Becoming Post Racial
by Joseph C. Phillips“Race has no place in American life or law.” President John F. Kennedy spoke these words the evening of June 11, 1963 following the desegregation of the University of Alabama. In the speech Kennedy delivered that evening he chose not to appeal to legal arguments; rather he asked Americans to look into their collective hearts and weigh the moral question of continued racial discrimination. “The heart of the question,” said Kennedy “is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities.”
This week the Arizona state legislature answered that question with a resounding, “yes!” The state legislature cleared the way to place the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative or ACRI, on the Ballot in 2010. ACRI is a constitutional amendment that would prevent the state from discriminating on the basis or race or sex in the areas of public employment, contracting or education.
The action taken by the State legislature now makes it possible for the people of Arizona to actually decide if their state (and ultimately our nation) agrees with the sentiments of former President Kennedy.
That is not to say the opposition rolled over. No longer able to gum the petition process; they resorted to stalling tactics and back biting.
Hispanic legislators claimed that Rep Steve Montenegro, who sponsored the measure in the assembly, was not truly Hispanic because he is Puerto Rican and not Mexican. No doubt this must come as a shock to the Obama Administration. Judge Sonia “wise Latina” Sotomayor is being hailed as potentially the first Hispanic to sit on the United States Supreme Court. Sotomayor is Puerto Rican. The good news is that thanks tot his revelation Senate Republicans are now free to oppose Sotomayor. Because she is Puerto Rican and not Mexican, Republicans need no longer fear losing the Hispanic vote.
More fascinating were the words of State Representative Cloves Campbell. During testimony before a legislative committee Campbell insisted that special preferences [based on race] would be necessary for years to come. When asked exactly how many years he responded, “400 years!” Thus Campbell provided credence to the growing sense that he took the small bus to school and also that a good many supporters of racial preferences are more interested in exacting payback then they are in actually realizing equity.
The Rationale of Campbell and others that favor preferences is that they are needed to ensure diversity. Racism in America is systemic so if left to its own devices the system will naturally deny Black people (and other minorities) access. As proof they offer what is known as disparate representation or disparate impact. In other words the fact that a particular minority group is not statistically represented in any endeavor or policy at the same percentage they are of the population is proof of discrimination and it is therefore necessary to cook the books as it were.
The problem, of course is that people are not statistics they are individuals and ought to be judged as such against the same criteria. The very idea of disparate group representation as a rationale for race preferences turns that proposition on its head as it also does the idea of equality before the law and equality of opportunity. It is as if in answer to Kennedy’s question supporters of preferences have said, “Not so fast.”
They must be made to explain how this nation will ever move beyond its ugly history of racial discrimination if we not only allow but encourage government to discriminate based on race. They must tell us if they believe “the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.” Finally they must explain to the citizens of Arizona (and the larger American citizenry)– what could be more important than having a state constitution unequivocally affirm that it must treat all of its citizens equally and without regard to race?
In 1963 Kennedy asked the country to make a moral decision. In the age of Obama those that continue to support racial preferences must do likewise. They must ground their opposition not in legalese or political correctness but in the terra firma of moral correctness. They must follow the lead of the Arizona legislature and examine their consciences and then take the fist steps toward a truly post racial society.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
48 Comments
Racisim in America? really? well, thanks to the Supreme court just this morning over turning a case that Sotomayor ruled in favor of…. and that was what would be deemed to be REVERSE DISCRIMINATION….. I think that there has been a change since Kennedy makes those remarks and in both good and bad ways… It is HUMAN NATURE to snub there noses at something different….I try and be the better person today and try and put my self in the other persons shoes and see it there way and my kids are being raised that way as well…. there are so many different forms be it bigotry or just racisim…. I tend to think things will never change unless we CHANGE OURSELVES and the media's impression or interpretation of any situation!
Equal rights in the pure sense should be a matter that needs no debate. People of every ethnic background, creed or of any legitimate part of the American spectrum of races or ethnicities should stand equally on an even playing field. That sounds easy, but it's not. I feel like, even as a person that is half Latino/Hispanic/Mexican, whatever, that certain groups will continue to milk their "minority status" for as long as they can. What did the idiot from Arizona say? 400 years? Some members of American society have figured out that they can "work" the system. Our esteemed Senate "apologized" for slavery the other day. My ancestors were in Poland, Ireland and Mexico when those crimes were being committed. Were they speaking for me? Why? I didn't enslave anybody.
When Sotomayor made her racially charged statements about being such a wise Latina and with her ruling against Ricci and his fellow fire fighters she made herself as small minded as any white during the Jim Crowe days. When Obama speaks of racial empathy, he isn't speaking about everything being equal under teh law, he is expecting payback. People like Sotomayor and Obama exist purely to force the racial divide. Obama himself promised to be the post racial candidate….I am still waiting for that to happen from his administration. So far no joy.
Until people quite focusing on only one aspect of themselves (the color) nothing is going to change… as long as the race card is played and as long as everyone has a preference… there is going to be racism…
However, people need quite cutting off Dr. King's qoute… At "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,"
And finish it "but by the content of their character."
Racism is played on both sides whether either side wants to admit it or not…
Changing the law is not enough, but at least it's a start. In fact, the Civil Rights Initiatives invariably simply re-state the rules built into the Constitution. California did it early on, and even at that, Federal Judge Thelton B. Henderson became the first judge in history to declare the Constitution unconstitutional. The words of the initiative were: "There shall be no discrimination in government employment or action based on race, creed, color or national origin." Sound familiar? It's the Fifteenth Amendment. to the United States Constitution. Henderson, a Carter appointee, didn't like it. That was too much even for the crazed Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and they reversed Henderson But even with the law in place, the state has managed to find a myriad of exceptions and "vital needs" to ignore the statute. People still need to be vigilant, and hold their government's feet to the fire. And now, hiding behind the proud banner of racial neutrality, we have an administration in DC which is the most race-conscious government since the South during Reconstruction.
Not only does that knucklehead's "400 years" comment reduce rights in America to a question of whose ox is gored (rather than what is right and what is wrong), but it also fails to consider multiracial people. If you have both white and Latino ancestry, do you give special preferences to yourself? What about black and Asian — would the "blackness" and the "Asianness" cancel each other? (Maybe they'll just invoke the one-drop rule — sorry, non-black multiracials!)
Speaking of Ricci, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of him; five of the justices (Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) agreed that the white firefighters were treated unfairly.
Obamessiatus; infected believe that the anointed one can do no wrong. Rational thought is the first to go with everything becoming the negative of reality; such as ‘evil’ becoming ‘good’, ‘socialism’ becoming ‘free market’, ‘fascism’ becoming ‘freedom’, ‘higher taxes’ becoming ‘tax cuts’ and ‘governmental extortion’ becoming ‘spreading the wealth’. The infected exhibit glazed over eyes as they mumble, “yes we can” while dribbling at the mouth and standing with their hand out.
Amen, brother. As an American of Polish/Ukrainian descent, I too, would like to know why they are apologizing for ME, whose family didn't make it over to America until the early 1900s, and who cleaned people's toilets and mined for coal and bothered to learn the English language. Can we get an apology from the U.S. gov't for selling the Polish people to the Russians after WWII? How about apologies from the Russians, the Germans, the Vikings, the Mongols, the Ottomans/Muslims/Turks, whatever.
I predict that as his popularity declines (and it will) due to the economy's long downward spiral, our "post-racial" POTUS will fall back on the "OJ strategy". Criticism of the Dear Leader will be dismissed as racism, and He will wrap Himself in the mantle of the black community, much as OJ did after murdering his wife and Ron Goldman.
I do not believe this strategy will save the Dear Leader, although it will cement the guilty white liberal vote behind Him, out of their fear of being labelled "racist". Unfortunately, the Dear Leader's OJ strategy will do no good for the country as a whole, even after He is out of office.
CONT'D
Sheesh, when are we GOING TO MOVE ON! Every race/ethnic group has been either a conqueror or a conqueree during humanity's 50,000 year history. How far back shall we go? Shall we apologize to the Neanderthals for being smarter than they were and therefore surviving whilst they went the way of the dodo?
Thankfully, the Supreme Court ruled AGAINST DISCRIMINATION TODAY. It's a shame that, like Heller, 4 of the Justices still have their heads up their a$$e$.
Thankfully, many Americans, of varying shades of color, also still believe that we should all be judged by the content of our character, and not the color of our skin, the origins of our families, or the anatomy in our underwear.
I believe that "diversity" is the main pillar on which political correctness rests. In most, if not all things, I believe diversity to be neither intrinsically good nor bad; merely diverse. One could argue that academically, experiencing differences in culture and all that goes with it is, in itself, desirable because one should experience as many things as possible. I don't think diversity by itself makes for better law, government or much of anything else. Individual quality is what matters most.
Just saw that! Sometimes the legal system actually works……
Ah yes, the ol' Chewbaca defense!
lookit da monkey! Lookit da little monkey!
Nicely said and straight to the point. It is hard to argue logically that discrimination is OK for one group but not another. Sad that it took so long to figure this out.
Well done.
Character matters. That hasn't changed.
In the U.S., fostering racial inequality is a component of generating power. "400 years" is nothing more than an (inadvertent?) acknowledgement of an entitlement program, a particularly interesting form of power. The minority groups apposing the non-discrimination amendment realize that a future of equality will marginalize/eliminate their influence. Would Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson have any influence or add anything to the political process if they didn't use race as the motive (or at the least, an ever-present veneer) for most, if not all, of what they say and do?
No more media attention for Al/Jesse and their ilk…now there is *change* I could live with.
Thomas Sowell had an excellent article about the myth of diversity. He explained it best when it came to mining. One of the ethnic minorities in a certain area had a background of being miners and hailing from a region where a lot of mining was done; the other ethnic minority (I think they were Eastern European) did not. Therefore, when it came to the coal mines in the area. The first ethnic minority mentioned held a disproportionate number of the jobs in the mines even though they made up a lesser proportion of the general population percentage-wise. It made sense; they had the mining background and mining experience. You would expect them to look for mining work and you would expect mining firms to hire them over the other group who had no prior experience with the business.
In today's world, that would be racism not good business sense.
It was very clear in the last election, particularly on CNN, that the media was playing the race card. When asked why Obama was in a close race at any given time during the primaries, Bill Schneider invariably said "Racism".
The Demographics of the last election were clear. Black Female turnout surpassed White Male turnout. That was unheard of. I have no doubt that as Obama loses the support of the mushy-headed middle, the media will begin churning the racial aspect of this President in order to build the cohesion amongst the black voter required to get him turnout.
The New Haven Firefighters case was 5-4 . It's pretty frightening to realize that if the Democratic party retains control of the White House for an extended period of time and the balance shifts, it would be 5-4 in favor of discriminating against White People.
Ginsburg read her dissent from the bench for emphasis. "Congress endeavored to promote equal opportunity in fact, and not simply in form," she said. "The damage today's decision does to that objective is untold." She said the decision knocks the pegs from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
Title VII. Federal guidelines presume discrimination when a test has a disparate impact on minorities. .
That is right. One vote from presuming guilty any time a minority doesn't cut the mustard. A complete reversal of the fundamental assumption of the Amerian legal system.
Black Female turnout surpassed White Male turnout.
Yep!
It was that way in the line that I stood in.
the day they make me put up with at quota doctor is the day I move to mexico – guess this is coming if the liberals get their way with national healthcare
will be amusing if the mericans take over mexico, cuz you can get who you pay for, not who the govt dictates.
[...] appointment to replace David Souter when he retires is looking even more and more controversial. Never mind La Raza Sotomayor’s racists and sexist cracks, and recent withdrawl from a womans group, but today lThe Supreme Court has ruled that white [...]
But but, I thought you had to be white to be racist.
"The good news is that thanks tot his revelation Senate Republicans are now free to oppose Sotomayor. Because she is Puerto Rican and not Mexican, Republicans need no longer fear losing the Hispanic vote."
Hilarious! Joseph Phillips remains one of the most entertaining and insightful writers out there.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,"
It's not just a dream, but rather an environmental reality that this country (the tectonic plate, rock and dirt) will shape our descendants physical attributes to be more in line with the people who inhabited the continent for 20 thousand years previously.. In another 1000 years there won't be any more whites or blacks or latinos or asians so it really doesn't matter what laws we pass or don't pass unless it is to entertain folly,… We'll all look more or less like native american indians. I've always thought that the word racism itself is a misnomer since we are all exactly the same race, but I guess that won't matter in 1000 years either.
mr. phillips ecellent as usual….. keep it up!
and God bless you and this country…
Nice one, Joseph.
Color-blind, color-blind, COLOR-BLIND! The past is in the past — let it go. Equal opportunity does not (nor should it) ensure equal outcome. The race-pimping brought to the level of the Obama administration is a national disgrace. This crowd insults our intelligence daily.
The race industry has always given blacks the perfect excuse to fail. The reason that a black person doesn't succeed is never because of a lack of education or training, manners or dress or any other factor that can be changed by the individual. No, the reason a black person doesn't succeed is because of skin color. This is the one factor that can not be changed. Therefore, there is no reason to change what is changeable. Ergo, don't even try. Until this mindset is abolished, the race industry will flourish.
Nice one, Joseph. I appreciate your contribution in nudging our national lexicon into a brighter direction.
'Moral Correctness' is a good one…but I especially loved this, which is also the title, and I think, says it all: "Becoming Post Racial". Excellent.
Seconded!
In my family tree, the first five adult males to set foot in the U.S. were drafted soon after getting off the boat, and gave their lives fighting to end slavery in America.
[...] post: Becoming Post Racial This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
[...] John Kennedy said: [...]
BTW- Reparations are on the way to the Congressional floor. There will be blood.
I'm a hack lawyer and don't claim to have the insight or analytical skills of a federal court judicial thoroughbred. I also believe that I have a reasonable working knowledge of the 14th Amendment and American common law. For twenty years I have been waiting for someone to explain the constitutional rationale for "diversity" programs in a way that makes legal sense. It just isn't there. I can understand (what used to be called) affirmative action as an exercise in pure power politics but that isn't the same thing as a compelling legal argument. At the heart of affirmative action seems to be the thoroughly discredited concept of "race crime." The idea that the acts of a particular racial group can be so heinous during a certain period in time that their descendants must continuously pay for them. This was one of the cornerstones of medieval anti-semitism. That this sort of thinking shoud have become intellectually respectable over the last thirty years is a profoundly disturbing historic development.
The limits of arguing academically…
…one should experience as many things as possible.
Like drugs, gay sex, homelessness, electric shocks? Jumping out of airplanes, both with and without a parachute?
An open mind is like an open door. Good luck living with the insects and vermin, and do not be surprised when the bear eats your supper.
Diversity for the sake of diversity is meaningless. I do not care to "experience" differences, and would prefer to not recognize them at all, expecting no more and no less from any individual than I do from anyone else. Only when you stop noticing race does race stop being an issue.
Reparations for whom? There is a pretty long waiting list.
You have now POSTED THIS LINK 24 TIMES. You are spamming this board. Go away.
There is nothing more intellectually pathetic and morally illiterate than this whole 'racial' preference scam, and the favoritism toward 'Hispanics' is the most absurd part of the whole.
What an amazing year I had watching my son (3/4 'Hispanic' with the magically necessary Hispanic surname) get full scholarship offers to Ivy League schools, while his best friend, the straight-A valedictorian with sky-high SATs, never merited their waiting lists! What a marvel to discover that this friend's dirt-poor, Croatian immigrant parents are "white oppressors!"
And what an eye opener for my son——-who, I am VERY proud to say, was so disgusted by the whole charade that he turned the elite schools down.
Nothing better than hearing you speak about "disparate impact'. Viewing us all as a group rather than individuals is criminal. Even identical twins have different interests.
How do we continue affirmative action when we're all slowly turning brown? Are we going to have to use percentages to decide who is more deserving? Are we going to have to use civil court rules to decide who has suffered more discrimination to decide which individual is more agrieved?
Dont get your hopes up peterhead. WE will BE the WINNERS!!! The Bible tells us so! The Lord protects His Sheep! WE ARE HIS SHEEP!!! The Lost Tribes Of ISRAEL! The WHITE Race!!! Be very warned and be very careful what you do from here!!! The Rude Awakening is COMING! Do NOT threaten The Children Of GOD! Mr. "Montbriand". You clown!
kadaka – exactly, and well said . . . it's not the diversity of things that make something good or bad, but the thing itself. If one experiences taking heroin, he may have "broadened" his depth of experience, but certainly not in a positive way.
In the case of Judge Sotomayor, her experience as a Latina woman certainly did not help her come to a better deciion regarding the firefighters
The depressing thing about the Ricci decision is that it was a 5-4 sqeaker. Even more depressing is the fact that the dissent seemed to give fully credence to New Haven's argument that they were justified in not promoting from the list in order to avoid "future lawsuits." Since lawsuits (initiated by "community activists") are always filed in these situations the dissenters are apparantly saying that these promotions are justified only when they yield the "right result" or are bullet-proof against potential litigation. This is a ridiculous standard. I am a hack lawyer and not a federal judicial thoroughbred. I have been waiting 20 years for someone to provide a genuine common law/constitutional foundation for racial preferences or "positive" discrimination. So far I haven't seen it.
The New Haven Firefighters' had 1 "Hispanic" along with 19 whites filing suit. Dude must have been non-Rican or been awfully pasty-faced.
Your son had a "Croatian" friend?!! Times have changed- I remember when hispanics were much more likely to have Serbian friends, all while the Croatians kept to themselves. Where you from? Sounds like a scenario from South Chicago or NW Indiana.
[...] – Jeffrey Jones, Gallup Open the Military Closet – Richard Cohen, Washington Post Becoming a Truly Post Racial Society – Joseph Phillips, Big Hollywood Vince Lombardi Politics – David Brooks, New York [...]
Fat ugly dyke Sotowhatever shown morally and judicially incompetent. Fuck obama.
Not for much longer, if Obama gets his way.
You must be logged in to post a comment.