← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · seq

Thread 7107

Thread ID: 7107 | Posts: 9 | Started: 2003-06-03

Wayback Archive

seq [OP]

2003-06-03 23:12 | User Profile

Paul Craig Roberts Archive

[url=http://www.vdare.com/roberts/rights.htm]http://www.vdare.com/roberts/rights.htm[/url]

June 02, 2003

No Equal Protection for Whites? By Paul Craig Roberts

Sometime this month, perhaps before this column is published, the Supreme Court will rule on the University of Michigan’s racial quotas. Both in law school and undergraduate admissions, the university intentionally discriminates against white applicants in favor of **“preferred minorities.” **

It is obvious that the university’s policy violates equality before the law and the Constitution’s equal protection clause.

For three decades the constitutional issue has been finessed. Initially, Americans were reassured that racial quotas were to be temporary and would be phased out before they could endanger equal rights for whites. However, temporary expedients have a way of becoming permanent. Today racial quotas are required in order to avoid federal civil rights lawsuits in behalf of “preferred minorities.”

As practically every university in the country uses one scheme or another to discriminate in favor of “preferred minorities,” the Michigan case will determine whether “preferred minorities” are admitted on the basis of merit or on the privilege of skin color.

Pray I am wrong, but the best that those who believe in equal protection can hope for is that the Court will speak out of both sides of its mouth, as it did in the 1978 Bakke case. Alan Bakke was denied admission to medical school at the University of California in order to create room for a less qualified “preferred minority.” The Court ruled against quotas but for “diversity.”

Diversity is a way of having quotas without the Supreme Court’s sanctioning the death of the equal protection clause. Whites would be denied equal protection in practice with regard to university admission, but they would still have equal protection in theory. This would provide whites some protection from becoming full-fledged second class citizens in law. **If whites lose equal protection, they will be subject to new classes of laws, such as “hate crimes,” that would apply only to the behavior of whites. **

A worse outcome is possible. The Court could rule that after three decades “preferred minorities” now have squatters’ rights in racial privilege. When the controversial Roe v. Wade abortion ruling came back before the Court in 1992, a plurality ruled that despite the absence of a legal or constitutional basis for the pro-abortion decision, the passage of time had given women squatters’ rights to abortions that the Court would not take away.

An even worse ruling might be in the making. In the May 30 issue of Business Week, Stan Crock, a correspondent in the magazine’s Washington bureau, argues that white Americans might not be protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. This amendment, he says, was adopted in 1868 and “was intended to make sure that newly freed slaves were not denied the equal protection of the law.” The intended beneficiaries of the amendment were clear, he says, “and they didn’t have white skin.” [Business Week, The Real Affirmative-Action Problem By Stan Crock ]

On the basis of a New Deal ruling by Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, Mr. Crock goes on to argue that “strict scrutiny” applies only to laws that might involve “prejudice against discrete and insular minorities.”** Mr. Crock concludes that “minorities—not whites—should be the beneficiaries of both the 14th Amendment and the notion of ‘strict scrutiny’ of racially tinged laws.” **

Do you think a Business Week correspondent [Send Stan Crock email.] came to these convoluted legal arguments on his own? To a former old Washington hand who spent a quarter century “inside the beltway” in government, journalism and think tanks, Mr. Crock’s argument smells like one planted by a clerk to a Supreme Court justice, whose agenda is to strip white Americans of equal protection in order to dump our merit-based system into the trash bin of history and to replace it with equal outcomes dictated by the judiciary.

You have to wonder how far along this road we are when Business Week magazine publishes an article that says white Americans have less constitutional protection than “preferred minorities.” Isn’t this the triumph of the Harvard philosopher, John Rawls, who argued that the only policies that can be justified are those that favor the least well-off?

The outcome of the civil rights revolution is the creation of differential rights. In place of the old feudal privileges based on class,** the new feudalism is based on skin color. **

There is nothing to prevent a legally privileged group from dispossessing second class citizens—especially when immigration is turning the “preferred minority” into a “preferred majority.” If Mr. Crock’s article is based on a Supreme Court leak, white Americans have no future.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Kurt

2003-06-04 18:16 | User Profile

Yes I read this article on VDARE. Chilling. If I didn't know any better (which I don't) I'd swear this looks like the first step in the extermination of White people in America. Tell, what can we do to stop this? :(

[SIZE=2]too bad everyone seems to be too preoccupied with Israel, Iraq and the "War On Terror" to notice. [/SIZE] :y

madrussian

2003-06-04 18:20 | User Profile

For those who pay attention, this is the next logical step in squeezing out the whitey and isn't much different from the usual forms of affirmative action (= discrimination against whitey). Both impose racial quotas, only this ad is more explicit and has no pretense of even considering a whitey for a position.

jamestown

2003-06-04 19:46 | User Profile

Madrussian, what has made you going to America. Is there still an advantage to go to America as a white man in comparison to socialist Europe? Are the job opportunities in the US still far more available so that even the quota system allows the existence of niches big enough to ensure that the desired standard of living can be achieved more easily than in Western Europe? Is the situation in the private sector much better than in the public one? Do you consider to stay there forever or are you just taking opportunities until the job market gets into such a situation, that residence in the US no longer offers any advantages. Finally, the average income is about 30% higher than in the core EU countries. Is the whining and complaining just oversensitivity in a still prosperous society or are socio economic conditions for white males so bad that Western Europe offers a better life? Have you lived in both core regions of the West and can you give a comparison?

Frederick William I

2003-06-04 20:18 | User Profile

Originally posted by Kurt@Jun 4 2003, 18:16 **Yes I read this article on VDARE. Chilling. If I didn't know any better (which I don't) I'd swear this looks like the first step in the extermination of White people in America.  Tell, what can we do to stop this? :(

[SIZE=2]too bad everyone seems to be too preoccupied with Israel, Iraq and the "War On Terror" to notice.  [/SIZE] :y**

Well I pretty much this is inevitable in the long or even medium run, as As Kevin MacDonald said. With multiculturalist hegonomy established intellectually and increasingly dominant culturally, successively larger sacrifices on the part of the majority be sustained to maintain social order. Eventually the social stability factor of this equation must be recognized and institutionalized by the regimes courts. > If the history of Judaism tells us anything, it is that self-imposed ethnic separatism tends to lead to resource competition based on group membership, and consequent hatred, expulsions, and persecutions. Assuming that ethnic differences in talents and abilities exist, the supposition that ethnic separatism could be a stable situation without ethnic animosity requires either a balance of power situation maintained with intense social controls, as described above, or it requires that at least some ethnic groups be unconcerned that they are losing in the competition.**

I regard this last possibility as unlikely in the long run. That an ethnic group would be unconcerned with its own eclipse and domination is certainly not expected by an evolutionist or, indeed, by advocates of social justice whatever their ideology.

(Culture of Critique, Last Chapter )**

Texas Dissident

2003-06-04 20:22 | User Profile

Originally posted by Frederick William I@Jun 4 2003, 15:18 ** That an ethnic group would be unconcerned with its own eclipse and domination is certainly not expected by an evolutionist or, indeed, by advocates of social justice whatever their ideology. **

They obviously haven't met the American white male. We take pride in being eclipsed and eventually dominated!

So take THAT evolutionists!

madrussian

2003-06-04 20:44 | User Profile

Originally posted by jamestown@Jun 4 2003, 12:46 ** Madrussian, what has made you going to America. Is there still an advantage to go to America as a white man in comparison to socialist Europe? Are the job opportunities in the US still far more available so that even the quota system allows the existence of niches big enough to ensure that the desired standard of living can be achieved more easily than in Western Europe? Is the situation in the private sector much better than in the public one? Do you consider to stay there forever or are you just taking opportunities until the job market gets into such a situation, that residence in the US no longer offers any advantages. Finally, the average income is about 30% higher than in the core EU countries. Is the whining and complaining just oversensitivity in a still prosperous society or are socio economic conditions for white males so bad that Western Europe offers a better life? Have you lived in both core regions of the West and can you give a comparison? **

jamestown:

It was a while ago and I was attracted for all the usual reasons (and repulsed by what was going on in Russia at the time). I don't have an objective opinion about Western Europe, since it was a long time ago when I was there. Better-dressed and more feminine women (and fewer fat people) and livable cities, scepticism towards their governments and much more diversity (in a good sense, diversity of European cultures and not the Discovery-channel-like diversity).

I don't claim to be totally objective, but I was quite shocked to have found quite a few similarities between the Soviet Union and the US when I came here. Is America going to avoid the fate of Russian Empire overtaken by the Bolsheviks?

jeffersonian

2003-06-04 23:44 | User Profile

**You have to wonder how far along this road we are when Business Week magazine publishes an article that says white Americans have less constitutional protection than “preferred minorities.” **

Well Duh. This became an understatement with the first "Fair Housing Law" which stripped property owners of the right to sell to whom they wanted. Our democratic republic is based on private property rights....indeed.

And has cumulated with the thought police, who now prosecute exclusively white men for "Hate Crimes".

seq

2003-06-05 01:32 | User Profile

Kurt:

**what can we do to stop this? I'd swear this looks like the first step in the extermination of White people in America. **

View both major parties as extermination abettors. And work diligently to form a viable, electable third party, as Triskelion [where is he?] urged. A party that will speak exclusively to and for the dispossessed, disrespected and diminishing White majority.