From: mars1933@hotmail.com   
      
   Who's to Blame for the Affirmative Action Fiasco?   
   By Hugh Murray   
      
   Searching for employment in the late 19th century, many Irish   
   immigrants in America encountered the sign, "NINA" (No Irish Need   
   Apply). Today, their descendants face much the same discrimination. Of   
   course, now, it is not limited to the Irish - for in America men are   
   routinely denied jobs, promotions, contracts and scholarships because   
   they are of Irish, Italian, English, German or general European   
   heritage. Worse, not only is this discrimination government sponsored,   
   it is performed in the name of "Equal Opportunity." How did this come   
   about? Why do the media prefer to ignore it? Who fostered this   
   discrimination against white men?   
      
   In high school a white boy may be denied entrance into special   
   programs because he is not a preferred minority; or, in some cases, he   
   may be denied because he is not a girl. There are scholarships   
   available, but many cannot be awarded to a white male (for example,   
   Bill Gates of Microsoft was recently lauded by the media for   
   establishing a billion-dollar scholarship program - one in which   
   recipients are restricted to blacks only.) When the teen applies to   
   university, the administration will admit "basically qualified"   
   minorities, but reject better-qualified whites. When applying for   
   jobs, the same discrimination occurs. If the teen finds employment,   
   special, on-the-job training for promotion may be denied him as it is   
   reserved for minorities, even if they are lesser qualified and have   
   been on the job a shorter period of time. Once hired, he may be   
   required to attend "diversity training" sessions, in which he is   
   supposed to confess his alleged guilt of racism and sexism.   
      
   How did this systematic discrimination arise?   
      
   What did it mean to forbid discrimination? From the early days of the   
   20th century through 1964, most liberals were clear as to what this   
   meant-show no bias against or preference for a person because of his   
   race, sex, religion etc. This was the dominant view. But in the debate   
   over the civil rights bill in 1964 some opponents declared that if   
   passed, it would lead to, among other things: racial quotas and racial   
   balance in the workplace, preferences for blacks over whites in   
   employment, promotion, bank loans etc.   
      
   But, in Congress, the debate went otherwise. No senator who favored   
   the civil rights bill spoke up for quotas, "positive integration,"   
   racial balance or preferences for minorities above whites. Quite the   
   contrary.   
      
   How then did a law which promised to end discrimination by outlawing   
   discrimination against any individual, a law that promised preferences   
   for no group, which agreed to retain testing to reject unqualified   
   applicants-how was this law subverted into its opposite? Here the role   
   of Alfred Blumrosen is crucial. Blumrosen was among the zealots   
   working for the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission who did not   
   want the agency to function as created.   
      
   Alfred Blumrosen was instrumental in this and other shifts. He was a   
   professor at Rutgers University who became the EEOC's liaison chief   
   for federal, state and local agencies, and he admitted that his   
   "creative" reading of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was "contrary to   
   the plain meaning." But why worry? By 1965 when the Bank of America   
   instituted quota hiring under a euphemism, "the standard refrain of   
   the EEO bureaucracies, [was that] affirmative action [AA] had nothing   
   to do with racial quotas. That was illegal." Unfortunately, that   
   deceptive refrain is still heard today.   
      
   The goal of Sonia Pressman, another ideologue in the EEOC, was "to   
   document large disparities in employment patterns, [so] that   
   discriminatory intent might legally be inferred." ...the EEOC sought   
   to impose quotas while not calling them such because quotas were   
   clearly illegal. The agency sought to break the law.   
      
   Blumrosen and Pressman pushed the EEOC to defy the Civil Rights Act of   
   1964 by imposing quotas, demanding racial balance in the workplace and   
   giving preferences to blacks over whites. Essential to the Blumrosen-   
   Pressman campaign was the collection of statistics to show "disparate   
   impact," how minorities were underutilized, employed in a smaller   
   proportion in various occupations to their numbers in the general   
   population.   
      
   Blumrosen was set upon "selectively enforcing" the civil rights act by   
   using disparate impact theory and proportional representation only   
   when it affected others. (More accurately, Blumrosen was "selectively   
   malenforcing" the civil rights law, imposing quotas for   
   underrepresented blacks, using quotas to curb whites; for women,   
   against men; but never for gentiles and against Jews.)   
      
   Of course, had the EEOC sought to restrict Jews as it has white men,   
   the storm of protest would have cast "disparate impact" theory into   
   the dustbin of history. Thus, the role of Blumrosen and his allies in   
   the media, academia etc., was to create a false target - the   
   "overrepresented," "privileged" and "oppressive" white male. According   
   to the EEOC, the statistics proved just that. However, the statistics   
   proved otherwise. The partial statistics used by Blumrosen were simply   
   the effort to deflect criticism to another group instead of the one   
   most overrepresented, privileged and oppressive - his own.   
      
   By not asking the religious question on the EEOC questionnaires, the   
   EEOC created a scapegoat of the white male. Once smeared as   
   "privileged" and "oppressive," the non-privileged, working-class and   
   poor whites began to pay the price for the "moral" system of   
   affirmative action by being legally discriminated against and denied   
   equal opportunity.   
      
   The proportional test, the liberals' test of all tests, when applied   
   to the religious clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, shows Jews to   
   be the most privileged and oppressive of people in America. The fav-   
   orite test of liberals reveals white men to be less privileged than   
   the Jews. Why does not The New York Times, the EEOC, NBC, CBS or ABC   
   report that statistic? The media remain silent on the issue of Jewish   
   privilege while simultaneously exposing every time white men are   
   somewhat overrepresented. Why the silence regarding Jews? A glance at   
   the ownership of the media just might have something to do with this   
   disparity in exposing "privilege." And if any individual in the media   
   dared to expose some Jewish privilege, there would be a thunderous   
   assault upon that individual's "bigotry." However, daily, reporters   
   write of white male privilege, but almost no one denounces this anti-   
   white bigotry.   
      
   Once smeared as privileged, the non-privileged middle-class, working-   
   class, and poor whites pay for the "moral" system of AA by being   
   legally discriminated against and denied equal opportunity. But then   
   the history of America since the 1960s is often the record of wealthy   
   liberals using the law to curb and oppress blue-collar whites, because   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)