This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion
Get The Real News Delivered To Your Inbox
A Leftist Takeover Trick
There’s an old saying that the devil accuses others of what he himself is guilty. One can easily see this play out on the national stage where Democrats and deep state Trojan horses shamelessly accuse President Trump of actual crimes that they themselves have committed. Of course, this is a just a ruse to divert attention away from their own shenanigans in the hopes that they’ll avoid exposure or prosecution. These same tricks are being pulled at every level of society and in any organization in which there is a Democrat or leftist stronghold.
Social Justice vs. Real Justice
Take, for instance, affirmative action initiatives that have influenced college admissions and the awarding of scholarships. A recent article published in the New York Post noted that certain students staged a sit-in after a teacher incited them to stage a boycott. What was the cause leading up to the ruckus? A certain white, Jewish student had a private conversation with her school counselor in which she discovered that she would be denied access to certain scholarships because she was not a member of the indicated minority groups. Overheard by another student, accusations of racism were then made against her, the one deprived of scholarships, and who had dared to voice concern.
Susan Edelman wrote in the article that “the girl told The Post that she was only seeking support for her own college plan at the time. ” Her counselors merely shared with the girl that certain scholarships were available only for minorities, many of whom were less qualified. A minority teacher incited a student boycott after hearing a minority student complain about the overheard conversation. Following the lead of a leftist teacher (the NYC Board of Ed. is filled with them), students staged a sit in, taping their mouths with black tape.
So who, in this situation, was really being silenced? Not the students staging the sit in! It was the girl who was not allowed to question why she was prohibited from receiving a scholarship because of her race. Affirmative action negates Meritocracy, encouraging the cheapening of anything it is used in.
“The Privileged One is the One Who Benefits Without Having Earned It”
Let’s use our critical thinking cap for a moment. If a student is a scholarship recipient based solely on race and not merit, someone is excluded from a scholarship grant or college admission in spite of merit. One must deduce that the privileged one is the one who benefits without having earned it. One can readily see that the child against whom accusations of racism were levied is in fact the victim of racism. In the business world, cities and agencies that implement affirmative action initiatives have been known to hire less-qualified applicants because, under the pretense of achieving diversity, they plan to change the balance and status quo.
Tipping the Balance
Roger Clegg, attorney for the Center for Equal Opportunity, wrote in his article “Why Racial Preferences Remain Wrongheaded” (Sept., 2017) that the purpose of racial preferences is to tip the balance. He noted that there’s really no reason to consider race other than the fact that it will sometimes tip the scale. Unfortunately, as Clegg noted, race is usually heavily weighted and not all those given a preference because of race are actually underprivileged. What’s more, a study cited by Clegg showed that only 14% of black students admitted came from underprivileged circumstances.
One must ask why those who are not disadvantaged receive a preference based merely on the color of their skin? To the contrary, studies have shown that students admitted solely because of Affirmative Action initiatives often find that they are not able to keep up the demands made of them (More on that later). It would be different if it was the deciding factor in equally-skilled individuals, that is seldom the case. At that point you would hardly need to consider it, in most cases Meritocracy would rule.
Who Is Disadvantaged?
“If colleges and universities want to help those who are disadvantaged, they can do so on the basis of, well, disadvantage rather than using skin color as a proxy.”
Roger Clegg, Attorney for the Center for Equal Opportunity
As Clegg noted, not every Black or Latino student is disadvantaged, and many White and Asian students are not from upper socioeconomic groups. The fact that many who design their school’s affirmative action plans based on the assumption that White or Asian children don’t need assistance is a form of discrimination. Note: In a later article I will discuss scholarships offered by universities to foreign students while declining to offer scholarships to deserving Americans, another discriminatory action.
The Civil Rights Act and Preferences
Interestingly, there’s a bigger issue here. Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits racial preferences to achieve a balance, cities and agencies frequently use the pretense of achieving a balance to hire minorities. This in spite of a lack of qualifications. One may remember when Obama pushed for the hiring of minorities in the FAA. In the December 2015 Daily Caller article titled “FAA Sued for Reverse Discrimination,” Evan Gahr wrote, “The Federal Aviation Administration and the Obama Transportation Department today were smacked with a class action race discrimination lawsuit for systematically purging highly qualified air traffic controller candidates from consideration in order to increase diversity.”
According to Gahr, Mountain States Legal Foundation President William Perry Pendley wrote that the FAA had stopped relying on a candidate’s qualifications. This implies that race is more important than the safety of the aircraft, and it follows, its passengers. Gahr continued by referencing the approximately 2000 to 3000 candidates who were rejected despite having impeccable qualifications, having passed demanding testing and who were certified by aviation programs.
All to get a more diverse body of new hires. One must also take into account that cities that create an Office of Equity will suffer the same fate when they permit a group of SJW activists to infiltrate their departments to change the racial makeup of hired employees. Hiring minorities then is based on race or ethnicity and rejects qualified applicants to achieve a “critical mass.” This continues even when the critical mass has more than been achieved.
Silencing the Victims of Social Justice
How does the left achieve its goals? By silencing any objection to the de-facto racism perpetrated against qualified non-minority applicants. Since mainstream media refuses to address the issue, conservatives that encounter the silencing of opposition voices to the left’s inroads must speak now! Everyone wants to see one’s future generations of offspring prosper! Don’t let the doors of opportunity be closed because of racial preferences!