On Affirmative Action: Oh, the Ricci Case

Repost….

Jesse Jackson says what white liberals won’t. In the 5-4 Ricci case ruling, Ginsburg presents the expected liberal duplicity, echoing and echoed by countless liberal pundits in the media and scholars throughout that bastion of political correctness, Academia.

Ginsburg writes:

In so holding, the Court pretends that “[t]he City rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white.” Ante, at 20. That pretension, essential to the Court’s disposition, ignores substantial evidence of multiple flaws in the tests New Haven used. The Court similarly fails to acknowledge the better tests used in other cities, which have yielded less racially skewed outcomes

Compare this to Jackson’s comments:

Context does matter. Six years ago, the U.S. military led the way in support of affirmative action, arguing that the nation was less safe without black and brown officers. For the U.S. military, integration of officer ranks was as important a job qualification as knowing military history or aerospace engineering. We think it matters in other contexts, as well.

While Jackson is more direct — emphasis on more — Ginsburg sweeps the issue under the rug. Jackson of course switches between: 1) promoting diversity is good irregardless of merit and history and 2) promoting minorities is justified for because of history — Hopefully he never passed logic 101, unless, of course, the grades took ‘context’ into account.

With regards to the former he say “Affirmative action is justified on the premise that diversity is good for us as a society, not that diversity rectifies centuries of wrongdoing”. Yes, we know blacks and Hispanics underperform on tests compared to whites in much the same way as white gentiles underperform on tests compared to Pacific Asians and everyone as compared to Ashkenazi Jews. Studies have show this consistently for the past 30 years. So what. It isn’t a mater of merit or of competency, it’s a matter of representation. It takes a village morality beats out rugged individualism.

Ginsburg of course presents the tired liberalese that all groups are equal or would be — If they do better than gentile whites, like Jews or Pacific Asians, well, they are ‘model minorities’ and let’s not speak of them. Otherwise, it’s discrimination, if that can’t be found lets tack on ‘institutional’ and attribute it some mysterious powers. It doesn’t matter that the city went out of its way to create a fair test and the the distribution of test scores matched those found for the past several decades and currently match those found from a variety of tests, from LSATs to MCats. It still is.

Of Course, we all know how some cities are able to create tests that don’t exclude. Norming. The threshold is lowered and scores are marked pass or fail — like a driving test. Desired candidates are then picked — which is fair since all test takers scored equally. The discriminatory nature of the New Haven Test, was that it award the jobs to the highest performers — and the particular nature of those performers.

The conservative justices voted for meritocracy. The response was fairly consistent. Conservatives usually don’t complain when Pacific Asians outcompete whites in Academia or when Jews are vastly overrepresented in finance, government, and academics among other fields. That the number of Jews at Harvard is close to that of gentile whites given the 1:20 ration in general population is not something I oft hear complained about in outside of the Occidental Observer – instead, more than not, there is a sense of relief that at least someone is advancing research in the country. Nor is anyone complaining that Ginsburg herself represents an overrepresentation. That’s the logic of merit.

But instead of considering between two relatively reasonable positions of meritocracy and social representation, the discourse on this matter is the liberal double-speak, something worthy of those so called conservative Trotskyites. Even were the issue about making up for past wrong that would be understandable. Though some of what Jackson says is nonsense, like:

For hundreds of years, white males have enjoyed more than 95 percent of the best jobs, the best housing, the best incomes, the best health care, whether they were best suited or not.

Should this be shocking when the US was nearly 90% white until the 70′s, what did he expect? 10% Asian, 15% Latino, and 50% female before 1900?

I mention this because it helps elucidate the nature of this liberal view; which is made clear when Hispanics and others enter the discrimination industry. I am referring to the above Jackson comments (“Browns”) and to comments like this from today’s Boston Globe:

TO THIS DAY, black and Hispanic applicants suffer unfair disadvantages in the job market, in the form of either overt discrimination or hiring and promotion policies that perpetuate old wrongs. But a ham-handed effort by the City of New Haven to avoid a civil-rights lawsuit – which prompted a stiff response by the US Supreme Court yesterday – could make it harder for employers to change their ways voluntarily.

And also to Ginsburg who says:

African-Americans and Hispanics account for nearly 60percent of the population, must today be served—as it was in the days of undisguised discrimination—by a fire department in which members of racial and ethnic minorities are rarely seen in command positions. In arriving at its order, the Court barely acknowledges the path-making decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424 (1971), which explained the centrality of the disparate-impact concept to effective enforcement of Title VII.

Like the BG, if we are to take the Nytimes seriously, Hispanics have been historically discriminated “To this Day” against because 15% of the CEO population or judiciary is not Hispanic. Should that be surprising considering most just hopped the fence yesterday? More seriously, doesn’t it matter that Most of the recent population came here in the last 25 years (5% in 1970, 7% in 1980, 1990 9%, 2000 12% 2010 16%). Apparently, a group just off the boat is supposed to have the same achievement as any other, regardless if the time to establish itself. What maters is the supposed disparate representation and feeding the discrimination industry.

Ginsburg along with the the liberal media likes to play the 0ld discrimination clam shell game here. Since there was discrimination against blacks, and both blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented, let’s just pretend there was also with Hispanics so we can get their votes and support also. And of course, since we have open borders and mass immigration, there will always be new groups to feed the industry along with a standing 10% of the population in poverty — an ever replenishing reservoir to water the bureaucratic aspirations.

While it is understandable that various ethic groups come with fingers pointing and hands held out — Like Somali pirates pirating — because it works. And though intellectually repugnant that many other people uncritically accept this sophistry, it is also understandable in that human-all-to-human kind of way. (Let us note — There are of course those motivated by their feel good, progressive, embrace the world attitude. See I can be generous too.) But for our intellectual elite this is yet another facet of ‘multiculturalism’ for the sake of their social agenda, welfare sate, personal advancement, and lets not forget to take a pot shot at the usual suspects — and needs to be exposed and opposed every step of the way.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in News and Views. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s