WHITE MALE PRIVILEGE? by Hugh Murray

     This week in Milwaukee the Milw. Public Schools is sponsoring a class on white male privilege.  If one completes it, he will receive college credit for the course.  The class will be held at the Unitarian Church on the East Side.  I went to one of the services at that same church over a decade ago, but believed that, because I am not a liberal, I would soon be in constant conflict if I joined.  I had been quite active in the Unitarian Church in New Orleans in the 1950s and 60s, even teaching in the Sunday School.
     Although the theme of the class is white male privilege, and although I wrote an article "White Male Privilege: A Social Construct for Political Oppression," and although I reside in Milwaukee, no one attempted to contact me.  My article was published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies in 1999, and has been on google's p 1 of p 2 of the subject ever since.  If you read my article, you will soon discover why I am not invited to this class, or to the many university conferences meant to prove that white men have a privilege based on their sex and race.
     Below is part of my article.  The full article may be read on line simply by googling "white male privilege." As education departments and the general academedia complex assumes that white male privilege exists, and  white men should be penalized as a consequence, I urge everyone to read the article in full.  Here it is in part:
      WHITE MALE PRIVILEGE? A SOCIAL

CONSTRUCT FOR POLITICAL OPPRESSION

Hugh Murray

     Each day in America, white males face government-sponsored discrimination. If in high school, the white male may be denied a chance to apply for special programs because he is not a preferred minority, or in some cases, a female. There are scholarships available, but many cannot be awarded to white males. In applying for university, admissions will admit “basically qualified” minorities, but reject better qualified whites. When applying for a job, the same type of discrimination occurs. If the teen finally succeeds in finding employment, special on-the-job training may be denied him in order to guarantee slots for minorities, even if they be lesser qualified, even if they have been on the job for a shorter time. At the firm, he may be subjected to the racial and sexual harassment rituals called “diversity training,” whereby he is supposed to confess guilt to crimes committed before his birth. Yet, at the same time, he must deny his own experience; he must utter not a word about the discrimination he has encountered because he is a white male. His is the discrimination that dare not speak its name; were he to mention it, he would immediately be labeled “racist,” disruptive, and a possible threat to the firm’s good graces with the federal government’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and its commissars in his employer’s personnel office. If he tires of such oppression, or if he is fired, or wins a lottery, or somehow scrapes together enough money to begin his own firm, he will be denied even the opportunity to bid on many government contracts simply because he is a white male—those contracts are set-aside for minority or female companies.

     And how is this discrimination justified by our courts, our media, our academia? First, it is ignored. When occasionally the issue surfaces, it is dismissed as an aberration. But on another level, liberals proclaim that in the name of “equal opportunity,” equal opportunity must be denied white males. Before her appointment as Chair of the Civil Rights Commission during President Clinton’s first term, Mary Francis Berry, a black woman, had announced that civil rights do not apply to whites.

     The way liberals interpret and enforce the law, equal opportunity and civil rights are granted to some but denied to others.  Moreover, discrimination against white men is to be encouraged because it is the discrimination to end discrimination; government takes race into account so in future we will not have to take race into account. Such is the sophistry of liberal Supreme Court Justices and Civil Rights bureaucrats! To our governmental, corporate, and academedic elite, the white man deserves to be discriminated against because he is privileged. How did this system come to prevail throughout America?

     It is clear that the answer cannot readily be found in the media, with its liberal bias on race. Just ponder how what I described above has been purposely avoided on the nightly TV news.

Sociological journals have so neglected white male victims of affirmative action that Frederick R. Lynch titled his book on the subject Invisible Victims: White Males and the Crisis of Affirmative Action.1   Historians have distorted the history of the civil rights movement so as to pretend that this racial discrimination IS civil rights.

     In monster movies of the 1950s, scientists combed the countryside with Geiger counters measuring radioactivity; today “civil rights” proponents investigate every institution in America with their “proportional” counters. If blacks, or women, or Asians, or “Native Americans,” or Hispanics do not have their proportional share of jobs, promotions, managers, scholarships, etc., there is an immediate outcry in the media of “racism”; the EEOC, Justice Department, and other agencies swoop in to punish culprits and set quotas under the euphemism “establishing goals and timetables.”

     To understand the incredible injustice of affirmative action, and the cover up of this injustice by the liberal elite, we must look more closely at this policy and the arguments presented to justify it.  How do liberals justify such discrimination? Their theory is based on a number of assumptions. First, all peoples are equally talented in all fields. Liberals modify the Jeffersonian “all men are created equal,” acknowledging differences in intelligence, athletic ability, character, between and among individuals.

     However, they assume that all large groups of people are equally talented in all fields. Women are just as intelligent, and given a chance to prove themselves, just as strong as men (though to maintain this some liberals will redefine strength to emphasize endurance or areas where women may outperform men.) Blacks have already proven themselves on the athletic fields, but given a fair chance, they can be seen as just as intelligent as whites (again, some liberals redefine intelligence to include emotional intelligence or artistic ability to emphasize areas wherein blacks may outperform whites). And so the assumption is made for all large groups—Hispanics, Asians, Amerindians, etc. If all groups are equally talented, then why are white men so dominant in business as CEOs, in government, and in academia? The reason is prejudice, past and present. Because blacks were enslaved, and then denied equal educational and other opportunities during the era of segregation, they could not rise to their proper place in government, medicine, business. Women, too, were oppressed, even being denied the right to vote for President until 1920, and denied equal rights in other areas until quite recently.

     And so with other groups. They lag behind in America today because of their history of oppression—racism, sexism, ethnocentrism. The beneficiaries of this oppression were and are white men. Today, the imperative of justice is to break the historic chain of injustice by ending the historic advantage inherited by white men.  Since all peoples are equal, it follows that in a just society, all peoples, equally talented in all fields, will each have their proportional share of lawyers, doctors, fire chiefs, criminals. But as this is clearly not the case in America today, the aim of justice is to strive for such in society. Thus, it is necessary, and fair, to give preferences to groups that have been excluded or underrepresented in various fields. So if a white teen has a higher score than a black teen from the same high school on an SAT for a scholarship, it is not really discrimination to deny the white that award and give it to the black. It only seems like discrimination; in reality, it is fair and just. 

     After all, why is the black teenager not performing as well as the white on the test? His father may be in jail; his mother on drugs; he may not have been encouraged enough toward academic pursuits. His cultural milieu is the heritage of slavery and segregation. The SAT test, far from measuring the intelligence or academic abilities of the two teens, merely measures the privileges inherited by the white. And so the SAT, the LSAT, the medical exams, nursing exams, teachers exams, and all other objective exams are objective only in highlighting the degree of prejudice experienced by blacks, women, and other minorities.

     Such “objective” exams are thus objectively racist and sexist.  Similarly, police and firefighters exams, even if minorities help construct the tests. Even drug exams are racist because it is natural that more oppressed minorities might be more prone to use illegal substances. Clearly then, seemingly color-blind objective exams are racist; sex-blind objective exams are sexist. The only test, the only exam that should be used is proportionality. Only when the same proportion of women and blacks and Hispanics do as well as whites on an exam is that examination truly free of immediate bias and the effects of past bias. The proportionality exam thus provides the test for discovering bias, the measure of discovering the degree of bias, and the method of overcoming such bias. The proportionality test is the test that tests all other tests. Thus, the white teen and his successor should be denied the scholarship until the black teen, and his successor, have a proportional number attending college, teaching in college, and as CEOs.

     This is the theory that underlies affirmative action (hereafter AA). For example, Barbara Bergmann, an economist, in her widely-publicized,  In Defense of Affirmative Action, presents her case. To her, AA is a matter of conscience, “planning and acting to end the absence of certain kinds of people . . . from certain jobs and schools.” The purposes of AA are to end discrimination, promote integration, and reduce poverty of minority groups. “The heart of an AA plan is its numerical hiring goals, based on an assessment of the availability of qualified minority people and women for each kind of job.” Bergmann acknowledges that AA programs “ do have quota-like aspects,” but she contends that this is the only method to get qualified women and minorities into jobs, for without AA they would be rejected.

     One of her points is that not only is AA necessary to redress the wrongs of slavery and segregation in the past, but that in today’s job market there is considerable racist and sexist discrimination proved by her charts showing continued racial and sexual segregation in employment. Furthermore, the wage gap continues to exist between white men and black men, white men and women.  Because “a majority of Americans desire to live in a country that is fair,”  the only method to overcome such discrimination is by continuing and intensifying affirmative action. Bergmann does consider alternatives to AA, such as a program based on economic need rather than race, but as most of the poor are whites, they might overwhelm such programs unless there were quotas and set-asides established for poor blacks. So Bergmann concludes, the present system is the best.

     Bergmann opens her book by commending President Clinton for his desire to choose a Cabinet “that looks like America,” shortly after his first election. But, which group was most overrepresented in the Cabinet by the end of Clinton’s first term? Is it the privileged white males, villains of Bergmann’s book and liberal ideology? Of the 14 members of his Cabinet in the summer and fall of 1996, eight were white men. As whites are about 76% of the national population, those eight white men and two white women compose approximately the “fair share” Bergmann would allot to whites. But white men are 57% of the Cabinet, far more than their 38% of the population. Again, just looking at the Cabinet, one can encounter white male privilege! Bergmann seems correct. But look closer. Four of those white males are Jewish. So white male gentiles, who compose about 37% of the population, form only 28% of the Cabinet—they are underrepresented. Yet, Jewish males, some 1% of the population, compose another 28% of the cabinet. And, because Jews are so vastly overrepresented, the underrepresented white male gentiles are branded by liberal Jews as the “privileged” group!

     Bergmann and the other liberals distort the picture of America through their misuse of statistics. Thus, gentile white males are called “overrepresented” and deemed worthy of being discriminated against, when they may indeed be underrepresented and, by the liberals’ own standards, “deserving of affirmative action.” But white male gentiles are denied any aid because liberals consciously ignore them in their statistics by including with them the overwhelming overrepresentation of Jews! Liberals seek to camouflage the overrepresentation of Jews by pointing the finger at alleged “white male privilege.” But what is true in Clinton’s Cabinet is true in medical schools and law schools and other elite areas. No wonder, Bergmann can declare, “we no longer have a ‘Jewish seat’ on the Supreme Court because it is no longer needed.”  Of course not! The reason: of the nine justices, two are now Jews. So representatives of 2% of the population compose 22% of the highest court of the land. Bergmann does not complain about this “unfair” proportion. (Since this article was published, Jews now have yet another seat on the Supreme Court, so that 2% of the population has 33% of the High Court.)  Similarly, when Mrs. Bergmann complains about so few women and minorities in the United States Senate as an illustration of discrimination, she neglects to mention Wisconsin, where both Senators are Jewish men. Thus, less than 1% of the state’s population provides 100% of its Senators. True, Bergmann might complain, but only because it is an all-male delegation. Then, consider California’s Senators—two female Jews. No complaint from Mrs. Bergmann. She is from the most privileged, the most over-represented group in America. Yet, she diverts attention by decrying the overrepresentation of white males, even declaring white male waiters in restaurants privileged, though they serve her!

     Mrs. Bergmann’s statistics are aimed at obfuscating and distorting. She seeks to portray all white men as privileged because some are overrepresented in profitable enterprises. And because of this “privilege,” preferences must be granted to all those who are not white men. But the group most overrepresented is NOT white men, it is Jews. Even economically, the gap between whites and blacks is NOT as great as that between Jews and gentiles.

     So, if Bergmann is accurate that the purpose of AA is to narrow the economic gap between blacks and whites, how much greater the necessity for AA on behalf of gentiles to narrow the ever wider economic gap between Jews and gentiles? If Bergmann were to reply that this is beyond the scope of the Civil Rights Act, she is wrong. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination based on religion as well as any based on race, sex, or ethnic origin. Bergmann, the EEOC, and the civil rights lobby all stress that the individual is less important than the statistical aggregate in exposing “discrimination”; that statistics are the method of revealing what is wrong in the work place, and, with, AA (quotas) goals, and timetables, providing the best means of overcoming the discrimination proved by the numbers. Then, by her own system of determining discrimination, it is clear that Jews are the most overrepresented group in the most lucrative positions in the nation. Furthermore, the average income of Jews is sufficiently higher than gentiles to exhibit a massive economic gap. Why does not Mrs. Bergmann include this among her statistics? After all, she is an economist.

     Bluntly, 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 people in America. The favorite test of liberals reveals white men to be less privileged than Jews. Why does not the New York Times, the EEOC, the television networks, report that statistic? The media is silent on Jewish privilege. But if the media began to expose “Jewish privilege” and demanded preferences for gentiles until they had received their “fair share” of important posts, there would be immediate denunciations of the media’s bigotry.

     However, the media and government are even more bigoted when they denounce white male privilege and demand preferences for women and minorities. Yet, few denounce this bigotry. 

     Either the liberals’ proportionality test is valid, in which case Jews are the most privileged and oppressive people in America, or the proportionality test is flawed, providing bizarre results, and should not be used to allege white male privilege. Nor should that test be used to undermine the SAT, the LSAT, the medical tests, the police exams.

     Concisely, here is the liberals’ dilemma—either white male privilege is a myth and AA, erected upon the myth, should be demolished; or, if white men are privileged, then Jews are even more so. And if, because of white male privilege, AA is essential to aid underrepresented minorities and women (the majority) until they have achieved their “fair share” (quota) of lucrative rewards in society, then because of Jewish privilege, all the more reason to institute AA to aid underrepresented gentiles (again, the majority) until they have achieved their “fair share” of lucrative rewards in society.

For the full article and the footnotes, you can read it on line by googling my name and “white male privilege.

3 R’s – RACE, REFORM, AND RUIN IN AMERICA

                                                             by Hugh Murray

            The excellent article by Jared Taylor, “School Suspensions: More Official Baloney,” exposes how the government and media collaborate to promote the lie that anti-Black racism is wide-spread and corrective measures must be taken.  The logic is clear in the first paragraph: Education Secretary Duncan laments that minority students face much harsher discipline than non-minorities despite the fact that “researches [at the National Education Policy Center] have found no evidence that students of color engage in more misbehavior than White students.”  Taylor draws the final line of the syllogism: this “leaves discrimination as the only culprit.”

            Taylor’s article uses statistics, including those from the Department of Justice, to prove that students of color [Blacks and Hispanics] do in fact engage in more misbehavior than White students, and therefore the notion promoted by the educrats that minorities receive harsh punishment is not true.  Because they engage in far more unruly and violent behavior than their white and Asian fellow students, Blacks and Hispanics are suspended more often and deservedly so.

            My purpose here is not to summarize Taylor’s research.  I merely note that his article is conservative in scope, limited to the distortions of the academedia complex seeking to establish the false notion that Blacks and Hispanics are victims of discrimination in school suspensions.  My objective is to demonstrate how using those same methods and a false premise, America has enacted “reforms” that have been destructive to American society.

            The method of distortion is simple – take the general population of schools, break it down into percentages of Blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, and possibly others.  Then total the number of school suspensions, expulsions, etc.  Break those down into groups also.  Because the percentage of Blacks and Hispanics suspended is greater than the percentage of whites disciplined, the reason must be racial discrimination.

            The same method is used to contend that the death penalty is discriminatory; that in the 1980s and 90s the banking industry discriminated in not providing sufficient loans to poor minority borrowers seeking to purchase a home; to the gap in hiring police and fire fighters, or admitting students to university, law school, medical school, etc.  Everywhere, when one uses the yardstick of proportionalism, one uncovers discrimination.

            It is time to assert – they are using the wrong yardstick.

            When the US Congress was debating passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA), much of the debate centered on proportional hiring and firing, racial balance and quotas, and the possibility of providing preferences for minorities.  Southern opponents of the legislation warned that passage would result in quotas and anti-white discrimination.  Nonsense, replied the liberals.  Liberals stressed that not only did the proposed law not require hiring, firing, or promoting to achieve racial balance, it expressly forbid such practices.  The law required hiring the best qualified candidate.  This was the point of the law.  This was to be the codification of Martin Luther King’s speech during the 1963 March on Washington: the candidates would be judged by their character, not by the color of their skin.  This is why the commission created to enforce the law was called the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  There were to be no racial preferences, deferences, or discrimination in hiring and firing.  Liberal Sen. Hubert Humphrey, the majority floor leader for the bill, asserted that if a Negro were hired instead of a better qualified white, the Minnesota would eat his hat.  The unstated assumption was that all races were equally talented in all fields.  In future, more Negroes would be hired because in the past they had been denied equal opportunity.  With the new Civil Rights Act, and the EEOC to enforce it, Blacks would be given equal opportunity for all jobs, and they would quickly rise to the level of all other groups.

            I believe that most of those who voted for the CRA sincerely believed that equal opportunity in hiring, etc., would result in the hiring of more Blacks [Hispanics were a small minority in 1964 and were not a part of the debate].  Blacks, who in some cases had not been allowed to apply for positions before passage of the law, could now apply themselves and apply for the jobs.  Being like everyone else, they would get some of the jobs.  Everyone who had been to university – a small but growing minority – had learned that all races were essentially equal in every respect, in all talents and in intelligence.  Blacks were, as a prominent historian once phrased it, “white people with black skins.”  A few decades later, this notion was expanded to the theory that there were no races; race was merely a social construct.

            With passage of the CRA of 1964, the overt discrimination that prevented Blacks from sitting at a lunch counter, or enrolling in a neighborhood public school, would crumble.  Legal segregation would evaporate as the 60s wore on.  Blacks could now eat a burger at Woolworth’s, apply for a post as cashier, as an airline pilot, as a policeman, maybe in time, as a president.  Because all races were equal, in time one could expect to see a racially balanced work-force in all areas of life.  And the government itself was the guarantor of fairness in hiring through the EEOC.

            Things did not go as anticipated – or as hoped.  Many Blacks were not qualified for the posts that were opening up to them.  Many in the South had attended inferior, segregated schools.  [I do not imply that all segregated schools were inferior, but most certainly were.  I attended my neighborhood K-8 elementary school, Judah Benjamin, and we wrote with chalk on the blackboard.  When the chalk dwindled to stubs, we saved them in a wooden box to be sent to the Black school.  The neighborhood Black school – the neighborhood was integrated – was crowded and had morning and afternoon shifts for students.  By the time I was in 8^th grade, white students from another part of the city were being bused in to fill the empty desks in my school.]  Of course, attitudes toward schooling were different then.  My mother was fairly well educated having graduated from 8^th grade, while my dad had finished schooling with 3^rd grade.  In the South education was prized less among whites and Blacks.  Of course, in the North, many Blacks attended the same schools as whites and received the same education.

            During debate on the CRA a case arose in the North that was to affect the wording of the law.   In the fall of 1963 a Black, high-school dropout sought a job at Motorola.  Like all applicants, he was given a general ability test. He failed it.  He then complained to the Illinois Fair Employment Practice Commission alleging he was not hired because of his race.  The Illinois state commission appointed a Black to hear the case, and in January 1964 that examiner ruled that the test was unfair to culturally deprived groups and issued a cease and desist order.  Motorola was ordered to stop testing to hire the best qualified applicants.  To many Americans, requiring companies to hire people who could not pass basic tests seemed unfair – it was a threat both to merit hiring and an efficient work force.  Because of this threat, the proposed civil rights legislation was amended in Congress, as the Clark-Case memorandum explained: “There is nothing in Title VII that employers abandon bona fide qualification tests where, because of differences in background and education, members of some groups are able to perform better on these tests than members of other groups.” (Hugh Graham, The Civil Rights Era, p. 151)  Illinois Sen. Everett Dirksen, Republican leader also had the legislation amended so that only intentional discrimination was barred.

            The general presumption was that all races are equal in all talents.  If this were true, why then were Blacks as a group unable to compete with whites?  One obvious explanation was the inferior education Blacks had received in the past.  There were demands to grant Blacks some special preferences to make up for that discrimination which they had endured in the past.  How would this be determined?  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) began to use the proportional model to determine what percentage of a workforce Blacks should have, and apply racial quotas to guaranty that Blacks were hired or promoted to reach that percentage.  Thus, if Blacks constituted 10% of the population of a given area, they should be 10% of the police force, fire department, everything.  And no or few whites should be hired until the Black proportion reached the ideal goal with a timetable for achieving it (all this was a euphemism for quotas).  Quotas had been outlawed in the CRA, but the EEOC, the commission created to enforce the law, implemented policies meant to subvert the CRA.  The EEOC instituted rules whose purpose was to deny equal opportunity to whites, and thereby achieve the percentage of Blacks that the proportional model required.  Past discrimination against Blacks would be the rationale for imposing the affirmative action preferences for Blacks, which amounted to negative action discrimination against whites.

            There was another issue that swelled to the surface in the late 1960s.  This can best be illustrated by two film of that era: Carmen Jones and Black Orpheus.  In Jones, Harry Belafonte and Dorothy Dandridge sang a modern Carmen.  It is a European story in modern dress and Blackface.  Negroes are simply white people with dark skins.  On the contrary, Black Orpheus, (the French-Brazilian film, and the first to win the Academy Award in the new foreign film category) takes an ancient Greek myth and places it during the Carnival in Rio.  The whole film seems as far from Greece as is Brazil; as far from Western culture as Santeria is from Roman Catholicism.  In the film, the culture is exciting, beautiful, bizarre – but alien.  Do Blacks have a distinct culture?  Is the culture the result of oppression?  Or the outgrowth of a different clime and times?  Or what?

            If Blacks in America are different from whites, to what extent should whites make accommodations for those differences?  Soon there were law cases that Black men should not be required to shave for certain jobs because the skin of Blacks was more sensitive to razors.  Because the hair of Blacks was different, they should be permitted to wear it longer, or in different styles from others.  And this was but the tip of the iceberg.  For years New York City schools had rejected white applicants for teaching posts who did not speak standard English, but the policy had long made exceptions for Blacks who spoke with Black accents – even though these sometimes included grammatically incorrect usage by standard rules.  And if exceptions were made for Black teachers, what about Black students?  Often Blacks engaged in more horse play, shouted more, used foul language.  Whites would be expelled for such misbehavior.  But often Blacks were not punished and continued with their non-standard English and different manners.  Should they have been punished like whites?

            In the 1980s there was a prominent Black female educator, Adelaide Sanford, who contended that Blacks were naturally more attuned to approximation than precision.  Therefore, math exams must not grade Blacks as others, even if the Blacks fail to deduce the exact answer.  So long as they were approximately near, that was good enough.  (One wonders if architects and engineers would be held responsible if their structures collapsed because their approximations failed to stabilize a bridge or building?)  Sanford’s reforms of the mathematics and other curricula were never implemented, as far as I know.  At least not yet.  (I am mistaken.  Though I see no credit given to Sanford, schools did see a way to close the race gap in math by teaching “fuzzy” math, where accuracy is not so important.  See the link  http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/27/nyregion/the-new-flexible-math-meets-parental-rebel

lion.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm)

In 1986 Sanford was appointed to the New York State Board of Regents, helped compose a controversial handbook, and was nominated by and supported by many to become Chancellor of the New York City Public Schools in 1987.  She was not chosen.

            Far more significant was the assault on testing led by Eleanor Holmes Norton of the EEOC during the presidency of Jimmy Carter.  Aptitude testing had developed over the early decades of the 20^th century so that by WWII, it was effective in determining the types of jobs individuals would best be fit for.  However, on these tests, and of course on IQ exams, Blacks as a group did poorly.  The Left concluded, the culprit must be the exams.  Kill the messenger!  So Norton used her post to try to abolish the tests, discredit them, and denounce them as racist.  What other reason could there be for Blacks doing poorly on these exams?

            Through use of the EEOC, court cases, and exorbitant fines, Norton generally succeeded in preventing use of most exams for jobs.  Instead of helping to direct the individual to the best job fit for which he was equipped, there was more randomness, more of the better qualified filling lower positions, and more of the under qualified moving up (if they were Black, or later Hispanic).  Norton’s objective was to lower qualifications for most jobs so anyone could be considered “basically qualified,” and then the only way for the employer to choose among the mass of “basically qualified” candidates was to hire by racial, ethnic, or gender quotas.  Of course, that was the aim of the Left and EEOC.  Deny jobs to the best qualified and hire by quota.

            Admittedly, there has long been an antagonism in public schools to intelligent students by the educrats.  I attended a segregated, white high school in New Orleans.  New Orleans, then still considered the largest city in the South – as it had been since the 1840s – was more populous that Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, and Memphis.  It was also about 50% white and 50% Black.  While the overwhelming majority of whites were Roman Catholic, the overwhelming majority of Blacks were Protestants.  About a third of all students attended Catholic schools, which like the public ones, were segregated by race.  Another difference between the high schools – Catholic schools were still segregated by sex.  My class year was the first in New Orleans to attend co-educational public schools from K to 12 (For younger readers, co-ed schools are those open to boys and girls.  Co-ed is a word seldom used today to refer to the kind of school that is now ubiquitous.  Today, when you say school, you assume that both male and female students comprise its population.)

            One of my high-school history teachers was speaking informally to the class about the contrast between Easton, where I attended, and Jesuits, our main, football rival in the city.  The teacher declared, “At Jesuits, the students who have grades from 90 to 100 attend one class; those with 80 to 89, another; and those 70 to 79, yet another.”  Someone asked, “What about those who receive less than a 70?”  “They come to Easton,” the public school teacher responded.  We all laughed, but there was truth in his observation.

            This is when I first encountered the concept of “streaming” – having separate classes for those students who are weak, average, and excellent.  I do not think that streaming occurred officially at Easton, but by my second year, as a junior, I had heard who the hard and easy teachers were.  I sought the rough ones.  As many of their students sought to transfer out from those teachers, it was not difficult for me to transfer into the classes of the hard-graders.  In that sense, Easton had self-service streaming.  Though known as a football school, I was on Easton’s state champion debating squad.  Being a debater probably did not enhance my popularity, but it didn’t hurt it.  I was a nerd at a football school.  One New Orleanian of that era who attended Easton proved it was not necessary to play on the football team to gain fame.  No, we generally do not remember Lee Oswald for football.

            I realized much later that streaming inside a class may have occurred when I was in 1^st of 2^nd grade.  At the time, I was unaware.  But in that class as we learned how to read, we were divided into three groups, chicks, bunnies, and ducks.  I do not remember to which I was assigned, but I do recall being surprised after speaking to a girl in another group, and hers was behind ours in the reading book.

            I think it was under Eleanor Norton and the EEOC that President Carter’s Administra-tion began a war against streaming.  Put simply, the good students were usually white, and the weak students, Black.  Thus, in an integrated school, with streaming of classes, the class rooms were often segregated by race.  In effect, when the Federal Government demanded the end of streaming, it was not only requiring that the class room be racially integrated, but that it be integrated by ability – the very bright, the average, and the very dull.  Is this really good, educational policy?

            By the 1990s the Government was pushing Outcome Based Education (OBE) in public schools.  Since Blacks were not performing well, the educrats decided the reason might be that the teacher was spending too much time with the average students, and moving on to the next lesson when most students had understood that particular lesson.  The result, however, was the slow students could not keep up, falling ever further behind.  So now, under OBE, it was wrong to teach to the smart or even the average student.  In reality – that was “racist.”  To prevent such, the teacher was not supposed to begin Chapter 2, until all students, even the very slowest, had absorbed Chapter 1.  So, bore the smart and average student!   So what?  They are probably white anyway.  The teacher must go slowly through the text book for the slow (often minority) students.  In time, teachers would use only dumbed-down text books aimed at the slow students.  Whites could (and did) leave such public school systems for the suburbs or private education.

            While these “reforms” were being introduced by the Feds and the educrats, some parents were using the courts to stir changes of their own.  The Federal Government had passed the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, and now some parents demanded the end of schools especially meant for the blind, the deaf, or others severely disabled.  They demanded that their handicapped children me main-streamed.  Not all parents agreed with these demands for integration.  They believed their children had better chances in life if they could learn among those with similar afflictions.  But in some schools, the severely handicapped were indeed placed in regular classes.  With OBE, the teacher is not supposed to open Chapter 2 until all understand Chapter 1.  Suppose some, or even one, in the class is incapable of such understanding?  Do you punish the teacher?  Or the other students?  And if the weakest student never understands year after year?  It is then theoretically possible then in 12^th grade for the teacher to be opening Chapter 1 of the first grade book, hoping this time, all will understand the lesson.  The policies are absurd.  Are schools meant to educate?

            Then President George W. Bush proposed the No Child Left Behind Act.  Part of the disputes revolved round objective testing of students and teaching for the tests.  But far more insidious was the determination to narrow the gap between Black, Hispanic, (thanks to liberal’s open-door immigration policy and massive illegal immigration, Hispanics now outnumber Blacks in the US) and white students on objective tests.  Because schools whose students did poorly on these tests might be punished, and even closed, there was great incentive to cheat.  Teachers not only cheated, changing the answers given by their students, but sometimes the teachers were ordered to do so by their principals and school administrators.  One prize-winning teacher-administrator in Atlanta was revealed to be part of the cheating process.  Her students had scored high, and her schools were promoted as examples to the nation.  Then, scandal.

            Worse, was the emphasis on narrowing the racial gap on objective tests.  If whites had done better, that would not be deemed success under the program.  The objective was to narrow the gap.  Thus, if white scores were to drop drastically to equal the low scores of Blacks and Hispanics, the Department of Education (under a liberal Republican) might judge that to be a success!  Obama’s Race to the Top is much the same, but with less interest in closing schools that perform poorly.

            If these reforms were not bad enough, often the reality in public schools is worse.  I remember as a student in New Orleans when the film “Blackboard Jungle” was shown.  Many segregationists warned that that would be the result of integrated schools in the South.  It was a sobering film, and though the young, Black actor Sidney Poitier turns out to be a good guy in the movie, the vision of schools so ill-disciplined and out-of-control in liberal, integrated New York was an ominous forecast.  Soon, however, I would dismiss such rears by reading “The Southern Patriot,” the newsletter of the Southern Conference Education Fund (SCEF, an offshoot of the Southern Conference on Human Welfare. SCHW).  The SCHW had openly endorsed Progressive Henry Wallace in the 1948 election campaign, and President Truman’s Attorney General placed SCHW on his list of subversive organizations as a Communist front.  The Wallace campaign in the South in 1948 was in many ways a precursor to the civil rights protests of the 1950s and 1960s.  But between 1948 and the Montgomery bus boycott of the mid-50s, many integrationist organizations in the South collapsed after being labeled as Communist dominated.)  The SCEF newsletter contained reports on the integrated schools of Washington, DC, stressing how well such schools were performing.  Clearly, that is not the case in the long run, and I must now question if these reports of the 1950s and early 60s were accurate, or little more than wishful thinking, or liberal or communist propaganda.

            I do not seek to idealize the public schools I attended in the 1950s.  There was bullying, occasional fights, some students were mean, some kind.  And for the Blacks, their schools were generally unequal.  Yet, it is inconceivable that we would have had to walk through metal detectors to enter the building.  I am now too lazy to research the crime statistic in public school of the 1950s and compare them with the statistics of today.  In both eras, the statistics lie – because in both eras educrats are more worried about the image of their schools than reporting honestly about fights, threats, stabbings, shootings, rapes, murders, occurring on school premises.  But everyone old enough to compare is aware that the schools generally are far more dangerous today than in 1955.  Why?

            The Obama campaign to prove that Blacks are suspended and expelled more than whites is not the first attempt by the Left to destroy standards of conduct in schools as they previously destroyed academic standards.  I think it was in Cincinnati in the 1990s that schools adopted a policy (either voluntarily or through court-order) of suspending students propor-tionately by race.  Realistically, what can be the result?

            Should teachers impose a harsher discipline on white students, so their proportion of suspension will rise to the level of the Blacks?  Suspend a white for chewing gum, perhaps?  Or more likely, fail to suspend a Black when his action clearly deserves it?  For to suspend him will raise the percentage of Blacks suspended, and the government may then accuse the teacher and the school of the gravest crime in today’s America, “racism.”  So, ignore the Black when he shouts an insult to another student; ignore him when he insults a teacher; when he hits a fellow student; when he slugs a teacher; when he rapes or commits a major crime?  Better to ignore all this than be accused of racism.

            As the school ignores increasingly disruptive, uncivil, and even criminal behavior by some Blacks, what are the ramifications?  Other Blacks observe what some can get away with, and though their first impulse may have been to obey the rules, they find it more fun to join the delinquent crowd – after all, they will not be punished for it.  Some good Black student will be intimidated and beaten.  They will have to stop getting good grades, stop studying, stop paying attention in class – because that is “acting white” – a crime almost as horrible as “racism.”  They are punished for being good students, and the Black students who impose these punishment, sometimes harsh, are not punished by the school.

            And what happens to the whites in such an atmosphere?  Some will be terrorized like the good Black students.  But it will be worse.  The curriculum has undoubtedly been altered to stress the many accomplishments of Blacks, Hispanics, women, and everyone except white men.  The latter are stigmatized as exploiters, oppressors, slave owners, aggressors, war-mongers.  And they are not that smart.  When waiting to vote in the presidential election of 2008 in a long line inside a public school, I noticed the pictures on the wall and the notice on the bulletin board.  There were numerous photos of rap artists with captions praising them.  There was the notice about the book Stolen Legacy, about how the ancient Greeks learned everything from the Egyptians, stole their knowledge, and then used it against the creative people of Africa.  This is a variation of the “blue-eyed devils,” Black Muslim school of history.  Whites invent nothing except how to mistreat others.  So rap is a natural outlet for Blacks to respond to such injustice.  If whites dispute some of this, Black bullies will verbally assault and insult them as racists – the white ofays and white bitches and all the other foul words in the bully vocabulary.  If that does not settle it, Blacks may use violence.  Whites, who can afford it, flee the school system their parents’ taxes support.  Therefore many public schools in the city become Blacker, more violent, less academic, and sprinkled with metal detectors and extra police or security guards.

            And then the Leftists and Black Nationalists, whose policies promoted this academic disaster, shout before the TV cameras, “Why is it whites don’t come to our schools?”  It is the policies of the Left that have made them “their schools,” a culmination of Black culture, Black discipline, Black academia, and Black crime.  A place where whites and others are quite unwelcome.  A true blackboard jungle.

            What happens at university?  The few good Black students who, despite “acting white,” survived the hatred of the pampered Black bullies in school can probably do well on SATs and other entrance exams.  However, universities must not appear to be “racist.”  So they use affirmative action scams to reach their illegal quota of diversity students.  Therefore, some of the same bullies who terrorized others in school, who did poorly on the Stanford Achievement Tests (SAT), etc., may also be admitted to the same university.  And they will be admitted, and even granted scholarships, above poor white students who perform much better on exams.  Equal opportunity?

            The campus will subsidize the Black Students Union and other non-white ethnic organizations.  There Black students will learn that the reason they are receiving low grades in math and science courses is the racism of the professors.  They are encouraged to enroll instead in Black Studies and other “relevant” programs.  In these, the ethnic professor listens acutely to their stories of “oppression.”  In some courses, they need not speak, or even compose papers in white English.  They may use Ebonics instead.  (In May 2012 a blogger for the Chronicle of Higher Education was fired when she suggested that these ethnic studies programs be abolished, and cited some dissertation titles in the field as proof of their political nature.  Some 6,500 people emailed the Chronicle demanding her dismissal.  Many of these were signed by professors.  That is how debate is conducted in the politically correct atmosphere of today’s university.)  And even if they were not enrolled in such programs, it would be interesting to read some of the papers written by President Obama and his wife when they were students.  Unfortunately, the President who promised to make his administration the most transparent, refuses to make available his university writings, or even his grades – presumably because his papers contain embarrassing material.

            There are many consequences of affirmative action, racial balance, and giving preference to lesser and unqualified minorities.  Many Blacks at university are simply in over their heads.  So now, they fail, leave the university after a year or two, and blame the racism of the professors, the campus, the nation, etc.  To the good students, White, Asian, Hispanic, even Black, there is reinforcement of the stereotype that the Black is the intellectual inferior of others.  Of course, those who are most damaged by affirmative action are the whites who were qualified for university but who were denied scholarships, denied admission, denied equal opportunity simply because they were white.

            The university atmosphere of affirmative action also permeates the liberal arts curriculum and research.  What happens to a psychology professor who proposes to study the possibly different intellectual capabilities of the different races?  Much of the research on race is distorted.  Some questions dare not be raised – such as meaningful racial differences.  If that question cannot be discussed, then all discussion of race is circumscribed, distorted, so that much of the writing in sociology over the last 60 years might better be called “excusiology.”  History texts must now emphasize minorities and women, even though their influence on history may not be comparable to that of white men, at least in the past few centuries.  Indeed, by 1900 almost the entire globe was ruled by white men.  To the politically correct university of today, this is a matter of embarrassment.  They would prefer to have the picture of the signers of the Declaration of Independence repainted, showing half the signers to be women, 14% Blacks, etc.  In the education departments, the requirements become ever more political, performing voluntary work for “social justice,” promoting diversity, etc.  Their objective is to prevent a conservative from being licensed to teach (like, fire the blogger!).  A decade ago a friend had his young son in a public school in New York.  When asked about the days in school, the boy told the dad he was never called on in class, because the teacher did not call on boys.  The feminist ideology she probably absorbed in Women’s Studies spilled over into her teaching.  She would not let oppressive males speak in her public school class room.  My friend soon withdrew his son to a private school.  Other parents did the same.

            Affirmative action, and its related political correctness, have had a devastating effect upon education in the US.  One reason political correctness went hand-in-hand with affirmative action was this: if lesser qualified students were admitted to university, and someone noticed who was the bottom of the class, and commented that Blacks were not very smart, that was seen as an attack on Blacks, and also on the policy of the university administration and on that of the government.  Such speech had to be suppressed.  Free speech was abandoned, so universities could impose hate speech codes, preventing use of the “N” word, or the “W” word (wetback) or the “Q” word (queer) or the … the word list grew.  To impose a policy that most witnessed to be untrue and unfair, the threat of expulsion was deemed necessary.  In the clouding Orwellian world of the university, equal opportunity means preferences; all are equal, but some are more equal than others.

            In the 1950s and 60s, with the growth of the CR, many thought the result of CR would be a decrease in crime.  Sociologists taught us the root cause of crime was poverty.  End poverty, and crime will disappear.  But while CR protest was generally non-violent in the South, Blacks began rioting in the North beginning in Harlem in 1964.  Riots spread to the West and South by the late 60s, and there were some 700 riots by 1971.  Crime, what the New York Times once called a riot in slow motion, rose to unheard of heights.  Somehow, the right to vote, to eat a burger, to attend a neighborhood school, was translated into Ebonics as the right to threaten, to pull a purse, snatch a wallet, to beat, stab, even kill.

            The Kerner Commission blamed the riots on racism, and urged the hiring of more Blacks in the media and police departments.  And some of those hires have been good.  If one watches a film from the 1930s, one might hear a policeman shout to a fleeing suspect, “Stop, Stop or I’ll shoot!”  By the 60s, if a policeman shot a Black, the policeman was suddenly tried in the media and might be tried in court.  Judges were quickly shoving the pendulum to weigh on the side of the accused, and against society’s enforcers on the ground.  This patronizing view can best be seen in the death penalty.  Who were most of the accused murderers?  Blacks, then about 10% of the population were convicted of about 50% of the murders.  Surely, in the proportional view, the affirmative action view, this disproportion among the races was evidence of racism.  The best way to abolish the racism might be to abolish the death penalty.  Judges, sworn to uphold the Constitution, clearly were aware that the Constitution itself mentions the death penalty for a crime.  The Supreme Court made an utterly political decision finding the death penalty un-Constitutional as cruel and unusual punishment.  Even some years later, when the Court finally reversed itself, it made the cost of achieving a verdict of execution so high, that many states stopped trying.  Also, a white is more likely to be executed for murder than a Black in affirmative action America.  The reason: the court does not want the percentage of Black executions to be too disproportionate to the white executions.  Blacks who kill whites are more likely to be executed; Blacks who kill Blacks less so.

            Blacks are far more likely to be involved in criminal activity than whites.  Philosophy professor Michael Levin wrote that if a brand of automobile broke down one fourth of the time on the road, a buyer might rationally choose another brand of car.  Today, one third of young Black men are either in prison, on parole, or on probation.  One third.  (Since Prof. Levin wrote his book two decades ago, the percentage of Blacks involved in crime has risen.) The percentage of white criminals is far smaller.  Young Blacks as a group are far more likely to be violent criminals.  This is why even liberal Rev. Jesse Jackson once conceded that if walking on a dark street and he hears footsteps behind him, if he turns and sees that it is a group of whites, he may feel relieved.  (Jackson related this in 1993 after Colin Ferguson killed six whites and injured 19 others on the Long Island Rail Road.)  This is why Obama’s grandmother was rational when she admitted fear of unknown Blacks.  The chances are 1 out of 3.  The Left will shout, this is racial profiling.  No, it is criminal profiling.  When Blacks as a group cease to be so crime-prone, then others will have a different view of them.

            One reason Blacks are more likely to engage in crime is the punishment may not be so bad.  Often little happens to punish minority juveniles on many charges.  In schools, physical punishment from the staff is almost as archaic as the hickory stick.  If unruly or criminal minority juveniles are finally sent to a juvenile facility, they will probably encounter old friends, and learn more of how to improve their criminal skills.  Same with jail.  By contrast, in many states, if a white is sent to a correction facility, he will be a minority facing hostile Blacks.  Despite the propaganda of the feminists about alleged date rapes (sometimes, the vindictive response of a gal when her hangover cleared, or her Women’s councilor urged her to file because the guy did not call her the next day for another date.), there are many more rapes of men in the US – and almost all of these in prisons.  Often, it is Black on white rape.  But this is politically incorrect, so ignore it, or excuse it.

            I do not know all the details of the Trayvon Martin shooting.  However, the Left has been determined to prevent people from defending themselves and their property from theft or worse.   That is the significance of the case.  The Hispanic Zimmerman lived in a neighborhood of growing crime.  Police cannot be everywhere all the time.  He hoped to defend his and his neighbor’s property.  Trayvon, who had been suspended from school, who had a bag of women’s jewelry in his possession when apprehended in school, who had drugs in his possession, and whose internet account bragged about doing something to a bus driver, was certainly no angel.  Was he simply purchasing items for his dad in this new neighborhood, or casing apartments to acquire a new bag of jewelry?  And the confrontation?  The specifics of this case are beyond my knowledge.  I want to make the point of the long-range trend.  At one point a man’s home was his castle and he could defend it against an intruder with any weapon handy, even killing the invader.  Because the proportion of Blacks involved in such crimes is higher, the Left does not want anyone to shoot the intruder.  Under liberalism, the castle’s moat has been bridged, the ramparts sundered, the lady raped and the television stolen.  The Left responds, “Oh, we are so sorry, but we must not hurt the intruder.  That would be racist!”  Similarly, we should not execute the murderer; that would be racist.  We should not stop the shop lifter; that would be racist.  With the Left, there is only one crime that should be punished – the “crime” of racism.  The result of all these changes is a crime rate that would not have been tolerated six decades ago.  It should not be tolerated today.  But so long as the only major crime is racism, and excusiology rules the academedia complex and the courts, violent crime will remain high.

            And how does this affect the workplace?  In 1950 an employer, about to hire a young person for a job, might ask about his high-school grades.  Since Blacks did poorly, Norton and the EEOC sought to prevent that.  The employer might ask about criminal background.  Because Blacks were much more likely to have a criminal record, Norton and the EEOC sought to prevent that question too.  And the courts agreed with her.  (Of course, some of the crimes were political.  Martin Luther King wrote his letter from the Birmingham jail.  But most of the Blacks with criminal records had them for violent crimes.)

            So “basically qualified” (i.e., lesser qualified or simply unqualified) Black and Hispanic applicants were hired over whites with good backgrounds.  They entered jobs where there might indeed be friction.  An influx of lesser qualified, more violent, more foul-mouthed co-workers could change the work place.  And, even if they performed poorly, they were more likely to receive the promotion, thanks to affirmative action.  The mix was toxic.  Sometimes, someone would go postal, and co-workers would be shot.  More likely, the whites simply became despondent.  Charles Murray in his new book Coming Apart writes how many working-class whites have now become work-shy.  Why should they be enthusiastic when the promotion will go to the lesser-qualified, loud minority?  Liberal programs have created a work-place determined to destroy the work ethic.

            Another consequence of these Leftist, affirmative action policies, is that new businesses try to locate in suburbs, away from central city.  The unspoken reason for this is clear: who wants to run a business with employees who are drugged-out, who never finished high school, who may have criminal records, and who are angry?  Consequently, plants evacuated the cities.  Some fled to the suburbs for white workers.  Some simply fled the United States for plants in Mexico, China, Bangladesh.

            As effects of the reforms of the 50s and 60s have rippled through American society,  with racial balance, affirmative action (AA), diversity, and all the anti-white policies, the nation has become more crime-ridden, less academic, less well educated, and in decline in industry, culture, civility, and in most ways.  Instead of turning many Blacks into civilized whites, American cities have become Third World enclaves of ignorance, violence, and barbarism.  “Hey, hey.  Ho, ho.  Western Civ. Has got to go!”  Will the future of America be Detroit?

            Some 60 years ago this country began to implement reforms based upon the theory that all races were equally gifted in all areas of life.  When Blacks failed to perform up to standard, excuses were made, standards were lowered or abolished, and affirmative action preferences were introduced and expanded.  Originally, many assumed these would be short-term programs.  Even some of the Supreme Court Judges who upheld affirmative action thought of them as temporary remedies.  One judge in the Bakke case posited AA preferences might last about 20 years.  Of course, 20 years later, there was no significant change in the gap between Blacks and whites.  So, 20 years later in the Michigan university cases AA cases, Justice O’Connor, the deciding vote upholding AA, stated in her decision that such preferences might continue another 25 years.  Does anyone really believe the race gap will be closed in 25 years?  Or in 250 years? 

The assumption was that with the a-a preferences, Blacks would do better in school, get better jobs, and eschew crime.  That was the theory.  The reality proved the theory wrong.  We have 60 years of disproof, the theory is wrong, and all the programs based upon that false theory have generally failed.  It is time to stop adding new epicycles to the social equivalent of Ptolemy’s geo-centric view; scrap it, and adopt a more Copernican theory.  It is time to stop concocting ever new excuses for the failings of many of a race.  Moreover, we should also reconsider the words of the scholar who would become a Democratic Senator from New York.  Daniel Moynihan observed in the late 1960s that the New York public school system, which had “transformed two generations of Jewish immigrants into the intellectual elite of the world’s most powerful nation,”’ was unable “to bring its black students,…up to grade level.”(As quoted in Hugh Graham, Civil Rights Era, p. 311)

            I repeat, almost all the myriad programs for the past 60 years have been built on the assumption that all races, as groups, are equal.  These programs have generally failed.  Despite all the billions of dollars spent on Head Start and so many other programs, despite all the preferences in university admissions, in university scholarships, in job hiring, job promotions, in set-aside contracts, in ability to borrow for purchase of homes, etc., the gaps between Black and white remain.  Crime is high; Black racism is rampant; the work ethic for many has evaporated, jobs have immigrated to other nations; America is in decline.

            Sixty years ago America began an experiment based on the assumption that Blacks were white people with dark skins.  The results of the experiment are in.  A large number of Blacks simply do not act as whites; do not perform as whites. Whether they are incapable, or unwilling is irrelevant at this point.  If they are by nature different, or victims of their own anti-intellectual and violent culture (which, admittedly, is encouraged by the liberal media) is also irrelevant at this point.  It is time to see the results of the experiment.  If it continues, the experiment will destroy the laboratory.  It will destroy America.

            It is time to restore the CRA of 1964 to its original meaning.  Hire by merit, not the color of the skin.  Use testing and check backgrounds.  Punish bad behavior and criminals.  Stop excusing inexcusable behavior when performed by minorities.  Do not hire for racial balance.  Do not treat groups equally, but treat individuals equally.  Then perhaps America can rebuild – before it is too late.  Perhaps then, America can be America again. 

INJUSTICE

INJUSTICE: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department

J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS, Author

Rev. by Hugh Murray

Adams may deserve 5 stars for courage, but his book receives a mere 3.  Why?

Adams is a whistleblower who worked in the U.S. Department of Justice until he resigned in 2010.  He reveals many of the inner workings of this influential federal bureau.  Though most of his book concerns enforcement of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Adams peripherally discusses issues such as school discipline, Braille for Kindle, and examinations for police and firefighters.

It is the voting rights division that Adams describes most thoroughly, for that is where he worked for five years.  He reveals the friction in the department even during the Administration of Pres. G. W. Bush.  The problems first arose concerning alleged voter fraud in Mississippi’s Noxubee County, which is about 70% Black.  A Black man, Ike Brown, rose to political leadership of the county.  Although in 1984 he pleaded guilty to forgery and in 1995 was convicted for aiding and abetting on false income tax returns(p. 20), he became chairman of the Democratic Party in Noxubee.  When asked what might improve race relations in Noxubee, he replied, “Funerals.” [for whites](21)

Brown used his influence so white poll workers would be excluded, and many other means to insure his all-Black slate would be victorious for Democratic nominations. In 2003 the US DoJ sent observers to Noxubee; some wanted to charge Brown with violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Others, in Bush’s DoJ, strongly objected to this process – “Could you believe we are going to Mississippi to protect white voters?”(49) and “I know that Ike Brown is crooked, everybody knows that, but the resources of the Division should not be used this way.”(49)  However, these Leftwing careerists in the DoJ were overruled by Bush’s political appointees, and the DoJ filed suit against Democratic leader Ike Brown.  Those inside the DoJ who supported this suit were chastised by their Leftwing extremist colleagues, some even being called “Klansmen.”(52)  The extremist refrain was simple: “I didn’t come to work in the Civil Rights Division…to sue black people.”(53)  Their opponents responded that if Blacks were violating the Voting Rights Act, they should be prosecuted like anyone else.  The split in the DoJ was simple – Should Blacks who violate the Voting Rights Act be prosecuted?  The Leftists said, No; the Right said, Yes.

When the DoJ prosecuted Brown, some Leftists in the department sought to sabotage the case against the Black Democrat.(56)  On 29 June 2007 US District Judge Lee ruled that Ike Brown violated the law when his “racially motivated decision to count the votes of black voters while rejecting those of white voters is discrimination.”(60)  Not only did the Leftists in DoJ not celebrate the department’s victory, they were ashamed the suit had been brought and that the DoJ had convicted a Black man of massive voter fraud.(60)  The Fifth District Court upheld Judge Lee’s decision against Brown.  Nevertheless, the radicals of the DoJ did not believe a Black should be prosecuted if he violates the voting rights of white people.  Under Pres. Bush, the Left was forceful in the DoJ, but there were also those who believed the law should be enforced, whatever the race of the violator; whatever the race of the victim.

After Obama’s victory in 2008, he appointed Eric Holder as Attorney General, and it quickly became evident that a new policy was set.  “In the view of the Holder DOJ, whites aren’t protected by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.”(69)

Shortly after Obama’s inauguration, the Civil Rights Division hired many more employees.  Whereas in the past, during interviews of prospective employees, they had been asked if they would enforce the law in a race-neutral manner against all law-breakers, under Attorney General Eric Holder, that question was not to be asked.  Only when Blacks were the victims and whites the perpetrators was the Holder regime interested in filing suit.

The new Administration’s policy was highlighted in the case of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia.  In November 2008, two members of that party, in party uniform, one waving a baton, harassed and threatened voters outside a polling place.  Videos showed their hostile presence outside the voting venue.  They were clearly violating the Voting Rights Act, and Adams worked on the case to prosecute them.  The NBPP itself did not even respond to the suit.  One of the members was also a minor official in the local Democratic Party, and the other, with the baton, had on other occasions (on video) called for the killing of all white people, including all white babies.  In effect Adams had won the case, when the Obama DoJ now demanded that the case be dropped.  Only the man with the baton was convicted, and his punishment amounted to little more than that he refrain from doing it again.

Happily, Adams includes photographs in his book showing candidate Obama in 2007 marching and, just behind him, leaders of the NBPP with their arms raised in Black Power salute.  Elsewhere Obama is shown on a platform with NBPP leaders.  And Obama was a member of Rev. Wright’s church for two decades.  President Obama proves that one need not be born in Kenya in order to harbor Mau Mau ideals.

A large part of this book is about details of voter fraud perpetrated by Black Democrats in Mississippi and Alabama.  It is tedious reading, akin to a shortened legal brief.  However, it does make a salient point – Black Democrats are capable of massive voter fraud.  While the Left and the Obama Administration refuse to prosecute such Black racists, Adams details their hypocrisy.  Strangely, Adams almost never calls their anti-white policies racist; they are merely “racialist.”

In his last chapter, Adams provides suggestions to a future Republican President to end the “racialist” policies now in place and restore a race-neutral approach to law enforcement.  He assumes that laws should be applied to all, whatever their race.

Where has Adams been for the past four decades?

            Civil rights had not been one of President John Kennedy’s urgent priorities.  However, as pressure mounted in the early 1960s with the sit-ins and the Freedom Rides, President Kennedy was pushed to move on the issue.  On 28 February 1963 in his special message to Congress on civil rights, Kennedy stressed that the American Constitution is color blind.  Nevertheless, neither Kennedy’s speech nor Black demands for more jobs would be the catalyst that would hurl civil rights legislation onto the Congressional agenda.  It was Birmingham, where television exposed police who blasted young Black protestors with fire hoses and terrorized others with fang-baring dogs.   And it was Birmingham where four young girls were bombed inside a church.  It was Birmingham that propelled most Americans to accept the need for a civil rights law. 

   To promote that law, a massive march on Washington was mobilized for 28 August 1963, at which Martin Luther King’s speech struck the cord that rang the freedom bell.  That day it mesmerized many Americans; today, it’s memorized by many throughout the world.  It is the only speech one recalls from that event: the speech in which King dreamt that Blacks will “one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

  

   This very spirit would be crystallized into the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The proposed law encountered unrelenting opposition from Southern Democrats, some 22 members of the Senate.  Most of the northern Democrats supported the bill, but could not muster 67 votes to end a filibuster.  So, Republican cooperation was essential for passage.  While a few, like Arizona’s Barry Goldwater, opposed it, most Republicans were willing to be swayed, if they were certain of the nature of the bill to be passed.

 

   When Congress debated the proposed civil rights legislation, there were ominous trends.  In late 1963 Pitney-Bowes, a major manufacturer of postage equipment, announced it would give Negroes preferences in hiring. (Hugh Davis, The Civil Rights Era, p. 116)  Other major corporations were quietly hiring Blacks by quotas and providing them preferential treatment. (Davis, 105)  Moreover, the Labor Dept.’s Bureau of Apprenticeship Training issued new guidelines that appeared to grant favoritism to Blacks and quotas in recruiting. (Davis, 114-15)

   When the proposed civil rights act was before Congress, preferential hiring and quotas were clearly part of the debate.  Was the Civil Rights Act to become a quota law?  Opponents, mainly Democrats like Sen. Sam Ervin (NC), contended that the law would inevitably result in quotas and preferences for Blacks.  Not so, assured the liberals.  A leading supporter of the legislation, Dem. Sen. Hubert Humphrey (Minn.), responded to such fears by clarifying:

     there is nothing in it [the bill] that will give any power to the Commission [the EEOC] or to

     any court to require hiring, firing, or promotion of employees in order to meet a racial “quota” 

     or to achieve a racial balance…

     In fact the very opposite is true…Title VII is designed to encourage hiring on the basis of            

     ability and qualifications, not race and religion. [Davis, 150]  

   Furthermore, the floor managers in the Senate for Title VII [the employment section of the proposed law], Democrat Sen. Joseph Clark (Pa.) and Republican Sen. Clifford Case (NJ) issued a joint memorandum to answer opponents of the new law who complained that discrimination was not even defined.  “To discriminate means to make a distinction, to make a difference in treatment or favor…which is based on any five of the criteria: race, color, religion, sex, and national origin…There is no requirement in title VII that an employer maintain a racial balance in his work force.  On the contrary, any deliberate attempt to maintain a racial balance would involve a violation of title VII because maintaining such a balance would require an employer to hire or refuse to hire on the basis of race.  It must be emphasized that discrimination is prohibited to any individual.” [Davis, 150-51].

   Another event would affect the debate in Congress. In the fall of 1963 a Black, high-school dropout sought a job at Motorola.  Like all applicants, he was given a general ability test. He failed it.  He then complained to the Illinois Fair Employment Practice Commission alleging he was not hired because of his race.  The Illinois state commission appointed a Black to hear the case, and in January 1964 that examiner ruled that the test was unfair to culturally deprived groups and issued a cease and desist order.  Motorola was ordered to stop testing to hire the best qualified applicants.  To many Americans, requiring companies to hire people who could not pass basic tests seemed unfair and a threat to merit hiring and an efficient work force.  Because of this threat, the proposed civil rights legislation was amended in Congress, as the Clark-Case memorandum explained: “There is nothing in Title VII that employers abandon bona fide qualification tests where, because of differences in background and education, members of some groups are able to perform better on these tests than members of other groups.” (Davis, 151)  Illinois Sen. Everett Dirksen, Republican leader also had the legislation amended so that only intentional discrimination was barred.  In June 1964 the Senate voted 71-29 to end the filibuster against the legislation, and passed the bill 73-27.

   This is the law that America wanted, Congress passed, and President Johnson signed in July 1964.

   Indeed, I would contend that this is still what most Americans understand as the meaning of civil rights in general, and of fair employment practices in particular.

   Yet, how did a law meant to insure non-discrimination, merit hiring, maintenance of testing; a law that forbade quotas and racial balance come to mean the opposite?  How could the Civil Rights Act be used to enforce quotas (using euphemisms of “goals and timetables” or more recently “diversity”)?  How could the law be used to forbid aptitude testing when some groups do poorly?  How could it be used to prevent an employer from inquiring of a prospective employee about high school grades, or high school diplomas, or criminal records (as such queries would certainly affect groups differently)?  So today, in the name of equal opportunity, whites with far better records are rejected and Blacks, or later Browns, with far worse records are hired and promoted.  How could it be that a Chair of the Civil Rights Commission some years later would declare that civil rights laws did not apply to white people!  How could it be that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission would be a major springboard for the attack on equal opportunity for all: the end of non-discrimination; the end of merit hiring and promotion; and the general decline of the American work force?  All this in the name of equal opportunity!  As Orwell might reply to those questions: all are equal, but some are more equal than others.

   Over the next few years it became clear that liberals had pulled a major, classic con-job on the American people: bait and switch.  Enact a law to insure the civil rights of ALL Americans, non-discrimination, merit hiring, no racial balance, no quotas, and then use that very law as a basis to implement the opposite.

Here is the essence of the weakness in Adams’ book – he does not place the anti-white discriminatory practices of the Voting Rights Division of the DOJ in perspective.  Adams makes a strong case that the Obama-Holder DoJ is determined not to enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in a race neutral manner.  They will prosecute violators when they are white; and not prosecute when they are Black.  They will prosecute when the victims are Black; and not when they are white.  Adams makes the case.

But Adams fails to connect this to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  It too was race neutral legislation.  However, it was subverted by bureaucrats in the EEOC and other agencies.  They were aided by court decisions written by activist liberal judges.  However, it was Republican President Richard Nixon who made affirmative action a national policy and extended it to include Hispanics, Amerindians, and whoever the bureaucrats determine is their next pet group.  Republican President Ford did not interfere with affirmative action.  Despite his rhetoric, neither did Republican President Reagan.  President G H W Bush even signed the Civil Rights Act of 1991, what he called a quota bill, which only solidified the quota programs.

With affirmative action, whites, especially white men, were denied equal opportunity, despite the clear wording of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  By the 1980s Mary Frances Berry, the  Chair of the Civil Rights Commission, could declare that the Civil Rights Act did not apply to white people.

Now, the DoJ under Obama-Holder covertly declares that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 no longer applies to white people.

To summarize: Stage 1- equal rights and basic civil rights are denied whites, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Stage 2- voting rights are no longer guaranteed for white people, in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  The Obama Administration is simply taking the anti-white programs of previous administrations to a new level.  And Obama will probably do nothing to prevent illegal aliens from voting – if they vote for him.  Children of illegals may be given affirmative action admission and scholarships to universities above citizen-born whites.  And when whites become a minority in the US, one can expect their rights to diminish even more.  Stage 3?  Stage 4?

The trend to make whites second-class citizens, or less, is continuing to a new level under Obama-Holder.  The book by Adams makes clear the anti-white racism and policies of the Obama-Holder Administration.  But Adams fails to place these in context.  And his pleas to change things in a future Republican Administration makes one question his grasp of reality.  Anti-white policies expanded and become entrenched national procedures under Nixon, and continued with every Republican President after him.  Is Adams naïve to expect any better from today’s Republicans?  On the other hand, Adams clearly exposes how Obama’s Administration has escalated the war on whites.

I favor equal rights and equal opportunity for all citizens.  I am so old I remember when the mantra of civil rights forces was - to treat everyone without regard to race, creed, or color.  But the civil rights organizations of today have abandoned civil rights.  They have embraced preferences for pet groups, privileges for those whom they define as oppressed.  And they are most willing to oppress any who oppose their view.  The civil rights community, like the civil liberties community, has evolved into a community of tyrants.  I oppose race and gender preferences.  Since the late 1960s American policy has been anti-white.  These anti-white racist programs are accelerating under Obama, speeding toward an America where whites are a persecuted minority which may lose all rights of citizenship.  Adams’ book underscores the acceleration; but not the decades-old process, and not the looming, nightmarish Mau Mau future.   

   When one successfully over-represented group lost its citizenship, it was announced with great fanfare at party rallies.  There will be no Nuremberg rallies in America.  America is different.  Nevertheless, if whites in the US continue to lose basic rights, it is done behind closed doors by devious folks in black robes or bureaucratic suits or community-organizing casuals.  And it is done amid hypocritical howls that it is not being done at all.  Adams gives us a glimpse of the stealth theft by bureaucrats who steal citizen’s rights from the whites of America.