Skip to comments.Whatever Happened to Civil Rights?
Posted on 08/12/2002 9:16:12 PM PDT by kattracks
Does anyone remember what the civil rights movement was about? Not today. Four decades later, it is controversial if not racist to recall that the civil rights movement was about equal opportunity. People were to be hired on the basis of merit and ability alone--the best person for the job. No other factor was to play a role.
The ink was hardly dry on the 1964 Civil Rights Act before an EEOC bureaucrat, Alfred W. Blumrosen, illegally and unconstitutionally subverted the statutory purpose of the law. Judicial complicity and congressional distraction enabled Blumrosen to redefine discrimination from a purposeful action against an individual to the absence of proportional representation regardless of discriminatory intent.
Thus did Blumrosen originate the system of race and gender privileges known as quotas that are thoroughly institutionalized throughout the government, private industry, and universities. Racial quotas are so firmly entrenched that quotas prevail even in states where federal district courts have ruled against them and referendums have made them illegal.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act has been illegally enforced for 37 years. The result is a massive system of race and gender discrimination against white males in order to achieve proportional representation of racial minorities and women.
Now comes an astonishing report from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management: Annual Report to Congress, Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program, Fiscal Year 2000, released in April 2002.
This report to Congress makes brutally clear that despite the equal opportunity name of the program, the purpose of the federal program is to make certain there is no equal opportunity for whites in federal employment.
The report uses tables and bar charts to make unmistakably clear that federal discrimination against whites goes far beyond merely achieving proportional representation for blacks. In all 22 independent federal agencies and in 16 of 17 federal executive departments, blacks are massively over represented.
In the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (sic) blacks comprise 46.4 percent of the employees. The affirmative action or racial quota target for proportional representation (percent in Relevant Civilian Labor Force) for the EEOC is 6.4 percent black employees. Blacks are thus over represented in EEOC employment by 625 percent!
And the EEOC is the federal agency that is supposed to enforce equal employment opportunity.
Blacks are over represented in the National Science Foundation by 504.7 %; in the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. by 538.7 %; in the Securities and Exchange Commission by 452.1%; in the Smithsonian Institution by 452.1%, in the Federal Communications Commission by 370.1%; in the Social Security Administration by 263.5%; in the Commodity Futures Trading Commission by 375%; in the Office of Personnel Management by 286.7%; and so on.
In cabinet departments, blacks are over represented in Department of Education employment by 464.7%; in Department of Labor by 254%; in HUD by 383%; in Treasury by 176%; in Department of Justice by 106%; in Department of State by 165%; and so on.
The push is now on in the federal government to achieve comparable overrepresentation for Hispanics and females. If these two minorities achieve similar overrepresentation, there will be no room for white males in the federal government.
Did you know that the federal government pays its managers superbonuses for hiring, training, and promoting nonwhites? According to a lawsuit filed against the Secretary of Energy by DOE employees, a DOE boss, Anibal Taboas, staffed the Argonne National Laboratory with minorities, while reassigning white males to dead end jobs where they could be terminated under reduction in force polices. For this achievement, the lawsuit says Mr. Taboas received thousands of dollars in bonuses.
Note that no one in the government intervenes in behalf of white males who suffer discrimination, not President Bush, no congressional committee chairman, certainly not the Justice Department or the EEOC.
Today in the United States white people have no political representation. Whites have to struggle in the courts against government opposition to claim any resemblance to equal rights. Explicit government policies have made whites second class citizens. Whites are a dispossessed majority in their own country.
Why did the white majority allow themselves to be stripped of the equal protection clause of the Constitution? Why do whites remain loyal to the political parties that took away their rights?
What is the future for whites in a political system where both political parties pander to third world immigrants and support racial privileges for minorities? Having lost equal protection of law, what will whites lose next?
Contact Paul Craig Roberts | Read his biography
©2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Uh, the government, lawyers, and social activits were to take control of your business, subject you to review, and compell you to hire who they wanted. The civil rights movement was in reality the compulsory subjugation to social servitude movement.
I'm not sure what whites will lose next, but if it is like everything else, it will be long gone before it is even missed. Whites are less than 10% of the world, and shrinking. If there was anything worth saving, surely being labeled a racist would not dissuade them from fighting for it ...
There is nothing further Left than the idea that the Government ought to have a right to pass on private employment decisions. While under the theory of "Civil Rights," the property remains private, the Government in effect confiscates--without even a suggestion of compensation--several of the most important attributes of private property, including the right to choose with whom one would associate on one's own property, and the right to determine whom one will hire with one's own money, and accordingly for whom one is willing to be responsible under the law of respondeat superior (i.e., the empoyer being liable for the negligence or misdeeds of the employee within the scope of his employment.) [See "Civil Rights" vs. A Free Society.]
The Left has very cleverly focused public attention on the concept of whether or not certain employment attitudes are fair, rather than on the actual issue: Who is the proper party to determine the employment practices of a private enterprise--the party at risk or the State? What actually is involved is an enormous power grab, very reminiscent of the practices in Nazi Germany, where property remained "Private," even though there was a Socialist dictatorship in place; but you dared not to use your property in any way of which the regime disapproved.
Of course, when you point this out to any "Liberal," they immediately howl; not because the point is not valid, but because they cannot conceive of Hitler making the same choice of employees as would the EEOC. Yet that, of course, is not the point--not at all. The EEOC--the enforcement agency for the Civil Rights laws as pertain to employment--involves a use of Government against the individual; a use of Government, which appropriates the individual's property to the extent that the law is effective. And that is the same tyranny as the Nazis wrought. On the surface, it is a tad less onerous than the Communist confiscation. But it is very far indeed from being consistent with traditional American freedom.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site