The VERY Troubling Texts of “Mattrees Girl” (Emma Sulkowicz)

Emma Sulkowicz

OK, I’m assuming that everyone is pretty much aware that Columbia University coed, Emma Sulkowicz’ rape charge appears (by all accounts) to be a hoax.

It was fully investigated by Columbia and no evidence of rape was found. The NYPD also looked into the matter and found nothing of substance either.

Even more damaging were texts from Ms. Sulkowicz to her alleged “rapist” (Paul Nungesser, who is himself suing Columbia over their “creating a hostile learning environment for him”), AFTER the alleged “rape.”

Here is sampling of some of Ms. Sulkowicz’ texts;

“i’ve officially had sex with all of John Doe’ best friends,” did lotsa drugs – jk just got very drunk – well anyways – now i have an std i actually hate John Doe like if a girl is about to puke – don’t put your unprotected dick into her...I realy don’t want to be known as the girl who contracted an std because she was drunk you know? it is more his fault for fucking me unconscious – i mean i was conscious but clearly not in my right mind...i was literally blackout...like i puked all over the place.”

(http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/24/the-text-of-the-mattress-girl-lawsuit-will-shock-you/)

So there you have a nice sampling of Ms. Sulkowicz thought-process (such as it is) and her extreme difficulty in putting her thoughts together, along with her charming semi-literacy.

In court papers, Mr. Nungesser also provided a text from Ms. Sulkowicz that showed that it was Ms. Sulkowicz herself who first broached the possibility of anal sex with Nungesser, even though claims of forced anal sex were central to her claim of rape. One such text simply read, “fuck me in the but.”

Ah, a true romantic.

OK, so there’s a smattering of the texts from Ms. Sulkowicz.

Now I’ve seen dozens of articles that cast doubt on Ms. Sulkowicz claims and many that call the incident “another rape hoax,” but I want to broach another topic, to wit, Ms. Sulkowicz being completely unfit to attend Columbia University, or perhaps ANY College, due to her stunning, semi-literate ignorance.

Surely an “Ivy Leaguer” (at least someone who earned entry into such an institution) should have a better command of such basics as spelling, grammar and punctuation and putting one's thoughts together...and DON’T dare argue that “these were just text messages, hurriedly scribbled onto a phone,” because we are not only talking about how poorly constructed the messages were, but that they appear to be evidence of a very disorganized and, yes, dull-witted mind...in short, I believe they make a pretty ironclad case for the abject stupidity of Ms. Sulkowicz!

Now, the question must be asked, “Just HOW did Emma Sulkowicz find her way into this prestigious institution?”

Yes, I believe that’s a very good question and the most apparent answer would SEEM to be that she arrived there on some sort of preference (either alumni, donor, ethnic, gender-based, geographical, religious...take your pick), but it’s a fact that women have been a major, actually the THE primary beneficiaries of the preferences of “affirmative action.”

Now, I will also speculate with a virtual certainty that Ms. Sulkowicz is not the ONLY and probably far from the least qualified individual to enter Columbia under such conditions, which SHOULD send chills down your back.

But this is the end result of decades of a system that’s transformed higher education into a sort of “Wizard of Oz” styled paradigm under which the official stamp of “intellect” has been bestowed upon generations of “scarecrows”...a/k/a dolts. It’s very much as though many of the seats in our most elite Universities have been reserved for dimwits of one stripe or another, which kind of handily fits the explanation as to why our government, major corporations, etc. are in the sorry state of affairs they’re in today.

The upshot of all this may well be that not only did Ms. Sulkowicz not get raped, she and others like her have (probably unwittingly, the way she’s seemed to do most things) participated in the figurative “raping of America.”

The purveyors and supporters of “affirmative action’s preference system and segregated standards are the actual “rapISTS.”

Yes, once there was a time in America when dimwits knew their place...or were put in it.

Now they're put into elite Universities.

SEE: http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/24/the-text-of-the-mattress-girl-lawsuit-will-shock-you/

If You Think the FDNY is Ethnically Imbalanced, Take a Look at These New York City Agencies.....

TODAY, the ONLY ethnic group that is over-represented in the New York City Municipal workforce by MORE than 10% of their numbers in the city’s population is non-Latino blacks, who are 23% of NYC’s population and 36% of the city’s Municipal workforce! That’s an over-representation on the order of appx. 57% ABOVE their numbers in New York City’s population.

Merit Matters believes that people gravitate to the jobs they have an interest and aptitude for. The fact that until 2007 and over $20 MILLION spent on targeted recruitment non-Latino blacks accounted for LESS than 10% of all FDNY applicants seems to attest to that fact.

BUT IF proportionalism (“NYC’s workforce should mirror/look like NYC’s population”) is going to be the standard, than it MUST BE the standard for ALL...for ALL ethnic groups and for ALL city agencies!

By that measure the Garaufis-CCR-Vulcan Society view INSISTS on reducing the non-Latino black portion of the NYC workforce FROM its current 36% down to appx. 25%! That is what “Making NYC’s workforce look like NYC” would actually mean. While we'd rather see people gravitate to the jobs they have an interest and aptitude for, we also insist that proportionalism can't just be targeted to one agency, when the city's entire workforce is so ethnically imbalanced!

Consider that the FDNY’s uniformed firefighting force (excluding EMS and clerical/administrative staff) is 89% white, which is about  2.5X more whites than there are in NYC’s population. Overall (including EMS and clerical/administrative staff) it’s 77% white or about 2.25X as many whites as in NYC’s population.

BUT if you think that demographic is blatantly ethnically imbalanced, wait until you get a look at some of these other New York City agencies!

There are at least 7 city agencies in which a given ethnic group is over-represented by MORE than 2.5X times their numbers in NYC’s population.

The Corrections Department is 65% non-Latino black, 2.9X the number of non-Latino blacks as in the population of NYC, making it even MORE ethnically imbalanced than the FDNY is right now.

Six other New York City agencies are over 60% non-Latino black, meaning OVER 2.5X as many non-Latino blacks as there are in New York City’s population!

These are;

(*) Human Resources Administration (61% non-Latino black)

(*) Equal Employment Practices Commission (63% non-Latino black)

(*) The Department of Probation (64% non-Latino black)

(*) The Department of Homeless Services (64% non-Latino black)

(*) Administration for Children Services (67% non-Latino black)

(*) The Department of Juvenile Justice (78% non-Latino black), which holds 3.4X as many non-Latino black workers as are in New York City’s population, taking the prize as the MOST ethnically imbalanced agency in New York City!

There are at least FOUR other new York City agencies in which non-Latino blacks are appx. 2X or TWICE their numbers in New York City’s population, including the the Dept of Health and Hygiene (45%), Dept of Finance (46%), the Dept of Housing, Preservation and Development (47%) and the Parks Dept (49%).

SEE: http://www.citylimits.org/multimedia/257/new-york-city-s-agencies-by-race-ethnic-breakdown

It would certainly be much more neat and orderly IF every group were proportionally represented within each and every New York City agency, but lowering standards and barring the hiring of some groups until the numbers of others can be brought up, smacks of a kind of “Stalinist authoritarianism” that only the likes of Nicholas Garaufis could embrace.

STILL, that is the charge that the Garaufis-Vulcan Society decision makes clear – within the “zero-sum game” that is municipal Employment, the primary reason for the dirth of Asians and Hispanic workers relative to their numbers in New York City’s population, is the singular and significant OVER-representation of non-Latino blacks within the New York City workforce.

Again, there are ONLY two ethnic groups that are over-represented in the NYC Municipal workforce, non-Latino blacks and non-Latino whites. ONLY non-Latino blacks are over-represented by more than 10% of their numbers within New York City’s population!

Non-Latino whites are 35% of New York City’s population and 38% of its workforce (about 9% ABOVE their numbers in the city’s population), while non-Latino blacks are 23% of city’s the population and 36% (appx. 56% ABOVE their numbers in NYC’s population) of its Municipal workforce!

Both Asians and Hispanics are UNDER-represented in New York City’s Municipal workforce. The sizable over-representation of one ethnic group (non-Latino blacks) is the primary reason for that. Without diminishing the existing number of non-Latino blacks in New York City's Municipal workforce, there is simply no way to balance out that workforce and allow it to closely mirror New York City's population.

It certainly appears that there are a lot of New York City agencies that need monitoring, targeted recruitment and demographic scrutiny...BUT only IF “proportionalism” (“New York City’s workforce should mirror/look like New York City”) is to be the standard we adopt.

The “Compassionate Blame Game” – Scapegoating, Liberal Style

There’s a game that upper-crust (almost exclusively white) liberals love to play. They like this game so much because it allows them to feign compassion for the very group they’re insulting and demeaning, while at the very same time, scapegoating that group to “the goobers” (their not at all affectionate term for working class white ethnics).

This game is especially popular among far-Left liberals because it undermines individual achievement by undermining common standards for achievement. Do you think the Gores’, the Bush’s and the Kennedy’s got into those Ivy League schools based on competitive merit?

If so, think again.

At any rate, this game starts off with our upper-crust liberals decrying how blacks, on average, do significantly poorer on standardized tests, from the PSATs and SATs, to the LSATs and MCATs, to various civil service entrance exams and private sector job performance and aptitude exams, and coming to the non-empirical conclusion that “it must be that something’s wrong with these tests.”

Fact is, there are numerous other disparate impacts (that is disparate or differing passing rates) between ALL ethnic groups - white, black and Asian.

Caribbean-born blacks tend to do significantly better on such exams than American-born blacks, and the various and sundry ethnicities among whites and Asians all have differing passing rates, as well.

Of course that fact is rarely, if ever mentioned, as it would ruin the game.

You see, “disparate impact” theory isn’t used to posit either (A) that since there are disparities in passing rates across all ethnic lines, we should advance what is most aptly called “proportionalism,” where every group must be represented exactly to its percentage of that region’s population, NOR (B) that any specific questions on such exams are demonstrably biased. To date, NO standardized exam has seen ANY specific questions shown to be demonstrably biased against any ethnic or racial group or groups.

What is apparently “biased” and/or “racist” about all these standardized exams are the outcomes, or results themselves – to wit, significantly less blacks doing well than whites.

But the purpose of that charge seems more about amplifying the poor performance of a particular ethnic group, by highlighting that blacks, on average, do less well than most other ethnic groups, than in addressing any actual “bias” in such testing.

But such group comparisons are invidious, as standardized tests are designed to measure individual performance and are only useful in comparing individuals to one another.

When we look at the outcomes of such exams by group performance, the results are effectively meaningless, given the myriad variables involved.

Not only do random groupings exhibit significantly differing/disparate passing rates on such standardized exams, but the results of any given exam is merely a snapshot in time of the sampling groups involved and the numerous and changing variables among those groups.

For instance, in New York City, one of the reasons given for the FDNY being so predominantly white and male is that more college educated whites take that test, some take only the emergency service exams (police and fire) and when that group tests out against a smaller pool of black and Hispanic applicants, with decidedly fewer College educated applicants, the results are skewed in favor of the white applicant pool.

Is it “racist” that more College educated whites are currently taking that exam?

Is that changeable and changing group dynamic somehow either “racist” or “unfair”?

At some time down the road, when there are more College educated blacks taking such exams than some other groups, will that also be “biased” and “unfair,” and if so, why, or how so?

As an example of how misguided these group comparisons are, back in February of 2009, the Justice Department (DOJ) sent a letter to Virginia Beach, alerting that Municipality that the DOJ had determined that the Virginia Beach Police Department had “engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination” against black and Hispanics applicants.

How so?

Because the Virginia Beach Police Department gave a very basic math exam to ALL of its police recruits. In fact, the only evidence of the “discrimination” cited, were the results of those very basic math exams that were given to all Virginia Beach police recruits. Those test results showed a wide gap between the passing rates for white applicants and the passing rates for black and Hispanics.

Apparently, the DOJ didn’t like the results of those basic math exams, in which approximately 85 percent of white applicants passed the math test from 2002 to mid-2005, compared with 66% of Hispanics and 59 percent of blacks. Personally, I don’t like those results either. No test should have such high passing rates. A “test” with any group achieving an 85% pass rate is really not a “test,” at least not a valid one.

So, I guess the DOJ must’ve concluded that there must be something wrong with basic math. After all, it couldn’t be that the applicants for those specific exams, at that particular time and in that particular place, differed in their performance for other factors unrelated to race/ethnicity like, more college educated whites taking those exams compared to other groups.

No, the unspoken conclusion of the DOJ, based on those results, is apparently that blacks and Hispanics are not capable of competing equally with whites and Asians because they are less able or intelligent. THAT is the unspoken, wrong-headed and pernicious rationale behind “disparate impact” and “protected groups.”

In short, this “game” allows these upper-crust liberals to feign compassion for blacks while at the very same time calling them “hopelessly incompetent” and “less intelligent” than other groups. That’s why I call their game, “the compassionate blame game.”

What’s been at least a little surprising to me has been how many blacks have bought into this “disparate impact” viewpoint built upon the dictum of “presumed black incompetence” simply because it delivers a little short-term gain.

But as those commercials say, “Wait, there’s more,” and it gets even better! The upper-crust liberals know that these arguments in favor of “disparate impact” and “protected groups” are not only both damaging and unfair, but that they inculcate and solidify the corrosive view of “black incompetence” (blacks being innately unable to compete) among both whites and blacks!

At nearly every turn, the games playing upper-crust liberals blame those poor and working class whites for, in effect, doing better than black applicants on these exams.

The government isn’t really blamed for designing the tests...and they deserve no blame for that! After all, there’s nothing wrong or “biased” about any standardized exam.

“Fairness,” or “equal opportunity” is, in essence, having everyone held to the same set of standards. So long as the rim is 10’ for us all, the fact that someone else worked harder, practiced more, and/or was born with greater natural athletic ability does NOT make the competition “unfair.” Forcing the better athletes to wear weighted vests, certainly would be unfair, but those who hold to that are today, derided as “bigots” by those playing “the compassionate blame game.”

A favorite aspect of this game is when “the goobers” (working class whites) oppose racial preferences, segregated standards and other “remedies” pursued due to “disparate impact,” they’re predictably called “racists” and “redneck bigots” for daring to support “equality before the law” (which the concept of “protected groups” violates) and “equality of opportunity” (which requires a single, common standard equally applied to all).

In every sense this game is as much a win-win for the upper-crust liberal pseudo elites as it is a lose-lose for the poor and working class, both black and white. Since most of today’s upper-crust liberals are the scions of yesterday’s exploiters, that age’s slave traders and plantation owners. It must be uproariously amusing for that group to see their penance pawned off on those who actually fought America’s Civil War, built its railroads, bridges and roads and dug its mines...funny stuff, indeed.

And they do this while at the very same time crippling American blacks even further by adding to an already ubiquitous and perverse entitlement-dependency culture, by hanging yet another albatross around the neck of black-America by highlighting via championing that group’s trumpeted “inability to compete” – further binding them in dependence to a State that is almost completely controlled by these self-same upper-crust Liberals.

What a game!

The problem is that it’s not a game at all. It’s a very real, vicious and cynical manipulation of the populace via a deplorable “divide and conquer” strategy, that keeps those with the least power and control, at each others throats and equally unaware of their both being had, by their so-called “betters.”

New York’s Department of Education Seeks to Desegregate by ENDING a Racial Quota!

I know, what’s this world coming to?

Aren’t racial quotas and overt racial discrimination the accepted ways to assure racial “diversity” and non-discrimination?

Now I’m really confused.

It seems that back in the 1970s (1974 to be exact), in a case called Hart vs. Community School Board, a judge ruled that a NYC public school board had deliberately zoned out white students from the Mark Twain Intermediate School on Coney Island, leaving the school almost entirely attended by minorities.

Well, times change and today the Mark Twain Academy is, according to Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, “a racially mixed, highly-sought-after, excellent school.”

He's asking the courts to terminate the racial quota ordered in 1974, that mandates that 60% of the school’s seats must go to white students, for this school and others, in an attempt to make race a non-issue in admissions.

The story came to light because of a story last June about a young girl of Indian descent (Nikita Rau), denied admission to the Mark Twain Academy because of this quota. Her test scores were higher than the standard used to admit white students, but lower for that used to admit minorities (now, mostly Asian and East Indian students).

Wow! What a refreshing concept!

That RACE “should NOT be a NON-ISSUE in admissions.”

You’d think that would just be common sense, but I guess too many people still have a vested interest in perpetuating this racial spoils system.

Am I Officially “Famous” Now?

.
.

Seems I missed this, but the folks at DiversityInc have track-backed to one of my articles about race/gender-preferences.

WhoooooHooooo!

Does that make me “officially famous,” now?

I hope not, because I don’t feel famous. In fact, if this is how “famous” feels, I kinda feel ripped off.

Anyway, here’s the DiversityInc article by Jennifer Millman;


The Hot News About Affirmative Action


By Jennifer Millman


What's next for Michigan? Affirmative action—yes or no? Did Gerald Ford really support civil rights? This week's top affirmative-action news has bloggers asking these questions and more. What are they saying? Like most things, it depends on whom you ask.

What's Next for Michigan?

What happened? A federal court ordered Michigan universities to stop using affirmative action immediately, lifting a six-month injunction of the voter-approved ban imposed by a lower court. One pro-affirmative-action group says it will appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, but skeptics say their case won't hold ground.

What's in the blogs? Many bloggers support the federal court's decision, citing the 58 percent majority of Michigan voters (most of whom were white) who approved the affirmative-action ban. One blogger submits it would be hypocritical to allow the injunction, quoting the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, which another blogger claims is "the real hypocrisy." Read more.

JMK, a self-professed "working-class conservative" and FDNY firefighter, mocks Michigan universities' efforts to delay the affirmative-action ban. He says the primary problem with affirmative action is it's rooted in "presumed incompetence," which he believes is racism in its purest form. Read more.

Affirmative Action: Yes or No?

What happened? Long-time affirmative-action foe Ward Connerly recently was invited to speak before Wisconsin's special legislative committee on affirmative action, which has intensified national debate over its utility.

What's in the blogs? Inviting Ward Connerly to speak at an affirmative-action hearing is like asking a KKK Grand Wizard to speak before a committee on race relations, opines Joel McNally. He claims the United States was founded on affirmative action for whites, albeit not federalized, and cites President Bush as a beneficiary. Read more.

Did anything positive come of Connerly's visit to Wisconsin? Not only does one blogger say yes, he calls Connerly's appearance a "stroke of good fortune." Why? In a sarcastic invective condemning a pro-affirmative-action Wisconsin representative, Dan Kenitz calls for an end to "racial preferences." Why? Because "separate means unequal." Read more.

Another blogger denounces the anti-affirmative-action movement as a thinly veiled attempt to sustain white supremacy. While Connerly substantiates his efforts by espousing concern for "reverse discrimination," this blogger catches him on a vital point. There's no evidence, and Connerly knows it. Read more.

As James Collier points out in his blog Acting White, affirmative-action programs are needed to remedy past discrimination, but the negative press surrounding the term sets its beneficiaries up to fail. Read more.

Gerald Ford and Civil Rights

What happened? Everyone remembers Gerald Ford as the only president never elected, the man who helped the nation recover after Watergate and withdrew the last troops from Vietnam. Where did Ford stand on civil rights? He's an affirmative-action supporter who opposed busing to achieve school integration. (See also: Affirmative-Action Supporter Gerald Ford Dies at 93)

What's in the blogs? Some bloggers are wondering how he aligned these contradictory viewpoints, while others argue they're not contradictory at all. Affirmative-action foes blame the "left wing" for attempting to frame Ford's legacy around civil rights—a subject they claim was a minimal priority on his presidential agenda.

One blogger writes, "The American dream was never intended for black people to enjoy, and Ford maintained the status quo by approving initiatives that benefited white people, and kept white privilege alive." Read more.

Jeffrey Toobin, an Amherst Times writer, reminds the public that Ford was responsible for the amicus brief submitted by retired military officers in the 2003 University of Michigan cases—prose from which Sandra Day O'Connor adopted in her majority decision. This writer claims this brief, which Ford set in motion, may have been the most influential in the history of the Supreme Court.


http://www.diversityinc.com/public/1119print.cfm


Man, it pays to be famous....it don't pay much, but it pays!

The Corrosive Impact of Race-based Preferences in Living Color

Nikita Rau (pictured), a precocious 11 y/o of Indian descent has been denied entrance into an elite NYC public school because of her race.

"I feel bad because I would have gotten in if I was white," said Nikita, and she’s right. Nikita took an entrance exam to get into Mark Twain Middle School IS 239, a magnet school for gifted students and scored and scored a 7Unfortunately due to a 18 974 Consent Decree, which ordered the school’s “desegregation,” 40% of the seats were reserved for minorities and 60% for whites.

In May, the Education Department sent her parents a letter that said Nikita was not accepted - even though white students who scored lower on the same test were admitted.

School officials told the Raus that because Nikita is classified as a minority, she would need to score at least 84.4 to be accepted, while white students needed to score 77 or more.

Her mom, Dr. Kanchan Rau, said that when she discussed the disparate treatment with Schools Regional Enrollment Director Paul Helfman, "he said, 'I agree with you: It's not right; it's not fair - but there's nothing I can do.' "

Kanchan Rau said Nikita reacted with "surprise and shock" after being told her skin color was keeping her out of the school.

Good NEWS on the MCRI Front!

Jennifer Gratz (pictured left) has posted that the 6th Circuit Court lifted the preliminary injunction against Proposition-2 in Michigan – the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, so Prop-2 will go into effect immediately!


“An update on the legal front...this evening (about 3 hours ago) the 6th Circuit lifted the preliminary injunction — which means Proposal 2 will be implemented immediately.”

“The decision also debunks many of the claims made by BAMN, the ACLU, the NAACP, the Universities, etc. The decision can be read here:”


http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0476p-06.pdf

Race Hustlers Fight for Special Preferences for Blacks in Michigan, While Openly Endorsing White Supremacy

Michigan’s State Universities and it’s Governor Challenge the Will of the People of Michigan (their bosses) in Court!

The Michigan Citizen breathlessly reports, “Civil rights advocates are optimistic that the voter-approved affirmative action ban will eventually be completely rescinded. To delay the implementation of Proposal 2 at three major state universities is considered a win.

“I think this is a tremendous victory,” said George Washington, attorney for the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action By Any Means Necessary (BAMN). “Now we must mobilize to win a stay for the rest of the year and every year afterwards. We have an excellent chance of winning our lawsuit against this racist law.”

According to Mr. Washington, attorney for BAMN, “Proposal 2 created discrimination at the heart of the political process,” he said. “A veteran, a resident, an alumni, a son of a congressman or a university administrator can still get preferential treatment at the universities, but the only people who cannot are Blacks, Latinos and other minorities, and women.”

As John Rosenberg of Discriminations (http://www.discriminations.us/) points out, “By BAMN logic, a “veteran, a resident, an alumni, a son of a congressman or a university administrator” could all be excluded from or denied benefits of or be subject to discrimination under some educational program receiving federal assistance without running afoul of Title VI. Title VI, in this twisted view, affirmatively encourages discrimination against everyone except a small subset of people who are protected because of their specially protected “race, color, or national origin.” ”

There is nothing more "racist" (and I hate using that word) than presuming incompetence on the part of another.

Sadly, it is the essence of the white Liberal or "do-gooder." It's why those folks tend to see their ilk (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry, etc) as "erudite elites" and Conservatives from Dan Quayle to G W Bush as stumbling, bumbling imbeciles, who aren't as "enlightened" as they are.

Of course, these folks are actually pseudo-elites. Al Gore, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry all did far worse in College than did G W Bush.

Carter was a bright man, with absolutely no common sense and Bill Clinton was another bright man, who'd come up from poverty, but never developed a conscience in his travels.

Still, Clinton, at least had the common sense to be a pragmatist. He headed the DLC that tried to move the Democratic Party t the Right (back toward the center) and he signed onto 7 of the 10 planks of Gingrich's "Contract With America."

But back to preferences and presumed incompetence - when I first got on the FDNY (back in March of 1986), I worked with a black Battalion Chief named Reggie Julius (a real great guy, who'd worked with my Dad in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn back in the "war years" - the late sixties and early seventies, when ONE THIRD of the buildings in NYC burned down).

Chief Julius was not only a very bright guy, but he was a real character as well and he had a real problem with race and gender based preferences.

At that time, I'd met few blacks who opposed such things and was curious, so one day I asked him about it, and his response was, "Every time I walk into a room, I KNOW most of the people in there think I was given these stars (Battalion Chiefs wear two gold stars, one on each collar) and it pisses me off cause I was never given nuthin and never asked to be given nuthin by anybody. I scored at the top of every exam list on every test I took and I resent people assuming I didn't, but that's the stigma that quotas put on us - people just assume every black person is unable to compete."

Chief Julius had real self pride, not "ethnic pride," nobody ever "earned" their ethnicity, he was rightfully proud of the person he forged himself into being.

I think the thing that Chief Julious and other blacks who oppose preferences really understand is that there is no more tacit an endorsement of white supremacy than accepting race/gender-based preferences as necessary, as it endorses black incompetence and thus white supremacy.

In that regard, the real "white supremacists" are those who support race/gender-based preferences and the blacks who support them are the ones who've accepted white supremacy/black incompetence as reality.

It's NOT reality.

It's a false reality, partially enhanced by the stigma that so-good whites have heaped on those they claim they want to help.

The problem with "helpers" is that you're always looking down to those you help and unless you do a lot of self reflection, you can easily slip into feeling "better than" others.

That's probably why so much harm has been done in the name of "good intentions."

Education is access to knowledge and knowledge is a form of wealth and like any form of wealth, you can only get out of it, what you are able to put in.

That's why there are people like Bill Gates and others who've used knowledge effectively even though they've dropped out of College and why so many Lottery winners quickly wind up bankrupt after a few years - they're not prepared to leverage that money to earn them even more money, or to "grow their assets."

Even the premise that ethnic diversity holds some sort of mythical positive value is flawed, to say the least. In point of fact, ethnic diversity is value-neutral - that is, it has neither a positive nor a negative value.

Japan and Iceland do incredibly well with their homogeneous (non-diverse) populations, and places like Britain and France are now suffering with increasing diversity, albeit the root cause of those nation's problem seems to be an increasing Muslim population, not mere ethnic diversity.

Self-segregation is a fact of life.

I dealt with it in College, where the bulk of both blacks & whites CHOSE to sit together in class and in the cafeteria. I was one of two white players on the basketball team and saw this first-hand - sometimes members of the team would sit together and other times, they went their own ways.

Again, the problem with the very premise of race/gender preferences is the presumed incompetence it is rooted in.

Given that there is no such thing as "test bias," (there isn't), as Thomas Sowell has shown that the area with the greatest ethnic variance on such standardized exams, isn't the verbal section, as most would think, but the math section and in math, as Dr. Sowell notes, "Numbers are the same in the inner city, as they are in the suburbs," so the ONLY rationalization for race/gender preferences is the presumed incompetence of those groups who are deemed to require such preferences.

Are "donor," "alumni" and "geographic" preferences equally wrong?

Of course, in my view they are, though for different reasons - donor & alumni preferences amount to an illicit quid pro quo that shouldn't exist in the admissions process, while geographic preferences are themselves rooted in the fallacy that "geographic diversity" holds some mythic value that it quantifiably does not, as it too, is value neutral.

The fact is that most blacks prefer to live among other blacks, most whites among other whites and Hispanics among Hispanics. It may well be a false comfort, but for many, it is a comforting factor none-the-less.

It is probably why some blacks vehemently opposed the gentrification of Harlem and Bill Clinton opening an office up there almost ten years ago. They saw Harlem as "their community," and didn't want it changed.

Since Harlem has been "gentrified" many blacks have moved out, though some would say "they were forced out due to rising rents, etc.," it's just as true that many of them reacted the same way that many whites do when a white area becomes predominantly black or Hispanic - there's a sense of "not belonging," that comes with that and that is what many of the blacks who've left Harlem have articulated.

Choice, even short-sighted choice doesn't necessarily make one a bigot, because while bigotry is malevolent, such personal choices usually aren't. For instance, to a white male who is attracted to black women, a black women asserting that she's only interested in dating black males, might seem "prejudicial," if only because it impacts him negatively, but that woman certainly and without question has a basic right to date whomever she pleases, doesn't she?

Indeed, I can't imagine anyone denying that she has a basic human right to be discriminating in her own tastes. We ALL do, and we exercise such "discrimination" when choosing the color of our car, or the walls of our home, or our favorite foods...and yes, often when we choose our friends.

In fact, that's why preferences on standardized exams are not only wrong, but patently absurd. So long as the same exam is given to everyone, the rim is the same 10' for us all.

Now, if one were to argue that the jobs that DON'T rely on any standardized criteria and rely entirely upon the subjective "interview process," then I'd agree that THAT system relies on too many subjective, non-standardized criteria to be considered "fair." An interviewer black or white, may subconcsciously have an aversion to a candidate of a different background. I've always felt that such interviews should be vocoded (so you couldn't tell if its a man or woman by voice) and in a sort of Confessional box, where you couldn't see anything bu the interviewee's silhouette, ideally, in my view, most jobs should be filled via some objective, quantifiable standards, ideally some form of standardized exam.

Bottom line, any and all race/gender preferences violate both equal access to opportunity, as well as equality before the law. Of that, there is no question, for to give a preference to one ethnic group or gender is to deny that same preference (access to opportunity) and indeed inflict a barrier upon another.

The very idea of ethnic preferences spits in the face of the most basic principles this country was founded upon.



UPDATE:

In a recent development U.S. District Court judge David Lawson has barred intervention in the case by Ward Connerly and Jennifer Gratz, as the 6th Circuit Court has ordered an expedited briefing on Judge Lawson’s order enjoining Proposition 2.

It’s astounding that a federal judge doesn’t understand that a Constitutional Amendment that passed with nearly 60% of the popular vote, that bars race based preferences would even delay that law’s implementation.

trackback: http://www.discriminations.us/

trackback: http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/12/29/more-michigan/trackback/