Monday, September 20, 2021

The Silent Victims of Affirmative Action


Friends, the repackaging of racial quotas as "equity" isn't fooling me, but unfortunately it is fooling a broad swath of the American public.  As hiring and promotion decisions are increasingly based not on recognizing merit, but on achieving some "diversity metric" that shifts depending on leftist whims, more and more Americans will be left out in the cold.  They will be denied opportunities and recognition that they deserve, based solely on their race or gender.  And that, in case anyone has forgotten, is wrong, period.  What makes this insidious trend hard to combat is the fact that the vast majority of such decisions occur behind closed doors, and the vast majority of victims don't even know they are victims.  Occasionally, though, we achieve brief moments of clarity, as you'll see here:


  1. Dr. Nick

    As you already know, Affirmative Action came into existence back in the 1960s in the wake of the Civil Rights Act. ALL presidents (Trump possibly excepted), since then have endorsed the program and added to it. (No, I don't care for the premise of Affirmative Action at all). But my point is that it has never been challenged officially (that I can recall) by any administration no matter who was sitting in the Oval Office. People can write all the articles they want protesting Affirmative Action, but until it is changed/modified it will be enforced.

    What can I say. Now we have things like mandatory sexual assault/harassment training in colleges and universities. I just saw one university's policy (Linfield University in McMinnville, Oregon) where students there must complete sexual misconduct training online, or forget about returning to school next Spring 2022. The same school has mandatory vaccination for students, except in special approved cases, although athletes can still attend without vaccination proof if they get tested weekly at their own expense. Let's see, what else? I'm sure CRT training will be the next mandatory training at colleges.

  2. Nick, I figured if I lived long enough that there would be a area we would agree on, though for different reasons.

    My academic field (communication) has wholeheartedly embraced DEI, to the point that pretty much any white male cisgender abled faculty member over 40 is considered the "enemy," even enduring calls to quit and get out of the way of younger, more enlightened faculty. It's annoying, but if you have accomplished enough in your career, that rhetoric is merely noise. (You will be interested to know that I am seen by many as a conservative in my field -- even a racist -- for my free speech views).

    Anyway, my field is wanting to lead in DEI hiring, so just about every open position this year involves studying "issues of race and social justice," "de-centering colonialism," etc.
    In other words, the job ads contain code for "we are only hiring people of color/non-binary faculty.

    I'm fine with diversifying faculty. I just wish we could run an honest job ad -- "We feel so much pressure to raise the number of faculty in marginalized areas that we are only hiring from those areas until our goals are met."

  3. Ray, it's true that every president since LBJ has implemented affirmative action, but that term can mean many things. It doesn't have to mean racial quotas, and to most Republicans it didn't, but the way "equity" is practiced nowadays is very quantitative and results-oriented. SCOTUS has repeatedly endorsed affirmative action and a form of race preferences, as you know, and I believe it's high time to end legalized discrimination once and for all.

    Rod, I'm very sorry to hear that. You're right -- many new hires, especially in certain academic disciplines and in some administrative capacities, MUST be minorities or women. White males are considered beyond the pale. Even where that's not the case, applicants are generally not considered according to the same criteria, i.e. search committees bend over backwards to give less qualified minority or female or "non-binary" candidates consideration. What's worse, much of this discrimination occurs in what used to be called "smoke-filled rooms". There's no chance that decision-makers will be held accountable for their bias, therefore. It's very discouraging, completely un-American, and the problem is getting worse, not better. I appeal to SCOTUS to end race preferences once and for all, before they swallow America whole!

  4. Nick,

    The fact remains that Republicans did nothing to eliminate the program, which is basically an insult to human beings, in that it sets racial quotas that we know basically favor Black/African Americans in one lump, regardless of individual merit or ability.

  5. Well, technically "affirmative action" doesn't mandate quotas. It's often seen as a program that encourages casting a wide net when you look for candidates -- not evaluating those candidates differently based on race or gender. Approaches to AA/EEO vary widely. Hiring is an inherently subjective process, after all. But I agree that Republicans ought to have ended the program altogether when they had the chance.