Amerika

In theory, affirmative action means hiring qualified minority candidates. In reality it means that if a minority candidate and White candidate walk in the door, you hire the minority candidate because if you do not, you can be sued, investigated, fired, or otherwise hassled for presumed “racism.”

To keep affirmative action working, the courts invented disparate impact. This means that even if you do not have a policy of hiring non-Whites, if you are not hiring roughly the amount of them that are around you, you are presumed to be declining to hire them because you are a “racist.”

The same thing applies to education. In a desperate attempt to look non-“racist,” higher education admissions departments skewed the entrance requirements for minorities. With lower test scores and grades, minorities can gain access to the highest schools in the land.

Not surprisingly, Harvard — for example — has reduced its White student population to less than three-fifths of its student body in the name of racial equality:

Of respondents who answered a question asking about their ethnicity, 46 percent said they are white, 18.1 percent of surveyed students identified as Asian, 14.3 percent as multiracial, 10.7 percent as Black or African American, 6.5 percent as Hispanic or Latino, 3.8 percent as South Asian, 0.6 percent as American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0.1 percent as Pacific Islander. That makes a total of 51 percent of respondents who identified as non-white.

Keep in mind that “white” here includes groups who are not traditionally viewed as White, like some Hispanics and Jews. The percentage of the founding group of ethnic Western Europeans — English, Scots, north German, Dutch, Scandinavian, northern French — may have fallen to as low as a fifth of the class.

This occurs in a country which is majority White despite the best efforts to ethnically cleanse them:

The most prevalent racial or ethnic group for the United States was the White alone non-Hispanic population at 57.8%. This decreased from 63.7% in 2010.

This means that at Harvard, there are fewer Whites than in the general population. This shows us what affirmative action does: out of fear of being “racist,” sort of like the police in Rotherham, UK, admissions offices overzealously admit non-White candidates and exclude Whites.

Affirmative action works the same way everywhere it is tried, even with informal quota systems like in the UK. It replaces the majority with minorities and in the process, creates a system based on racial identity instead of competence.

It should surprise no one that the “Deep State” leans to the Left, since it is also disproportionately non-White:

Governmentwide, participation rates for 9 out of the 14 race-by-sex groups were higher than their rates in the 2018 civilian labor force (CLF). The exceptions were Hispanic/Latino males (6.2% vs. 6.8% in the CLF), Hispanic/Latina females (4.4% vs. 6.2% in the CLF), White females (22.5% vs. 31.8% in the CLF), men of Two or More Races (0.6% vs. 1.0% in the CLF), and women of Two or More Races (0.5% vs. 1.1% in the CLF).

White males continued to comprise most of the Senior Executive Service (52.7% of those in Senior Executive Service positions in 2019).

Over the course of the affirmative action project, the competence of students as measured by SAT testing has declined. SATs, while they test mostly material from the first half of high school, are paced competitively to test recall and speed of thinking, making them a proxy for IQ tests.

The first burst of diversity in the 1960s savaged SAT scores in the following decade, but eventually affirmative action came around and savaged scores even further:

The high-school class of 2006 suffered the biggest drop in SAT scores in more than three decades — a development that may raise more questions about the recently revamped exam than the students who took it.

The College Board, the New York nonprofit that gives the admissions test, says scores in critical reading — formerly known as verbal — fell by five points to 503, out of 800 possible points. Math scores slipped two points, to 518, also out of 800 points. The combined decrease of seven points is the biggest since 1975, when there was a 16-point drop. Overall, math scores had been rising in the past decade, while reading has been relatively flat; there have been occasional small declines in either or both scores.

Students from families with annually earnings of over $100,000 — presumably best able to afford prep courses — had a 5-point decline in critical reading; students from families earning under $10,000 had a 3-point gain. While black and Mexican-American students had average reading gains of 1 point, average scores for whites dropped by 5. The SAT was redesigned in part to reduce the impact of socio-economic issues on test takers.

They made the test simpler for newcomers but in doing so, baffled the White kids a bit more, probably because these new “unbiased” questions were alien to them. In addition, as usual, a lot of the “white” kids were not White, being instead of mixed parentage from fallen empires in Eastern, Irish, Southern, and Mediterranean Europe.

Language skills fell the hardest. As the diversity experiment gained steam under the Obama years, scores fell even further:

Reading scores on the SAT for the high school class of 2012 reached a four-decade low, putting a punctuation mark on a gradual decline in the ability of college-bound teens to read passages and answer questions about sentence structure, vocabulary and meaning on the college entrance exam.

Many experts attribute the continued decline to record numbers of students taking the test, including about one-quarter from low-income backgrounds. There are many factors that can affect how well a student scores on the SAT, but few are as strongly correlated as family income.

Scores among every racial group except for those of Asian descent declined from 2006 levels. A majority of test takers — 57 percent — did not score high enough to indicate likely success in college, according to the College Board, the organization that administers the test.

In order to make college inclusive, we dumbed it down to the apocalypse point. Asians continue to surge ahead because owing to cultural values, they tend to systematically study for every test they encounter, and therefore get a significant boost over those who come in blind or with minimal preparation.

During the time of affirmative action in education, it became an industry. Voters saw that college students earned more and mistakenly assumed that, since people are presumed to be “equal,” college was a magic bullet to end poverty. Government loans and grants followed, as did bringing more low-income and minority students into colleges.

The result has been a steadily decreasing value of college since it no longer certifies anything that another four years of high school would not have. As a result, a college degree no longer serves as a proxy to find the higher intelligence, diligence, and endurance students who make high performers at future careers.

Affirmative action, like other civil rights (“human rights” in an international context) initiatives, was designed to end the “race problem” in America by granting government the power to enforce equality. This was achieved through the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which, since it was unconstitutional, was later made into the Fourteenth Amendment.

The 14A was passed over the veto by President Johnson, who saw it as extreme centralization:

President Johnson disagreed with the level of federal intervention implied by the legislation, calling it “another step, or rather a stride, toward centralization and the concentration of all legislative power in the national Government” in his veto message.

His words turned out to be prophecy. The original Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was later made into the 14A to get around its blatant clashes with the Bill of Rights, was presented as the opposite of what it would become: entry of the government into all matters public or private to enforce “equality,” creating the centralized powerful federal government of today.

The 14A only passed by the exclusion of senators and finally, the use of military force to compel its adoption:

The congressional majority used the Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867, passed over President Johnson’s veto just before the expiration of the Thirty-ninth Congress and slightly amended by the Fortieth Congress later the same month, to force the southern states to approve the amendment. The act, as amended, began with a declaration that “no legal state governments” existed in the ten “rebel” states that had refused to ratify. It divided the South into five military districts and replaced the existing governmental structures with martial law. The act required the “rebel” states to call elections, in which black males could vote, but whites who had participated in the rebellion or given aid and comfort to rebels could not. Thus the states would elect delegates to conventions that were to establish constitutions that included provisions for black suffrage. When the constitutions were ratified by a majority of the eligible voters and approved by Congress, when governments were organized under them, and when those governments ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, then-and only then-would Congress consider ending military rule, recognizing the state governments as legally existent and readmitting the states to representation in Congress.

As usual, the corruption of democracy was present in the intent of establishing federal control:

Unsurprisingly the Southern states initially declined to ratify the amendment. Perhaps the Florida legislature spoke for the entire South by replying, “Beyond the Post Office, our people derive no benefit from our existence as a State in the Union. We are denied representation…[and] at the same time subject to the most onerous taxation [and] the civil law of [our] state is only enforced when it meets the approval of the local [military] commanders.” Among the applicable taxes was one on cotton that approximated 20% of the commodity’s market value. There was no similar tax on the products of any Northern state. Revenues from the cotton tax were almost three times larger than all the monies invested in the Freedman’s Bureau during the Bureau’s entire existence.

To cure a civil war which the North said was about race and the South believed was about independence from control by the industrial cities of the North, our government reversed its founding ideas and dominated the states by excluding from the decision anyone who might oppose it (a parallel to postmodern “deplatforming”).

Fraud vitiates everything. The 14A was never legitimate, nor was the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which makes all subsequent civil rights acts fraudulent as well. The legal basis of affirmative action comes from these acts and must be considered dubious by the same token.

Had the voters been awake, they would have demanded repeal of this amendment in the same way they repealed Prohibition, but the voters slept, content with thinking that local law would keep the beast of a federal government with a Leftist motivation toward equality at bay.

Centuries on, and this law has become a disaster simply because no one will gather up the strength to repeal it. If affirmative action falls, it is the first brick in a wall that must come tumbling down if we are to retain first world levels of function as a nation.

Tags: 14A, affirmative action, civil rights act of 1866