Skip to comments.Obama, Race and Affirmative Action: Why the Second Term Will Be Worse (Part II)
Posted on 01/06/2013 9:13:35 AM PST by Kaslin
The executive branch isnt the only arena in which the Obama affirmative action crusade will be felt over the next four years. The legislative branch, too, offers manifold opportunities for mischief. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-148), or Obamacare, for example, offers a generous supply of tripwire. Section 5301, which defines criteria for federal aid to medical schools, contains a subsection, Priorities in Making Awards. It states: The Secretary [of Health and Human Services] shall give priority to qualified applicants that have a record of training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups. Section 5303, which spells out criteria for aid to schools of dentistry, contains similar language. In neither case does the law specify what constitutes a record. One thus can expect medical and dental schools to do everything possible to boost minority enrollment, including lowering admission standards, in order to stay clear of being sued. Lowering the standards among todays students almost by necessity undermines the quality of tomorrows health care professionals.
The Obama-backed Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (P.L. 111-203, or the Dodd-Frank law) also contains a cornucopia of racial favoritism. The law, among other things, gives banks a window of opportunity to escape safety and soundness requirements if they lend heavily to blacks and Hispanics, especially in neighborhoods where they predominate. An orderly liquidation of an insolvent institution, states the law, should take into account actions to avoid or mitigate potential adverse effects on low-income minority or underserved communities affected by the failure of the covered financial company. The legislation also created a Financial Stability Oversight Council, to be headed by the Treasury Secretary, which would consider a struggling financial institutions importance as a source of credit for low-income, minority or underserved communities before taking it over. The law also creates an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion within the Treasury Department, the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and other federal housing-related finance agencies.
One only can envision the opportunities for shakedowns of mortgage lenders not getting aboard the diversity express and the fearful compliance by lenders. Already, the capitulation has begun. Recently, the American Bankers Association advised its roughly 5,000 member institutions to give rejected minority loan applicants a second look. Such reconsideration, noted the ABA, can result in suggested changes in underwriting standards. Translation: Banks should be more willing to lose money on bad loans if they make them to blacks and Hispanics.
Disturbing as this expanded role for the legislative branch is, it may have an equally potent rival in the judicial branch. Any number of Obama-friendly (if not Obama-appointed) federal judges are working overtime to force racial-ethnic diversity upon for-profit and educational institutions. The affirmative action juggernaut, for example, got a huge boost last November 15 when the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, invalidated a ban on race-based admissions at the University of Michigan and other public colleges and universities in the state. By a thin 8-to-7 margin, the court ruled that the ban, approved by 58 percent of Michigan voters in a November 2006 referendum, violated the U.S. Constitutions Equal Protection Clause. With typically convoluted reasoning, Judge R. Guy Cole, writing for the majority, stated that the referendum targets a program that inures to the benefit of the minority and reorders the political process in Michigan in a way that places special burdens on racial minorities. The new arrangement, he said, undermines the equal protection clauses guarantee that all citizens ought to have equal access to the tools of political change.
In the view of Judge Cole (who is black), a race-neutral higher education admissions process somehow creates special burdens on nonwhites because of the likelihood of lower admissions rates. This sophistry, in large measure, was made possible by the unwillingness of any branch of government to challenge the doctrine of disparate impact. A silver lining: The State of Michigan plans to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, especially in light of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling this April upholding a similar ban (Proposition 209) in California.
Racial favoritism possibly got an even bigger boost in September when the City of St. Paul, Minn. unexpectedly withdrew its appeal of a February 2012 circuit court decision to U.S. Supreme Court. The case, which appeared on the Supreme Court docket as Magner v. Gallagher, grew out of an allegation that St. Pauls aggressive enforcement of its housing code had a disparate impact against minorities. A group of residential landlords, led by Thomas Gallagher, invoked the Fair Housing Act to invalidate the enforcement procedure, though not the code itself. City officials, led by Vacant Building Manager Steve Magner, moved to have the case dismissed. A district court granted the motion, arguing the code enforcement was not discriminatory. Gallagher appealed, and an Eighth Circuit Court sided with him and denied Magners request for a rehearing. Magner and other city officials in turn filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted them certiorari. But the City of St. Paul for some reason pulled out.
Some leading members of Congress believe they know why: The Department of Justice had put the squeeze on the city. A group of ranking Republican lawmakers and oversight committee chairmen sent Attorney General Holder a letter in September which stated in part: Mr. Perez fretted that a decision in the citys favor would dry up the massive mortgage lending settlements his division was obtaining by suing banks for housing discrimination based on disparate effects rather than any proof of intent to discriminate. The letter suggested the department made a quid pro quo deal: In exchange for St. Paul dropping its appeal, the DOJ would refrain from intervening in a separate $180 million suit against the City invoking the False Claims Act. Justice Department officials deny using such intimidation. A DOJ spokesperson said, The decision was appropriate and made following an examination of the relevant facts, law and policy considerations at issue.
Even if the Justice Department is truthful in letter, it is dishonest in spirit. The department, which for the next four years will be in the hands of affirmative action fanatics, has proven to be unyielding in its application of the disparate impact standard as broadly as possible. Currently the DOJ has at least five active lending discrimination suits and has opened another 30 investigations. At a Columbia University forum last February, Holder asked about affirmative action: The question is not when does it end, but when does it begin? When do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled?
In a nutshell, Holder has summarized the Obama administrations arrogance and contempt for constitutional liberty. Never mind that diversity enthusiasts regularly use intimidation to extract financial concessions from their targets under the guise of combating discrimination. Never mind as well that there might be good reasons to oppose such an approach to law. Holder insists the process barely has begun and thus must expand radically. As for his notion that people are morally entitled to the fruits of others labors by virtue of not being white (people of color), it is nothing less than a rationale for legalized theft.
Affirmative action began in earnest more than 40 years ago. And its pace is accelerating. The real question should be: When will it end? One thing is for sure: Its not going to end, or even begin to end, as long as Eric Holders employer, Barack Obama, occupies the White House. Obamas success as a presidential campaigner in 2008, if one recalls, rested heavily on his self-constructed image as a racial healer, someone who by virtue of mixed-race heritage and uplifting rhetoric could bring the nation together. But just underneath the surface was a man whose self-definition was heavily driven by his patrimonial (i.e., East African) ancestry and animosity toward whites. Even a cursory reading of his 1995 book memoir, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, reveals as much.
Obama and allied anti-white shakedown artists, from Eric Holder to Al Sharpton, see government coercion of white-managed institutions as laudable because the goal is full social equality. Unfortunately, its a goal that cant be achieved without chipping away at the foundations of liberty. And in any event, it is unachievable.
A little over 50 years ago, well before affirmative action platoons swung into action, the late Austrian economist-legal philosopher Friedrich Hayek, in his classic book, The Constitution of Liberty, foresaw the futility of this project. He wrote:
From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either the one or the other, but not both at the same time (W)here the state must use coercion for other reasons, it should treat all people alike, the desire of making people more alike in their condition cannot be accepted in a free society as a justification for further and discriminatory coercion.
This, then, is the central problem. The current administration believes that because whites as a whole are better off than nonwhites, their advantageous position necessarily must be due to illegal and immoral discrimination. Obama, Holder, Perez and other affirmative action soldiers decry any social arrangements that allow whites, even under an assumption of color-blindness, to come out ahead. They see such an outcome, by its very nature, as unfair.
This view is 180 degrees removed from the principle of rule of law. Discriminatory coercion, to use Hayeks term, is precisely what describes the Obama administrations approach to law and social policy. And it is whites, not nonwhites, who have much to lose. The mandatory diversity of Obamas first term in the White House may be an omen of a far more onerous set of mandates in the second term.
4 years ago I said ‘well we just elected the mostl iberal democrat ever- and he’s goign to destroy everythign we stand for-’ and he did destroy a lot of what we stand for, attackign religion, attackign conservativism, attacking the supreme court, attackign hte constitution... on and on it went
then about 2 years ago I said that if he gets reelected, he is goign to unleash unholy hell upon this country because the dmeocrats will realize that if they are ever goign to ram through their nation destroying ideology, this iwll be their last chance to do so, and they know their time in office is limitted- it will be a no holds barred ‘get everythign while the gettin’s good’ mentality- and htey will lien hteir pockets while draining the nation’s pockets before they get booted out of office for a good long time
But Apparently America was tied of prosperity and the American dream, so they elected the destroyer for another 4 years- but they are goign to find out just howm iserable all those europeans really are when the reality of the broken promisses finally hits them- until then though- We ARE goign to have to suffer because of the idiotic results of a generation who cares mroe abotu themselvwes than they do about tryign to secure a sound foundation for future generations
This is what happens when you allow communists to define the terms of our discourse.
Government sponsored discrimination/racism = Affirmative Action
Government approval of killing children = Choice
War against rag head mud-slimes = Overseas Contingency Operation
Government theft, by force, from producers = Fair Share
Reducing the rate of spending growth = Cuts
Belief in the Founders = Right Wing Extremists.
A criminal hate cult and cancer/blight on all of humanity = Religion of Peace
Well, I’ll do my own wordsmithing. We need a Thomas Jefferson moment in history now, as in four more years, it will be way too late and the country will be lost.
Gee Carl, what was your first clue that it would be worse!!!!?
All I’ve got to say is that if minorities can only advance if the government makes people ignore their problems, then what happens when the government is no longer there to be their protector?
I agree with what you have said, even as your frustration is evident in your presentation.
Subject: NewsFlash: FLASH The Americans With No Abilities Act
President Barack Obama and the Democratic Senate are considering sweeping legislation that will provide new benefits for many Americans. The Americans With No AbilitiesAct is being hailed as a major legislative goal by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or ambition.
"Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society," said California Sen. Barbara Boxer. "We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability (POI) to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they have some idea of what they are doing."
In a Capitol Hill press conference, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pointed to the success of the U.S. Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. At the state government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also has an excellent record of hiring Persons with No Ability (63 percent).
Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million mid-level positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance.
Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations that promote a significant number of Persons of Inability (POI) into middle-management positions, and give a tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires.
Finally, the Americans With No Abilities Act contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the non-abled, banning, for example, discriminatory interview questions such as, "Do you have any skills or experience that relate to this job?"
"As a non-abled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them," said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, Mich., due to her inability to remember righty tighty, lefty loosey. "This new law should be real good for people like me. Ill finally have job security." With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens will finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.
Said Sen. Dick Durbin: "As a senator with no abilities, I believe the same privileges that elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to every American with no abilities. It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her inadequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation and a good salary for doing so."
OK, Its a joke. But, the fact you started to believe this absurdity says a lot about the mindset of the country at this point in time!
There is nothing “affirmative” about so-called “Affirmative Action.”
It’s STATE-SANCTIONED DISCRIMINATION — which is not only hypocritical, but it’s FASCIST.
Affirmative Action allows the STATE to act as an agent of discrimination.
This is FAR, FAR MORE EVIL than random discrimination by free individuals in a society.
Imagine what his *third* term will be like. Thanks Kaslin.
[[I agree with what you have said, even as your frustration is evident in your presentation.]]
I f you mean my horrible spelling- I’ve got a neurological problem apparently (so I’m unofficially told) that causes my brain to tell my figners to type words in wrong order- you’ll note it usually only happens on certain words consistantly-
If you mean my post was angry- you’re probably right- I’m just sick to my stomach that America no longer cares- and showed howl ittle they care loud and lcear i n the last election- Our forefathers foguht and died tryign to secure our constitutional freedoms, and thsi generation is just spittign in their faces because this generation only cares abotu itself and noone else- I’m watchign htis sad transfoprmation right before my eyes- We’re even dramatically different in this decade than we were even just 20 years ago- even just 10 years ago really- We’re sinkign intto a stinkign sewer pit so rapidly that it’s almost unbeleivable that we coudl go from one of the greatest natiosn on earth to just another third world-like government subsidized dependant nation
Sorry about your neurological problem. Good luck with that and I know your heart is in the right place.
Thanks, I know it’s not pleasant reading the horrible typing, but studies at cambrige university revealed that peopel can infact read whole mispelled paragraphs without skipping a beat IF all the letters were present i nthe word, and hte words at least begin with the right letter and end with the right letter for hte most part [some words are exceptions- like ‘hte’ for instance- we automatically just read that as ‘the’])
But I do know my words get really messed up at times— I basically though just coem here to vent in an informal environment- but if our posts were actually effective in bringign about needed change i nthe world, I’d definately be much more carefukl aqnd proof read all my posts- but again, for htem ost part, this is just a site to vent in an informal manner really-
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.