Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
200308 American Renaissance

200308 American Renaissance

Ratings: (0)|Views: 55 |Likes:
American Renaissance, August 2003. What the Supreme Court Did; Grading on the Curves; Blondes through the Ages; O Tempora, O Mores!; Letters from Readers
American Renaissance, August 2003. What the Supreme Court Did; Grading on the Curves; Blondes through the Ages; O Tempora, O Mores!; Letters from Readers

More info:

Published by: American Renaissance on Dec 30, 2010
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF or read online from Scribd
See more
See less



American Renaissance - 1 - August 2003
Continued on page 3
There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world.
Thomas Jefferson
Vol. 14 No. 8August 2003
What the Supreme Court Did
American Renaissance
More bad law on racialpreferences.
by Jared Taylor
n June 23 the US Supreme Courthanded down its long-awaiteddecision on “affirmative action.”This thoroughly bad ruling is likely toset racial preference policies for the nextgeneration, so it is important to under-stand it. With the slimmest possible ma- jority of five to four, the court ruled thatracial diversity in education is such animportant part of learning that it justi-fies outright discrimination againstwhites (and sometimes Asians). The de-cision is an amalgam of assertion, fan-tasy and self-righteousness that was eas-ily picked apart by the dissenting jus-tices.The enshrinement of diversity as aparamount national goal is a radical newinterpretation of the Constitution, yet itis based on nothing more than bald as-sertions about its value. Justice SandraDay O’Connor, who wrote the decision,cited business leaders who “have madeclear that the skills needed in today’s in-creasingly global marketplace can onlybe developed through exposure towidely diverse people, cultures, ideas,and viewpoints.” She has decided thatthis sort of exposure is so vital to thefuture of the country that it justifies anexception to the “equal protection”clause of the 14th Amendment that rulesout group preferences. Arranging thestudent body of a college or graduateschool so that there are plenty of studentswho don’t look like you is now a “com-pelling governmental interest.”It is worth considering just what thisworship of diversity means. If, for ex-ample, you went to college in Maine orIdaho with a bunch of white people, youdo not have what it takes to function inthe “increasingly global marketplace.”Presumably, the Chinese, who have livedall their lives among other Chinese, don’thave what it takes either, but they stillsomehow manage to run huge trade sur-pluses with us. Likewise, the Japaneseand the Germans have somehow over-come the terrible handicap of not livingand studying amidst the invaluablestimulus of blacks and Mexicans, andseem to do very well in the global mar-ketplace, too.This diversity-equals-exports argu-ment is simply silly, but the justices citedanother from retired soldiers that is nobetter: a “highly qualified, racially di-verse officer corps . . . is essential to themilitary’s ability to fulfill its principlemission to provide national security.”Please note that racial diversity is
to national security. Are we to think that the overwhelmingly white commandstructure in Afghanistan and Iraq is athreat to national security? How did anarmy with no black field commandersmanage to win the Second World War?The real wonder is that officers and busi-nessmen actually make diversity argu-ments with a straight face.As was pointed out in the June coverstory about these cases, the most carefulstudy so far of campus diversity hasfound that the more diverse a campusis, the less satisfied the students are withthe quality of their educations. Even theUniversity of Michigan’s internal evalu-ation of its own diversity programs foundthat blacks, in particular, do not want toconfer the benefits of diversity by mix-ing with others but want to stick to them-selves.Diversity-worship is particularly jar-ring because the legal setting in whichthese decisions have been handed down
that “diversity” have many de-monstrable benefits. This is because, asJustice O’Connor placidly admitted, ra-cial preferences violate the “equal pro-tection” clause. She genuflects beforethe ideal of equal treatment, and approv-ingly cites Justice Lewis Powell in the25-year-old
decision: “when gov-ernmental decisions ‘touch upon anindividual’s race or ethnic back-ground,he is entitled to a judicial determinationthat the burden he is asked to bear onthat basis is precisely tailored to serve acompelling governmental interest.’ ” Inother words, if the government or a stateinstitution is going to practice racial dis-crimination, it had better have very goodreasons for it. Astonishingly, JusticeO’Connor and the other four concurring justices think the unmeasured and prob-ably illusory benefits of campus diver-sity are so vital to the nation’s future they justify a clear departure from equal treat-ment.
This thoroughly badruling is likely to setracial policies for the nextgeneration so it is impor-tant to understand it.
American Renaissance - 2 - August 2003
 Letters from Readers
Sir — I found the July cover storyabout Robert Mugabe’s anti-white Zim-babwe too depressing. I do not think itis helpful to write on and on about whitesbeing beaten, raped, murdered and hu-miliated by blacks. This only promotesthe lie that our situation is hopeless.Also, I don’t like the article’s referenceto a time when whites did fight back,when armies from Britain or colonialIndia would be assembled to face downanti-white despots. This longing for the“good old days” is a sign of having toomany old conservatives around. Every-thing was not better for whites in “thegood old days.” Compare white attitudesto Africa now with those of 30 years ago.The tide has turned: whites no longerview despots like Mr. Mugabe with rose-colored glasses.Now is not the worst of times forwhites. White were not safer when whitegovernments in America and the UKwere carpet bombing German cities,slaughtering tens of thousands of whites.Also, I grew up on the South Side of Chicago in the ’60s and ’70s at a timewhen the federal government was giv-ing millions to black street gangs likethe Blackstone Rangers. I lived throughpre-Guiliani New York City—total hell.Life is much better in New York now,also in Chicago. The best news is thatwhites around the globe are putting asidetheir foolish differences and starting toclose ranks against the Muslims, black Africans, and the Third World.The whites in Southern Africa arecertainly in severe danger. Let’s try tothink of ways to help them there or helpthem escape to new lives in places likeAustralia, Canada, North Dakota, Rus-sia, Poland etc. It does no good to go oncrying and moaning about thugs like Mr.Mugabe and then not act. Let’s build onsmall victories and aim for big ones.Please, let’s not push the line that thehate-whitey terrorists are winning every-where and there is nothing we can do tostop them.Name WithheldSir — Your otherwise excellent Junearticle, “The Hollow Debate on RacePreferences,” contains a factual error. Inthe third paragraph on page 5 you pointout correctly that only 16 percent of blacks have IQs above 100. However,the next assertion is mistaken: “Whitesare about six times more likely than
blacks to have IQs of 135 or higher . . . .”
Because the standard deviation for IQis 15 points, for mathematical conve-nience let us consider IQs of 130 orgreater—two standard deviations (SD)above the white mean. Since the black mean, 85, is one SD below the whitemean of 100, a black with an IQ of 130is
SD above the black mean. Thepercentages of populations at variousSDs above or below any given mean arewell known. Two point three percent of a population have IQs two SD above themean, but only 0.15 percent have IQs
SD above the mean. The ratio of 2.3%/0.15% is 15. Therefore 15 timesas many whites,
 per capita
, have IQsabove 130 as compared to blacks,
 per capita
.This is not the end of the story. Thereare 200 million whites and 37 millionblacks in America. Therefore there are4.6 million (2.3% x 200M) whites withIQs above 130, but only 56,000 (0.15%x 37M) blacks at the same level. There-fore the ratio of whites to blacks inAmerica with IQs over 130 is 4.6 mil-lion/56 thousand = 82. The ratio of 82,not six, is the relevant number. On thecollege campus of meritocracy, wewould expect to find 82 white profes-sors for every black professor, assum-ing that professors should be drawn fromsociety’s top 2.3 percent.At the other extreme of low IQs, 2.3percent of whites have IQs of 70 (2 stan-dard deviations below the mean) orlower, while 16 percent (1 SD) of blacksare in that category. The
 per capita
ra-tio is therefore seven (your article sayssix, which is close enough).Perry Lorenz, Fort Collins. ColoSir — When I grew up, the idea of awoman like Missy McLauchlin (“MissyMcLauchlin, RIP,” March 2003) havingsex with three black men she didn’t evenknow was inconceivable. Parents toldtheir daughters of the dangers of con-sorting with blacks, and of the loss of status that would result. Attending ra-cially integrated schools in PrinceGeorge’s County, Maryland, in the1970s, I never saw a white girl even datea black boy.Today, however, it is commonplaceto see white girls and women openlyconsorting with black men. In my owncounty, which is still 85-90 percentwhite, it is not uncommon in a super-market or department store to see youngwhite women shopping with their mu-latto children.What has changed since the 1970s?Today’s young women are indoctrinatedin our schools that it is wrong to “dis-criminate” in their romantic lives.American Pop culture celebrates themasculinity of the black male. Becauseso many of today’s marriages end in di-vorce, many girls are raised without fa-thers, who would reinforce the stricturesagainst interracial dating. And of course,these days one is met with instant con-demnation—publicly, and increasinglyprivately as well—for even hinting at“thinking racially,” despite the fact thatit was natural to do so only a generationor so ago.Missy McLauchlin was the productof a society that failed to protect her fromthose who would prey upon her. Perhapsshe can be blamed for the behavior thatled to her death, but there are many oth-ers who are responsible for making herthe kind of person susceptible to thatbehavior.Derek Leaberry, Queenstown, Md.
American Renaissance - 3 - August 2003
American Renaissance is published monthly by theNew Century Foundation. NCF is governed by section501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code; contributionsto it are tax deductible.Subscriptions to American Renaissance are $24.00 per year. First-class postage isan additional $8.00. Subscriptions to Canada (first class) are $36.00. Subscriptionsoutside Canada and the U.S. (air mail) are $40.00. Back issues are $3.00 each. Foreignsubscribers should send U.S. dollars or equivalent in convertible bank notes.Please make checks payable to: American Renaissance, P.O. Box 527, Oakton, VA22124. ISSN No. 1086-9905, Telephone: (703) 716-0900, Facsimile: (703) 716-0932,Web Page Address: www.AmRen.com Electronic Mail: AmRen@amren.com
Continued from page 1
American Renaissance
Jared Taylor, EditorStephen Webster, Assistant EditorJames P. Lubinskas, Contributing EditorGeorge McDaniel, Web Page Editor
To their credit, the justices appear tobe a little worried by race preferences,and look forward to the day when theyend: “[R]acial classifications, howevercompelling their goals, are potentiallyso dangerous that they may be employedno more broadly than the interest de-mands. Enshrining a permanent justifi-cation for racial preferences would of-fend this fundamental equal protectionprinciple [of the 14th Amendment].”Consequently, wrote Justice O’Connor,“the Court expects that 25 years fromnow, the use of racial preferences willno longer be necessary to further the in-terest approved today [namely, diver-sity].”Also, the justices pride themselves onnot giving the green light to just any kindof racial preferences. They issued theusual denunciations of quotas and racialbalancing (“patently unconstitutional”),arguing that preferences cannot be ap-plied mechanically but must be “holis-tic,” giving “serious consideration to allthe ways an applicant might contributeto a diverse educational environment.”Race can be an important factor but itmust be handled mysteriously and notopenly.It is because of this distinction thatthe racial preferences practiced by theUniversity of Michigan undergraduatecollege were found unconstitutional, butthose practiced by the law school werenot. As noted in AR’s earlier cover story,the college had a rating system with arange of 103 points, and simply addedan automatic 20 points to the scores of all blacks, Hispanics, and American In-dians. (Having perfect SAT scores wasworth only 12 points more than gettingevery question wrong.)No good, said the court. That smellsof quotas. They liked the way the lawschool did it better. There, the admis-sions committee mulled and communedand pondered, and considered, and de-vised a system in which “all factors thatmay contribute to diversity are meaning-fully considered alongside race.” Thelaw school bureaucrats conceded thatonly 27 percent of the preferred minori-ties could have gotten in without racepreferences—about the same percentageas in the undergraduate school—butsince they conferred preference lessmechanically, the justices blessed theprocess.The justices were pleased that the lawschool did not necessarily make race theonly or primary diversity “plus factor,”but asked all applicants “to highlighttheir own potential diversity contribu-tions through the submission of a per-sonal statement, letters of recommenda-tion, and an essay describing the waysin which the applicant will contribute tothe life and diversity of the Law School.”Maybe even white people can be carri-ers of diversity. But, as black commen-tator Elizabeth Wright asks, what aboutstudents who just want a law degree andthink this is all rubbish? Clearly, Michi-gan is no place for them.In fact, if we really must have racialpreferences, the undergraduate systemwas better than the law school’s. It wasclearly numeric, and everyone knew howit worked (although U of M tried to hidetheir system, and divulged it only whenforced). However, a transparent 20-points-for-blacks scheme is too open andstraightforward; our rulers like their ra-cial preferences veiled, mysterious andsubjective. They want people puttingthumbs on the scales in the back room,not out where everyone can see.With a secret system, everyone is inthe dark. If whites know that at U of Mthe deck is stacked against them by 20points, they can apply to some other col-lege where the anti-white bias was setat, say, 15 points. Blacks and Hispanicswant to know where they get the mostpreference, too. The Supreme Court hasnow forbidden that kind of openness, soapplicants take their chances with sys-tems that, by law, must be whimsical andinconsistent.In effect, the undergraduate collegehad a version of race norming, which isthe cleanest, most open, and in fact the
way to discriminate against whites(see next article). However race norm-ing, like the point system, has beenbanned. It is not mysterious and subjec-tive enough.
Critical Mass
In addition to enshrining diversity asa vital national goal, the Supreme Courthas given its blessing to a trendy newbit of sociology called “critical mass.”According to this doctrine, it is notenough to have just
a few
blacks, His-panics, etc. A handful of non-whitescould be admitted without racial prefer-ences at all but the most demanding cam-puses, but the court says that’s not goodenough for three reasons. First, theremust be enough of them so they won’tbe lonely, or pressured to think they arespokesmen for their races. Second, theremust be enough to go around: whitesmust not have to stand in line for dosesof diversity. And finally, there have tobe enough of each kind of non-white forwhites to realize they don’t all think thesame: “racial stereotypes lose their force
Justice O’Connor

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->