Race Pimp Kids Grow Up To Be Race Pimp Admissions Officers





One feature of Donald Trump’s rallies has always been his music selection. He always ends with The Rolling Stones “You can’t always get what you want.” It’s really the perfect counterweight to all the things liberals stand for.

Liberals believe in social engineering. They believe in starting with an outcome, and engineering a plan to make that outcome become true. They believe you can always get what you want. Especially in education, opportunity, and economic status, liberals believe that we can guarantee that diversity of skin color, racial heritage, ancestry, and parentage can be plotted in a standard deviation curve, and with the right tinkering, these results can be made to happen.

They’ve been tinkering for 50 years. We’ve yet to see ourselves get any closer to the planned outcomes, although we do have schools seeking a return to segregation and persecution based on race.

The problem here is that kids who grow up on race identity become adults who live their lives according to race identity. The college kid who got in because he checked the right boxes becomes the admissions officer responsible for ensuring the results fit the curve.

Though they try, they fail–in schools, and in business.

Google’s diversity fail

James Damore has a Harvard Ph.D. in biology. He wrote about physical, biological differences between men and women, by way of explaining why men fill more  technical positions at Google. He was fired under the guise of advancing “damaging stereotypes.” They paid Damore to know more about these things than Google executives know, and then fired him when he used that knowledge against them.

Google spent $265 million on diversity, and for their efforts, they have zero Latino executives, a 0 percent gain in the number of female employees from 2013 to 2016 (29 percent), and a 5 percent gain in women in leadership positions (from 8 to 13 percent). That’s dismal if you’re programming to a bell curve. Damore wrote about the bankruptcy of that approach, and the tyranny of forcing all hires to believe in it, and they canned him.



Rod Dreher wrote about liberals and their obsession with privilege, bias and skews.

I would not want my children working for Google. I would not want my sons to be subject to that kind of ritual defamation and professional ruin for expressing the “wrong” opinions. And I would not want my daughter to have the kind of power over her coworkers that women do in the identity-liberal culture of Google. I want all my kids to work for employers that care about justice in the workplace, but do so within a context that — as James Damore suggested in his memo — treats employees as individuals.

What’s a “new Jew” worth?

Liberals have become race pimps in their search for a Holy Grail of diversity–some secret formula that counteracts the pernicious effects of privilege. The privilege of skin color; of growing up in a two-parent household; of having parents who value education and learning; of being part of a culture that values family and achievement.

Daniel Golden became so blissfully unaware of his own racism that he wrote in a book about Asians and affirmative action (The Price of Admission, 2006), that he stumbled in a ProPublica piece into anti-white, anti-Semitism.

In my book, I described Asian Americans as “the new Jews.” Like Jews before the 1960s, whose Ivy League enrollment was restricted by quotas, Asian Americans are overrepresented at selective colleges compared with their U.S. population, but are shortchanged relative to their academic performance.

In the paragraph immediately preceding that, he skewered Jared Kushner, an orthodox Jew, as a “poster boy” for the practice of displacing “more deserving candidates from other backgrounds, including Asian Americans and middle-class whites, without achieving the goals of affirmative action, such as diversity and redressing historical discrimination.”

I strain to contain my eyes lest they roll out of their sockets at such prideful claimed omniscience. Apparently, an “old Jew” is worth less than a “new Jew.”

The best way to redress historical discrimination is to give the discriminated class a way up without placing them in direct competition with those who are already at the pinnacle of the educational system in elite schools. Didn’t Golden learn anything at all from Jewish, Irish, and Italian immigrants who came to America with nothing, faced discrimination of all kinds, and through generational change finally achieved a result?

In other words: it’s okay to learn to be a plumber, or machinist, or welder if your father was a fruit peddler. Not every child of a blue-collar worker can (or should) go to Yale.

You can’t always get what you want.

And now, even high schools are getting into the race pimp act. A Virginia school sent this letter to parents:

“Through our collective work, advanced classes such as AP and Honors will have proportional representation,” read the letter. “Proportional representation is 40% White, 35% Hispanic, 12% African American, 10% mixed race.”

This is the racial outcome bell curve on stilts. Why would you want to place a lower achieving Hispanic or African American in a class to compete with higher achieving kids? So they can fail and feel less worthy? Or so the entire class can become a little less “advanced”  and hold back the kids who got there by achieving standards?

Outcomes cannot be engineered, just like Google can’t force their workforce to look like the racial distribution of Santa Clara County and still be Google. No matter how much money they throw at the problem, the dice will still roll the same.

It takes generations for these changes to happen, and only when values, diversity of thought, family support systems, and playing for the long game take precedence over the shortcuts liberals are obsessed with taking.

Dead fish stink

Dreher quoted Mark Lilla’s new book The Once and Future Liberal (August 15 release):

The identity liberals’ approach to fishing is to remain on shore, yelling at the fish about the historical wrongs visited on them by the sea, and the need for aquatic life to renounce its privilege. All in the hope that the fish will collectively confess their sins and swim to shore to be netted. If that is your approach to fishing, you had better become a vegan.

That’s a kind analogy to fishing. In reality, race identity liberals would drain the lake, kill all the fish, count the number of crappie, bass, and catfish, then scoop the dead fish in proportion to their distribution into their ice chest.

But we all know that dead fish stink, and aren’t good to eat. So the liberals go to Whole Foods and buy fish, and claim they caught it. And if you point out the Whole Foods receipt to them in the Google lunchroom, you’re fired.

This post is cross-posted at The New Americana.

The Fight Against Affirmative Action Returns to the University of Texas

Close observers of U.S. Supreme Court litigation over the last five years are no doubt familiar with the trials and tribulations of one Abigail Fisher.  Miss Fisher, over the course of a lawsuit that seemed to last longer than the wait time for a kidney transplant in Toronto, sued the University of Texas at Austin over its race-conscious admissions policy and found her way up to the high Court twice.  In 2013, the supremes effectively punted on procedural grounds; just last term, in 2016, Justice Philosopher-King Anthony Kennedy disastrously held for a 4-3 Court that UT’s codified admission preferences, as applied in 2008 and factoring in race as part of a holistic determination, passed muster under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” Chief Justice Roberts memorably wrote in his plurality opinion in 2007’s Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1; alas, due to yet another Justice Kennedy catastrophe, state-sanctioned racial discrimination was to remain the official admissions policy at UT.

But perhaps not for very much longer.  The group Students for Fair Admissions (“SFFA”), led by notable conservative legal provocateur Edward Blum and having previously already led affirmative action lawsuits against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (gratuitous and tangential aside: “Go Duke” – me), has just launched a new website called UTNotFair.com.  SFFA, via UTNotFair.com, seeks to have those students who were disaffected by UT’s affirmative action policy share their stories in the hopes of eventually finding a plaintiff with whom to mount a fresh lawsuit.  Considering UT’s already-colorful history of having its affirmative action policies legally challenged and its high-profile status as the flagship institution of higher learning in the nation’s most iconic red state, such a suit would instantaneously attract national attention.

SFFA is basing the planned challenge on the fact that the 2016 Fisher case emphasized the need for UT to continually and conscientiously update its admission policies.  My fellow Texan and good friend Cory Liu, who I first met on Capitol Hill when we were legal interns for Sens. Ted Cruz (Cory) and Mike Lee (me), has recently volunteered to be SFFA’s new executive director.  Cory explained to me the theory behind wasting no time, post-Fisher, in vying to launch a fresh lawsuit against UT:

The Fisher decision [of 2016] took great pains to explain that it was narrowly limited to the admissions policy that existed when Abigail Fisher applied in 2008.  It has been almost ten years since that decision, and UT has changed its admissions policy to increase the percentage of students admitted through the holistic process that considers race.

Anti-affirmative action activists have plenty of reason to be excited about the potential legal success and symbolic heft of this new challenge.  Cory, who I have personally known for years to be passionate about this subject, put it to me this way:

My parents immigrated to Austin from China in 1987, just three years before I was born.  My mom worked at the UT cafeteria to pay her way through community college.  I grew up speaking a language other than English at home.  This is the story of millions of Asian-American families across this country.  But under UT’s racially discriminatory admissions policy, it is harder for an Asian student to be admitted than a white, black, or Hispanic student.

Naturally, Cory is right.  In fact, the extent to which Asian-Americans are severely discriminated against in the college admissions process today by affirmative action policies directly mirrors the more blatant anti-Jewish university quotas of last century.

SFFA is, of course, on the correct side of this issue.  State-sanctioned racial discrimination is here, there, and everywhere wrong and ought to be verboten—no matter how ostensibly “beneficial” the intended discrimination may be.  As Justice Clarence Thomas phrased it in his concurrence in the 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case of Adarand Constructors v. Peña:

These programs not only raise grave constitutional questions, they also undermine the moral basis of the equal protection principle.  Purchased at the price of immeasurable human suffering, the equal protection principle reflects our Nation’s understanding that such classifications ultimately have a destructive impact on the individual and our society… there can be no doubt that racial paternalism and its unintended consequences can be as poisonous and pernicious as any other form of discrimination.  So called “benign” discrimination teaches many that because of chronic and apparently immutable handicaps, minorities cannot compete with them without their patronizing indulgence.

Justice Thomas is right about the immorality of paternalistic “benign discrimination,” and my friend Cory Liu is right about the flagrantly unfair way against which contemporary Asian-American applicants are discriminated today.  State-sanctioned racial discrimination in university admissions simply must end.

I’m proud to stand with SFFA, and you should be, too.  If you know any students who have recently been disaffected by the University of Texas at Austin’s racially discriminatory admissions policy, have them visit UTNotFair.com.

The Georgia Senate Republicans Are Bringing Back Affirmative Action

How desperate are Republicans in the State Senate in Georgia? They’re bringing back affirmative action.

Seriously.

See, the Georgia Republicans in the State Senate need Democrat votes to pass their billion dollar transportation tax increase. But they need black Democrats to do it because there are enough Republicans not willing to go along for the ride. Consequently, the GOP will essentially bribe the Democrats.

They are going to ensure set asides for road projects. They will ensure a certain number of black owned businesses are able to make money off the tax payers. The chief complaint of Democrats has been that black owned construction companies are not getting their “fair share” of the projects.

The GOP will ensure that to get Democrat votes to make up for their lack of Republican votes.

They’ll then raise taxes on the public.