…who’s the blackest of them all?
You can dredge up the horrors of American slavery. You can keep stirring the Jim Crow pot, constantly reminding everyone how horrible it was that a country forcibly segregated its citizens by race and discriminated against blacks because they were black. You can wail and gnash teeth all day long, wallowing in abject bitterness because others have more than you do: looks, money, influence, opportunity, or whatever.
But you cannot, even if you lived 1,000 lifetimes, make a coherent and logically sound argument in favor of racial discrimination in the other direction. Nothing, not even the most heinous act committed against a black person by our government, justifies discriminating against other races in favor of blacks.
Let me put it this way: I have yet to read or hear a coherent and logically sound argument in favor of so-called reverse discrimination. Perhaps one exists. If you’ve read or heard such an argument, do let me know.
This post was inspired by a blogger I met last summer, John Rosenberg, who blogs about racial discrimination. John is just as anti-skin color preferences as I am. He picked apart a pro-skin color preferences editorial in the Muskogee Phoenix, a community newspaper in Oklahoma.
As you may recall, Ward Connerly, of the American Civil Rights Institute, is trying to get anti-preferences language on the November ballot in several more states, including Oklahoma. Connerly spearheaded successful campaigns in California (54 percent voted against government race preferences), Washington state (58.3 voted against), and Michigan (58 percent voted against).
The unnamed editorial writer in the Muskogee Phoenix begins with what I consider an incoherent and unsupportable faux righteous statement: Our public work force should mirror the racial, ethnic and gender makeup of our state.
Why? The writer offers no reasons. He/she adds that government contracts shouldn’t be “tied to affirmative action” but on “best services or products at the best price.” Then he/she inexplicably contends that employment within state agencies should be tied to skin color for “groups that, for one reason or another, are disadvantaged or in the minority.”
Why the distinction? What’s wrong with hiring people through contracts or for agency employment based on qualifications, regardless of skin color or perceived disadvantages? Again, the writer doesn’t tell us. But he/she does prop up a straw man:
“Public employment is not just for one race, cultural group or gender.”
As John asked in his post, who said public employment was just for one race, cultural group or gender? You see, when you try to defend something as obviously and offensively unfair as skin color preferences, you must suspend rational argument. Too childish for words, that editorial, though I managed to scrape up a few. 
What say you?
Related article and posts:
- The “other Super Tuesday” will focus on stopping official bias
- Super Post for Super Tuesday of Equality
- The True Meaning of “Black Pride”
- Fighting for Mediocrity in Michigan
- Holistic Review Exposed
- Asians: The Non-Preferred Minority
