Читать книгу Thoughts Of A Patriotic Old Grouch - Bud Barnes - Страница 7

Affirmative Action: A “Boondoggle”

Precursor:

Many of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were descendants of persons who had endured persecution and caste discrimination in their native countries. With this in mind they endeavored to create a country in which all persons would be considered created as equal, regardless of race, religion, creed, or ethnicity. Unfortunately the early settlers did not consider all human beings persons, consequently the Negro was looked upon as a beast of burden with no legal rights; an injustice that was eventually righted. The infinite wisdom of the framers, knowing that there may be errors or omissions in the Constitution, did in fact allow for the amendment process; a process that ultimately rectified the injustices that the Negro had been forced to endure.

The Dred Scott decision (1857) did in fact uphold the Constitution as it had been written, contending descendants of slaves are not citizens; therefore, are not afforded any recourse in a court of law. Section I Sub Title IX of the Supreme Court summary, pertaining to the Scott decision contained the following in part: “change in public opinion and feeling in relation to the African race, which has taken place since the adoption of the Constitution, cannot change its construction and meaning, and it must be construed and administered according to its true meaning and intention when it was formed and adopted.’’ The decision led to much debate and divided the nation regarding slavery; the controversy eventually became one of the issues of the Civil War. September 22, 1862, Lincoln, President of the United States, issued a preliminary proclamation, and on January 1, 1863, he issued the official Emancipation Proclamation; the proclamation did not provide a blanket abolishment of slavery as it excluded certain counties in Louisiana and Virginia from the mandated slavery abolishment. Post Civil War agendas found the nation still grappling with the slavery issue; however, in December 1865 the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, thus outlawing and abolishing slavery forever. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 succeeded the 13th Amendment and passed over the veto of then President Andrew Johnson; the CRA of 1866 accorded all persons the same civil rights, in other words ‘‘full and equal benefit of all the laws’’. To further guarantee civil rights Congress incorporated its protections into the Fourteenth Amendment ratified in 1868, an amendment that explicitly guarantees “equal protection of the laws.” During this time a former abolitionist, William Phillips, tried to introduce an amendment that would prevent government from distinguishing on the basis of race; his amendment would have prohibited any state the authority to distinguish among it’s citizens on the basis of race and color; plainly this would have denied state governments the power to engage in racial regulation, and would have truly created a “color-blind government”.

The 1880’s erupted with many laws that distinguished on the basis of color, and discrimination against the Negro spread throughout the South like a malignant cancer; this was further compounded in 1896 when “Jim Crow” segregation (segregation that was enacted by the Louisiana Legislature in 1890 and provided for equal but separate accommodations for white and colored races) was sanctioned by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court concluded that the 14th Amendment had not been violated as long as the separate facilities, or accommodations, were in fact equal; a pretty devastating setback for those desiring a color-blind government. The only bright side of the court decision was the dissenting opinion of Justice John Paul Harlan in which he wrote: ‘‘our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens’’; this opinion became the cornerstone in the fight to end segregation.

The abolitionists and civil rights advocates continued their arduous fight to establish a true color-blind society, wherein all citizens would enjoy equal treatment under the law. The battle was slow and tedious; however, little by little their goals were being attained. Another historic event that furthered the desired eradication of preference, because of race or color, was World War II. Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the U.S. at the time, issued an executive order that included:

‘‘—the policy of the United States is there shall be no discrimination in the employment of workers in defense industries or government because of race, color, creed, or national origin—’’. The order further stipulated that all government departments and agencies with vocational and training programs for defense production must be administered ‘‘without discrimination because of race, color, creed, or national origin’’. The conditions of this executive order extended to any contractor in the private sector who was doing defense work for the government; also created was the Committee on Fair Employment Practice that had the power to investigate complaints of discrimination and recommend remedies. By invoking executive order, F.D.R. opened the door for presidential involvement in civil rights agendas. F.D.R.’s successor, Harry Truman, continued presidential involvement when he requested Congress to enact legislation that prohibited discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, or national origin; Congress failed to act on the Truman request; however, the process was started that would ultimately culminate in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The late 1940’s and into the early 1960’s was an era that continued the pursuit of ‘‘color-blind justice;’’ and although the Supreme Court failed to rule in favor of all plaintiffs (ie. Hirabayashi and Korematsu re: Japanese internment during World War II) the majority expressed themselves declaring that distinctions between citizens solely because of ancestry are odious to a free people, whose principles are based on the doctrine of equality. Justice Frank Murphy wrote the dissent and declared that, ‘‘racial discrimination in any form and in any degree has no justifiable part whatever in our democratic way of life’’. The NAACP lawyers, having gained new life and energy due to the sentiment expressed by the court, actively pursued discrimination cases and the rulings were favorable toward their clients. The majority of the discrimination cases, presented to the Court, were based on race and color; notables such as Thurgood Marshall, NAACP Legal Defense at the time, argued that classification and distinction based on race or color have no moral or legal validity in our society, and in a subsequent case he argued further that racial classification by government is unconstitutional.

There were a gamut of cases presented to the Court and what was common to all was the argument that our Constitution mandates color-blind justice, and upholds the premise of equal regardless of race or color. Through the 1950’s we saw continued strides toward a color-blind society as exemplified by the unforgettable speech by Martin Luther King, Jr., “I Have a Dream,” envisioning a society that would judge a person by his character and merit, not by his skin color; and Senator Hubert Humphrey declared, at the NAACP 1952 convention, ‘‘—our democratic principles is one of judging men on their merit, not by their race—.’’ The common denominator of all the arguments was the premise that our Constitution did not allow for discrimination based on color, race, creed, religion, or national origin.

The Birth of Affirmative Action:

Early 1961 President J.F. Kennedy issued an executive order that prohibited discrimination based on race, color, creed, or national origin in federal employment, and also included any private employer doing business with the government; and two years later J.F.K. was campaigning for the CRA of 1964 and cited Justice Harlan regarding a color-blind society that neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens; and he also cited the founding principle ‘‘all men are created equal’’ embellishing his oration with: ‘‘the rights of everyone are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.’’, and stated further that, ‘‘race has no place in American life or law’’

After the assassination of J.F.K., the Office of President was occupied by Lyndon B. Johnson, the push for a color-blind society continued with the passage of the CRA of 1964, which was ex-tremely comprehensive legislation with all sections contained in the act specifically prohibiting discrimination of a person on the basis of race, color, gender, etc.; other than the inclusion of gender, the act did no more than fortify existing CRA’s and was in total compliance with the Constitution conforming to the principle of a color-blind society; however, L.B.J. established procedures insisting that a concerted effort be made to inform, aid, assist, and actively recruit all persons (regardless of their ethnicity, race, color, etc.) in all areas of employment, education, and business in general, these procedures would come to be known as Affirmative Action.

In the mid 1960’s L.B.J. delivered a speech in which he stated, ‘‘—it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All of our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates.” The Johnson years saw many social programs enacted that were designed to not only guarantee opportunity but also bestowed ability to the Black Race in America; you might say that this was a form of reparation being made to the entire Black Race. The proponents of a color-blind society were quick to forget the principle that for over 100 years they so diligently fought for,—the principle of no distinction because of race or color—, and because the CRA of 1964 was a little to constraining, in the eyes of many activists, there was a move to allow racial distinctions,—distinctions that were purported to be benign—. Elated with the philosophy of the executive branch and enjoying a sympathetic Court, the social engineers embarked on an agenda designed to destroy and rewrite the Constitution in the areas of color-blind equality; and alas, Affirmative Action that we know today emerged from the wombs of the social engineers

Implementation of Affirmative Action:

The social engineers, specifically Alfred Blumrosen of the EEOC, threw their earlier color-blind premise to the winds and proceeded to demand numerical representation in all areas of society; if the race or color quota (goal) was not met it was mandated that a qualified person be passed over and that preference be granted, even if the person was not qualified; a 180 degree turn from their original agenda and goal. In order to circumvent any argument relevant to qualifications they created ‘‘norming practices’’ and imposed tougher standards for people of non-color and lowered standards for all others, thus creating more qualified minorities and giving them ability that they did not have. As Affirmative Action gained momentum it spilled over not only to the American Black but to every minority of color known to man, and the Supreme Court of the 1960’s and 70’s continued to rule, on case after case, not objectively but emotionally; the floodgates governing immigration crumbled and the Constitution begins to erode, as the original intent to make reparation to the American Negro became as distant as the farthest planet in our universe. Quotas, set asides, and preferences based on race and color became the accepted practice, not only in government jobs but also spilled over to the private sector; our schools were forced to alter their standards to accommodate the minorities, this being accomplished by ‘‘purse-string control’’ invoked by government. If there is doubt in anyone’s mind, about affirmative action definitely being premised on quota or numbers, they need only recall Jesse Jackson and his statement, “Equality can be measured, it can be put into numbers;’’ and that is how Affirmative Action has been implemented with no regard to ability, standards, merit, or qualifications so long as the numbers are satisfied.

People of color from the world over flocked to the U.S. and got on the Affirmative Action merry-go-round; it mattered not whether they had been discriminated against, because what had been purported to be benign reparation to Blacks became a malignant cancer in the form of an entitlement for all races of color, minorities, and also encompassed were women. The Court continued to ignore the color-blind premise of the Constitution and repeatedly ruled in favor of the colored race, even if the plaintiff—being not of color—had been discriminated against. In all segments of society the minorities of color were extended preference; whether it was in government, private contracting, business, or academe qualifications and standards were tailored to accommodate the minorities and no consideration was given whether the welfare of greater society would be adversely impacted. The misinterpretation of Affirmative Action got so out of hand the social engineers were able to, in brazen arrogance, publish employment opportunity notices stipulating that the qualified need not apply; and in many government assistance programs if you were not colored, or another designated minority, you need not apply. Under the guise of Affirmative Action, many universities and colleges were forced to turn away highly qualified applicants in order to comply with the ridiculous agenda the social engineers were imposing. As with many government programs, there were created many bureaucratic offices given the authority to investigate, administer, and enforce the provisions of the CRA of 1964 and its’ step-child, Affirmative Action. The Court continued to favor impact disparity when handing down their decisions, a practice definitely contrary to a Constitution that recognized disparate treatment of the individual, not group discrimination. This logic allowed Affirmative Action to become an instrument not only for remedying societal discrimination, but also for overcoming under-representation of minorities in all areas of society.

In the late 1980’s the Court developed a change of philosophy, deciding to interpret the Constitu-tion according to the true intent of the framers, and began to base their decisions on individual discrimination as opposed to group discrimination. The Court made it very clear that plaintiffs in impact disparity cases had to identify the actual practices they felt were causes of his alleged discrimination complaint. The Court of the late 80’s took on more than the average cases, pertaining to discrimination allegations, as a means to re-establish the original meaning of TitleVII; a statute that outlaws disparate treatment not impact disparity. The CRA of 1991 was signed by George Bush, then President of the U.S., and it did little more than, as usual, fortify the existing CRA’s; however, it did bolster the requirement that made the plaintiff identify specific practices responsible for disparate outcomes. A few provisions of the CRA were hotly contested during Congressional debate and the impact on Affirmative Action is unclear; however, as the lower courts have an opportunity to interpret and apply these provisions “we shall see what we shall see’’. One thing for certain the CRA of 1991 established was that low numbers in employment, education, etc., should not create a presumption of discrimination; also covered was the practice of ‘‘race-norming’’ and the adoption of the CRA made that practice explicitly illegal. It is evident the Court is again deciding cases objectively and upholding the Constitution in the spirit of its framers.

Summary:

It is obvious the framers of our Constitution did commit errors and omissions; however, by incorporating provisions and procedures to rectify any injustices the document remains as valid today as it did the day it was adopted. Though there have been many attempts to undermine and destroy the Constitution, It remains a symbol to all peoples of the world of fairness guaranteeing the rights and liberties of an individual regardless of race, color, or gender; and in spite of the perverse social engineers and their legerdemain practices to destroy the document by influencing Justices of the Court to render decisions under the guise of ‘‘political correctness’’, the Constitution does prevail. Impact disparity cases are no longer valid on their face, it is again re-quired that plaintiffs in discrimination show there has been disparate treatment of the individual; we are reverting to the original spirit of the Constitution, a document that protects an individual not elite groups. There is no room for Affirmative Action as it has been invoked and implemented; as J.F.K. stated: “the rights of everyone are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened’’.

Conclusions:

Affirmative Action as it has been implemented, and as we know it, supports discrimination in its most perverse form; the blatant stripping and violation of an individuals rights, under the color of equality and justice, is probably the most deplorable act ever foisted upon the citizens of the U.S.; not only is discrimination promoted, the appurtenant consequences are disgusting. To give people ability to go through the open gates of opportunity there has been a lowering of standards for the exalted elite; the results have been devastating. In the public safety sector of our society the qualifications for employment have been drastically reduced rendering the safety of the general populace in jeopardy; considering the demands of the job the now qualified hires are physically and intellectually deficient. The area of higher learning is also being compromised as the standards are lowered to accommodate the deficiencies of the exalted minorities, so we now don’t know whether a graduate is competent or just the by-product of a failed social engineering “boondoggle”.

The Affirmative Action proponents and activists have not done any favors for those who have availed themselves of the entitlement, contrary to what one may think, there is no such thing as a ‘‘Fairy Godmother’’ who with the touch of a magic wand can bestow ability upon you. Opportunity, and only opportunity, is the necessary fuel to achieve the ability to propel you through life; it is up to the individual to take advantage of opportunities and not rely on the social engineers and their fatuous programs, programs that will ultimately strangle you when you become ensnared in the so-called underprivileged “safety net”. Those people who continually scream for a “level playing field,” and propose the lowering of standards and merit to attain this ludicrous goal, are pursuing a self-serving agenda at the expense of the functionally illiterate, brainwashed, and gullible sycophants. You don’t elevate an individual’s intelligence or physical capabilities by lowering standards, doing this only creates a sub-standard society that unfortunately surrounds us today. If you lower standards through ‘‘race norming’’, does this mean the recipient of the gratuitous act is now capable of carrying his own weight out in the cruel world? I think not. One of the arguments favoring “race norming’’ was most prominent in the area of education. It was felt that some minorities, and people of color, did not get the same excellence in teachers and there was a deficient number of minority teachers available who understood cultural backgrounds of the students; so standards were lowered to accommodate sub-standard applicants, and low and behold we now have functional illiterates being instructed by qualified illiterates. The bottom line is: incompetence begets stupidity, stupidity begets ignorance, and you only reap what you sow. Employing this logic how are those who have been labeled less fortunate ever going to attain the “level playing field” that the proponents of A.A. have been demanding; unless of course, you continue to lower standards to a moronic level? The big push for equality in the workforce was another exercise in hypocrisy. For years we’ve heard the adage ‘‘equal pay for equal endeavor’’, however, when Affirmative Action became an ominous force we suddenly heard another horn blowing, ‘‘equal pay for unequal endeavors’’; now we must extend preferential treatment to anyone included in the Affirmative Action “qualification scam”. The proponents of A.A. consider Bona Fide Occupational Requirements to mean nothing more than making certain the quotas or goals are met in the hiring of people of color or minorities; there is absolutely no consideration given whether the person is capable of performing the necessary and required tasks of the job; as mentioned earlier, this is probably most apparent in the area of Public Safety. There have been such outrageous reductions made in the physical and intelligence standards governing qualifications for employment in this field, for the exalted elite only, that the safety and well being of the general public is in dire jeopardy; physical agility and performance tasks, as well as general intelligence tests, might just as well have been scrapped; this all being done under the guise of creating a “level playing field”. These changes in requirements and standards extended only to the A.A qualifiers, so many very competent and qualified people being denied consideration because of their race or color were discriminated against; what better way to create an animus in a society.

When the Asian Race proved to be too dominant a force in gaining acceptance to prestigious halls of academe they were excluded from the exalted elite protected by A.A.; this exclusion is further evidence of the egregious scam perpetrated on this nation and also evidence that those supporting A.A. are doing so to further their own agendas and for selfish gain. If the reason for extending preference to the exalted elite was a benign form of reparation for earlier slavery, I wonder how we can justify lumping the Asian Race with the “evil white male”, I believe the Asian Race is a minority of color; I also wonder if any of the people enjoying the fruits of A.A. have ever felt the sting of a lash in the hand of a U.S. Slave Owner; I think not!

The people who feel they are not on a “level playing field” and without A.A. they will not succeed know what they are: “Patheticoes”; they know that it is not necessary to put forth effort because preferential consideration is automatically extended to them. Any person who flexes his A.A. muscle to advance his position and status is only fooling himself; if you can’t advance on merit you will always be the masters’ puppet, because if you accept a handout you will forever be beholden and you don’t have the respect of your peers. You might say a person who flexes his A.A. muscle is a blood-sucking parasite that lives off the blood of another. It’s kind of an irony that those people who screamed so loudly about injustices of slavery are ready and willing to relegate themselves to the status of the “masters’ puppet”.

The endeavor to tear down the Constitution by initiating impact disparity, thus promoting discrimination of individuals, and the overall decimation of qualifications and standards is obviously devastating to our society; however, what is not so obvious is the stigma, or badge of A.A., that so many minorities of color must endure. There are tremendous numbers of individuals (minorities of color) who absolutely refuse to avail themselves of A.A., but in spite of their achievements through qualification and merit, sans the aid of A.A, they are unfortunately categorized with the aforementioned “blood sucking parasites”. I admire people who tell the social engineers to stay out of their lives, because they are well aware of their self worth and are ready to stand on merit and qualification; they realize the acceptance of a handout results in being beholden and never being free. The abolishment of A.A., as we recognize it, will not only re-establish the true intent of our Constitution it will cleanse the obnoxious stigma and badge from the courageous people who refused to avail themselves of the “A.A. Scam”; they will ultimately enjoy their niche in society that was so arduously achieved through merit and qualification, a new badge they can wear with PRIDE and HONOR.

The social engineers are cognizant of the recent Court decisions and know full well A.A., as they perceive it, is on the brink of extinction. The CRA Initiative, California Prop. 209, that passed with an overwhelming approval is an indicator the American People do believe the protection of individual rights is paramount. The social engineers reaction to the inevitable demise of A.A. has been to create another step-child, so out of their lower bowels has erupted “cultural diversity”, a new movement (pun intended); diversity is probably going to be more devastating and have a greater impact on this nation than has A.A. Affirmative Action has dealt with equality, opportunity, and rights; cultural diversity targets the unity of the nation with the intent to divide the people. To quote John Dickinson (1768), “—by uniting we stand, by dividing we fall—“; I often wonder why the social engineers are so bent on destroying a unity that has made this nation, the United States, a symbol of opportunity for all peoples of the world regardless of race or color; however, this is a very complex subject that should be addressed independently.

In closing, I would like to state that my contentions regarding Affirmative Action have been substantiated in this writing; Affirmative Action, as we know it and have been subjected too, is unequivocally a deviation from truth, rectitude and a maladministered concept; a “BOONDOGGLE!”