Tag Archives: reverse discrimination

Should U.S. Supreme Court Overturn Michigan Anti-Affirmation Action Vote

Will White Students be denied entrance to College Admissions Office?

Will White Students be denied entrance to College Admissions Office?

If you are a white student walking into a Michigan college admissions office, you have to be wondering whether you are going to be admitted based on your grades or denied because of your ethnicity. This may soon become the reality for a countless number of white college students across the wolverine state, or America if the U.S. Supreme Court rules to invalidate state voters that voted against using race to determine college admittance in 2006.

Of course racial discrimination is unfair, repugnant and dangerous to the social viability of a nation when it is used to deny the rights of its citizens. The problem which voters in Michigan thought had been corrected was to toss out race-conscious affirmative action admission plans with a fairer race-neutral approach.

At the core of the case is the notion that fifty-eight percent of Michigan voters were seriously in error in amending the Michigan constitution to prohibit discrimination in admission to state colleges on the basis of national origin, sex, race or ethnicity.

To most voters in Michigan this seemed like a relative no-brainer. How could anyone oppose not using discriminatory practices to deny a prospective student entry to college?

It seems that the liberals and race baiters who thrive on erecting barriers to race neutrality and color blind solutions wanted a different result. Instead of desiring to work to determine real solutions to any potential problems minorities might be experiencing in matriculating from high school to college admittance, they took the more convenient route to cry racism!

This approach taken by the civil rights organizations in the state and nationally have determined without much effort, to use a formula that strips sanity from the law and replaces it with fear and racist scare tactics. The goal is to scare the judicial community and moderates who are lukewarm on everything, to abandon common sense and support a fraud which has no foundation in law or on recent facts.

Where is the proof that there is continued discrimination against minorities since the voters in Michigan decided that reverse discrimination is unjustified and beneath the dignity of a state that wants equal treatment for all of its citizens? What about a state’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment, where the state and its citizens have a right to determine its own course in order to balance justice and equality under the law?

Another key question of law which the court must grapple with is whether or not a state amendment that bars discrimination in its constitution can be found to be unconstitutional because it does not allow discriminatory practices and remedies.

Are you confused now?

You should be, because in effect, what the advocates of affirmative action are arguing is that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment should allow a state to openly and intentionally discriminate against a race or ethnic group as a means to remedy previous discriminatory practices.

Michigan Solicitor General John Bursch, was quoted by Click on Detroit, as stressing in his brief before the U.S. Supreme Court, “Until now, no court has ever held that, apart from remedying specific past discrimination, a government must engage in affirmative action.”

This is crucial and central to the legal subterfuge which has been erected by civil rights advocates. If the U.S. Supreme Court is not trying to remedy past discriminatory practices against minorities by negating those practices as it did in the 1954 Brown case, how can it force a state to willingly and legally engage in discriminatory practices against whites as a matter of law!

What is even more mind numbing for those who desire to advocate a race-neutral color blind approach to enforcement of the law is how cavalier the opponents of race neutral solutions bemoan the difficulties of using race-based solutions. The fact is clear; the advocates of affirmative action want to continue to divide America into racial camps which perpetuate a myth of continuous inequality that is largely non-existent in 21st century America.

According to the Christian Science Monitor, The imagined legal barrier that the Michigan voters erected was illegal because it does not allow colleges to now use their “political” option to discriminate against whites. By allowing race-based solutions for admittance, suggests Michigan-based attorney, George Washington, colleges could continue their previous practices. He went on to say, “Proposal 2 deprived racial minorities of equal political rights by prohibiting the governing bodies [of public universities] from adopting by simple majority vote any plan that granted ‘preferential treatment’ to minority applicants.”

In short, attorney Washington is stressing that universities that are largely governed by liberal administrators and admission policies, should be allowed to use their liberal political mandate to discriminate against other races, as long as they are not minority.

Now here is a plan. Why not simply spend the time, money and effort used to defend legal discriminatory warfare against those who are not minorities and instead work on race neutral solutions. Sure, it might be more difficult to craft because it takes effort, imagination and tenacity.

But in the end, the color blind solution will produce a legally justifiable outcome based on America’s foundation of “One nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”

( Let me know what you think)

Will Supreme Court Affirmative Action Case End Reverse Discrimination

US Supreme Court

Race based affirmative action  may come to a screeching halt and finally put an end to decades of reverse discriminatory policies utilized in higher educational institutions. This week, the U.S. Supreme Court took up arguments concerning a case brought by Abigail Fisher, a white applicant who was denied admission to the University of Texas (UT) at Austin in 2008. Fisher is challenging UT-Austin’s decision to use a race-conscious admission plan which considers race as a factor in admitting students to its incoming freshman class.

Instead of using a fairer race-neutral plan, which Texas law already guarantees the top 10 percent of high school students in their graduating class admission to the university, UT-Austin, went a step further. It used an unnecessary and highly unfair reverse discrimination practice of considering race as a factor for admittance, thus making the purpose for the race neutral Texas law meaningless.

The problem which Miss Fisher and any other high school applicant in Texas and in any other community in America has to consider, is will they be admitted based upon their academic ability, content of their character or any other measurable qualities?

Or, will their years of academic pursuit and hard work be rendered fruitless, because the student was denied access based upon their race? In a nation where there is a black president, and where diversity is clearly present in major industries, in academics, and other professions, is reverse discriminatory denial of educational access to white Americans, fair, right, just or even legal?

Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., gave America his take on this nearly fifty years ago, and his words have the answer which must guide the U.S. Supreme Court’s legal and moral determination of this case. Rev. King stated with moral clarity and conciseness in his 1963 “I have a Dream” speech, “I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today!”

When is the time to make real the promises of Democracy? When does America finally become one nation and not an America divided by a two-tier system? Where is the end?

In 2003, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority court opinion in the University of Michigan Law School Grutter v. Bollinger decision. She concluded that universities would need 25 years until they ended their race-conscious admissions policies.

Justice O’Connor was wrong in 2003 and her discriminatory decision and conclusions muse be reversed now. Here is why her conclusions are in error and unnecessarily deprives honorable achieving students like Miss Fisher her rightful seat at the TU-Austin.

O’Connor stipulated in the Grutter v. Bollinger decision, that race-conscious admissions policies were constitutional because they serve a “compelling state interest of promoting diversity and its associated educational benefits.”

The question has to be, racial diversity of whom and associated educational benefits for whom. Certainly Justice O’Connor and the NAACP and the liberals who backed the University of Michigan could not have been talking about the poor and low income black students, who never made the affirmative action cut. Surely, Justice O’Connor could not have been referring to providing an educational seat at the table to the black students whose parents see their kids stripped of their self worth by an educational system run by blacks, led by blacks, and run to ruin by blacks.

No, no and no again!

Justice “O’Connor’s decision in 2003 left intact a discriminatory system that only largely benefited students from well connected or very affluent black families. In fact, William Joyce Wilson, a noted black social research scientist, at the Kennedy School and the Department of Sociology at Harvard University, has concluded that affirmative action has actually been a very ineffective tool for the truly disadvantaged, and marginally beneficial for the minority working class.

So again, why is affirmative action still used to discriminate against white students? It is a matter of politics.

If a lie is said often enough, it will become the truth when left unchallenged. Affirmative action is the new slavery. It is the new second-tier of citizenship, where fear, smear and misrepresentation is used in the black community to convince followers of democrat machine promises that affirmative action will help poor and low income blacks up the ladder of success.

Yet black mothers and fathers should seriously consider this. When was the last time you saw a white person stand in front of your child in school to keep him from learning? When was the last time you saw a white person stand in front of your child and told him to commit a crime? When was the last time that you saw a white person stand in front of your child and told him not to study, not to get good grades, not to try harder, not to do better, not to be better and not to succeed?

Abigail Fisher, in Texas does not keep your child from excelling in school. Abigail Fisher’s parents and parents like them in Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Wisconsin, South Carolina, or any other state are not keeping your child from learning, from achieving from realizing the American Dream. So why are you letting Affirmative Action and its discriminatory use block Abigail Fisher’s opportunity at the American Dream?

Unions, and democrat machines in Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, Los Angeles, New York, Atlanta, and many other major cities, have hoodwinked blacks and minorities into believing that whites are maintaining discriminatory practices that keep their families, their children, and their educational systems and children shackled to poverty, high school dropout rates, crime and sky rocketing illegitimate births.

These insidious notions must end.

Affirmative Action is and to a large part will always be a tool that is used to create a divide between whites, blacks and other minorities. Democrats, poverty pimps, and so called civil rights activists and organizations use affirmative action to skim millions of dollars from guilt-ridden white liberals who want to “do the right thing” because the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of America have raised the “slavery” boogieman.

Well, Al and Jesse that tired old slavery boogieman won’t hunt any longer. No matter how many sad sack stories and anecdotes that you drum up, white people and black people and Americans period, will reject this emotion driven discrimination.

The U.S. Supreme Court must come to the only conclusion that makes moral, logical and principled sense and bring about a game change to Supreme Court Justice O’ Connor’s decision 2003. When will Affirmative Action end? It cannot be put off 14 more years, 4 more years or even one more year.

It must end here with this court and it must ends now, so that the legacy of slavery and white guilt can die together and America can become one United States, and one nation under God.

Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy, so that America will let true colorblind freedom ring and the nation can become truly and completely free at last.

Let me know what you think – ( Click )

Failing School–But White Students Can’t Transfer

Failed Test

A school in Louisiana received a failing performance score this year. Last month, parents of children at Rayville Elementary School were sent an informational letter which said that ‘eligible’ students could request a transfer to a better performing school.

The term ‘Eligible’ was not based on location, student scores, or any other common sense requirement. Instead the letter stated that students who were white were not eligible to transfer.

Included in the letter was the following statement:
“Please note that white students at Rayville Elementary School will not be allowed to transfer to the listed schools due to the present provisions issued in the federal Richland Parish School desegregation case.”

According to the Huffington Post: The desegregation case refers to a 1968 court decision that prohibits white students from leaving a school if their departure would cause a shift in minority enrollment. if their departure could cause the school to be considered “all-Negro.”  WALTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION  1968

Though the desegregation effort was meant as a means to include minority students in predominately white schools parents are asking if this same ruling is now causing reverse discrimination.

The Sacred Cow of Racism

Racism sucksHonest discussions on issues of race are as scarce as hen’s teeth. Reporters and pundits are usually too afraid to speak on any issue that might be connected to race, unless it is to label someone a racist. Concerning racist language, I do not believe anyone should intentionally slander or use hurtful words against another race, culture, gender or person. But hurtful words exist and are a part of history with numerous examples in many American literary works. The writings of Mark Twain and the poet Carl Sandburg come to mind. People today refer to the slang word “nigger” as the “N” word, afraid to actually say it within the literary context in which it may be found, thereby equating it with vulgarities and obscenities that are censored and bleeped out. I do not personally think this word should be used in a derogatory manner, BUT, to place it on the same level as vulgar and obscene four letter words that are unmentionable is ridiculous. I do not believe the word should be used in an offensive manner to denigrate and offend, but most of the ones who are crying “foul” have made a career of being offended. Vote pandering liberals and race baiting Black leaders such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have almost succeeded in having the word removed from history, literature, and classic films, labeling anyone who might use or read the word in a quote, as a white supremist, card carrying Klan member who would lynch all Blacks if only given the opportunity.

All references to race are not racist. Facts are facts and cannot be changed. According to the media, in the quest to not offend, when a murder occurs and the suspect is a Black person, then excuses may be made for his or her behavior. But if a Black person is killed by a white person, the White murderer is painted as racist. If a certain crime statistic reveals a higher percentage of Blacks or Hispanics are incarcerated as opposed to Whites, the cry “racism” is heard, yet, if the data is accurate, facts are facts. That is not racism, just factism. Truth is color blind.

A common cry from some Blacks of today is that of victimization. They are “victims” in a White man’s world. The truth is, they really have been victimized…..by White and Black liberals. Liberals who claim to be for the little guy, the poor and the minorities, have actually created a slave system of government dependency, thereby robbing these groups of the liberty to be all they can be, discovering their untapped potential. They have been successful in hypnotizing many Blacks, including Black ministers, into believing they cannot make it on their own and their economic salvation lies in the Democrat party and the promises of self appointed Black saviors. But the tide is turning and there is a growth in conservatism among Blacks today, as they throw off the man made shackles, reject government socialism, accept responsibility and begin to think for themselves. Until more Blacks take this step, they will remain in the racist world of Jesse Jackson.

Does any of this mean there is no such thing as racism? Certainly not. Racism is still an ugly part of humanity, and is probably as old as the human race. Real racism is wrong. There is a test which can be used to determine if you are racist. For instance, if you believe any individual is going to act a certain way or be predisposed to do certain things simply because of their color of skin or ethnicity, then you are a racist. If you think someone is more likely to be lazy, steal, be immoral, etc. simply because they are of a certain race or ethnic group, then you are racist. Also, if you promote or demote anyone based on race, then you are a racist. That includes voting for or against anyone based on race. Many have shamelessly admitting to voting for Obama because he was Black. That is racism.

If a certain act, acts, lifestyle, or philosophy seem to be more prevalent in one people group than in another, then culture is the culprit, not race. For instance, a people group speaks a certain language, not because of some inward racial programming, but because of culture and geographical location. There is, however, one inward trait which is inherited by all, regardless of race, and that is depravity. Sin is inherited by all from father Adam and only ONE person ever missed inheriting sin…..Jesus Christ. And that was simply because Joseph, who was descended from Adam, was not His father. The presence of sin is the root cause of racism and bigotry in mankind and will always exist.

A common fallacy today is the assumption that racism and discrimination are the same. Everyone discriminates. I discriminate when choosing what to watch on TV, or what to view as entertainment, or who I want to spend time with. Is that wrong? I explained this one day in a college class I teach. When I got off on the issue of race and prejudice, some of the students, Black and White, began to get uncomfortable. I told the students to take notice at lunch time and watch as students left the campus to go eat at different restaurants in town. My point was that birds of a feather would flock together. Sure enough, some of the guys segregated from the girls and went together, some girls teamed up and went out with one another, and several of the Black students gathered and went out to eat together, as well as our non-traditional students (non-traditional because they are older than the younger college kids and have families) who “discriminated” against all the rest, and grouped together. Did any of these groups discriminate against any of the other groups? No. They made discriminate choices concerning who they wanted to spend time with, but did not discriminate AGAINST anyone. At gatherings, religious and secular, I have seen men gather with men to fellowship, women gather with women, and among the children, boys with boys, girls with girls, rednecks with rednecks, professionals with professionals, but you get the picture. People of similar gender or interests or backgrounds or culture, gravitate to one another. They are not shunning others, just simply choosing their comfort zone. When allowed to choose, humans, as a rule, choose to segregate with their own kind, whether by race, gender, class or socioeconomic level.

Bottom line: Talking about facts of race is not racism. Choice based on race alone is racism. All discrimination is not wrong, and mutual segregation by choice is a normal accepted practice.

Joseph Harris has been a college professor and pastor since 1987 and his writings have appeared on WND, Sword of the Lord, Intellectual Conservative, Conservative Daily News, Land of the Free, and Canada Free Press. [email protected]