.

If he is not competent to stand trial for his actions, how can he be confident enough to remain president? It’s time for a private confrontation by Democrat leadership. If Biden does not listen, it is time to exercise the 25th amendment option to remove him from office.

It is not easy to use that 25th Amendment option. It is even more difficult with only 9 months before a critical national election. Waiting until the Democrat Convention in August leaves little time to right the ship and promote a replacement candidate.

Democrats, do your job to clean out your own house. President Biden is not competent to meet the challenges of our time. Do it now or pay the price in November. As Republicans, we hope you let Biden remain your candidate, but that is selfish. President Biden is our current leader and his decisions impact all of us and a world in turmoil. This isn’t about politics. We can’t afford even eleven more months of a mentally incompetent President.

Continue Reading

News

Claudine Gay, Ex-Harvard President, Will Strike it Rich in 2024

Gay will be a hot ticket at conferences leading up to the 2024 election.

Published

on

If she were a straight white male, Claudine Gay’s career in academia would have been completely finished weeks ago. Along with the presidents of MIT and (then) University of Pennsylvania, as a result of Gay’s anti-Semitism and her disastrous testimony before Congress in December, much of the country was in an uproar.

Pretzel Logic

Days later, when it was discovered that Gay had plagiarized or inappropriately paraphrased and lifted passages from other authors, from a variety of academic works, that would have sealed her fate. In this utterly illogical age of unreason, just the opposite of what ought to happen actually did happen. The Harvard bigwigs backed her!

Gay punched all of the intersectionality buttons: Black, gay, female, and what else you want to throw into the mix. So was she not terminated from her widely visible, high-profile position. Luckily for Harvard, she quit as president! She retains her cushy post as professor, however, at $900,000 per year. And more amazing good fortune likely is in store for her. She may well reap an income bonanza unlike most other college presidents in the U.S. or around the world.

You have to understand that Gay is actually a hero to many factions on the Left. Let’s see … she stood up to the man! She let Congress have it with both barrels. She defended her academic turf. She stuck with what she believes in. She didn’t kowtow to the U.S. pro-Israeli faction. She spoke her truth! My goodness, what a leader, what a noble soul, what a speaker we might have at our convention!

Media Darlings

A variety of questionable figures on the Left have become darlings to groups who lap up their every word. If you think this won’t happen with Ms. Gay, think again.

Unbelievably, the parents of Trayvon Martin became media darlings. Martin was a violent teenager who punched a bus driver in the face, stole money and other items at school, and was suspended from school at the time of his death. He met his fate while pounding George Zimmerman’s head into a sidewalk.

Democratic groups have celebrated the Martins ever since then. Their public appearances were considered to be special. In another minute, with a cracked skull, Zimmerman might have bled out and died, making Martin a murderer.

Honored at the DNC Convention

The parents of Michael Brown also made the rounds and were accorded celebrity status. The super-sized 18-year-old from Ferguson, MO had stolen cigars and choked a small Asian convenience store clerk just 10 minutes before he had tried to wrestle a gun away from an officer sitting in his police car.

Had Brown, whose fingerprints were all over the officer’s car, successfully taken the officer’s gun, Brown, too, might have been a murderer. At the Democrat National Convention attendees couldn’t get enough of Brown’s noble mother. Sadly, the city of Ferguson, MO, paid Brown’s family an extorted $1.5 million, largely due to fears of more mob violence.

If parents who’ve raised career criminals are celebrated, what are Claudine Gay’s prospects?

Prospects Aplenty

Presumably, she has no violent incidents in her past. Prior to her resignation as Harvard president she may have already, privately signed on with one of the top speaker’s bureaus from either in Boston, New York, or Washington, D.C. Bureaus value having partisan speakers in their lineup when they can book such individuals at large conferences and conventions. Gay will be a hot ticket leading up to the 2024 election.

She will be featured as the head liner at many conferences.

How much can she glean from such appearances? The floor is 20 to 40 thousand per outing, but 50 to 75 thousand is within reach, of which the bureau takes 25%. At that level of earnings for a speech, she could easily exceed another $900,000 by the end of the year. Will you earn $1,800,000 in the next ten years?

Knowing No Bounds

As one audience after another offers her special treatment, her already outsized, over-privileged ego will know no bounds, and all of her past sins will be long forgotten. The groups to whom she speaks will consider themselves to have done their part in promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion. Gay’s intersectionality seals the deal, so by any measure, it’s a win-win-win (bureau, speaker, and audience) for Leftists.

To those on the Right, such developments are sickening, but we’ve come to accept that this is the world as it is currently. With all the devastation and destruction promulgated by the Biden administration, we have much bigger fish to fry.

– – – – –

 

Continue Reading

 

Our Newsletter

Become a Politicrossing insider: Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Sites We Like

Our Newsletter

Become a PolitiCrossing insider: Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Trending