On July 21st, 2008, Microsoft Corp. announced a diversity initiative that will give bonuses to outside counsel based on their inclusion of minority and women attorneys. Of course, this also means the increasing EXCLUSION of White male attorneys as well, thus implicitly subsidizing and rewarding anti-white racism. Sources for this post include the Microsoft website and Law.com.
The initiative will target Microsoft's 17 so-called Premier Preferred Provider law firms, which collectively receive about $150 million in fees from the technology giant each year. It also enables Microsoft's in-house lawyers to receive bonuses based on improvements that the law firms make in their diversity numbers. It does not apply to contract attorneys.
Microsoft believes a lack of "progress" in increasing the number of minority and women attorneys in the legal profession, particularly within large law firms, is the impetus for the change, even though there are NO legal barriers preventing the accession of minorities and women. Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith openly admits it is an outcome-based program, focusing exclusively on getting the "right" numbers.
Firms that participate in the diversity initiative can make an additional 2 percent bonus, on top of the 3 percent increase that all of Microsoft's preferred firms are eligible to receive in fiscal year 2009, which started on July 1. However, the program is voluntary at this time. Microsoft has devised two tracking plans:
Plan 1: Law firms must demonstrate a two-percentage point increase in the hours worked by diverse attorneys as a percentage of total hours worked on Microsoft matters, compared with the same period in the prior year.
Plan 2: Law firms must show a 0.5 percentage point increase in total diverse attorneys as a percentage of the firms' total attorneys, regardless of whether they worked on Microsoft matters.
Included in Microsoft's definition of diverse attorneys are women and those attorneys who are African-American, Latino/Hispanic, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, American Indian, Alaska Native or of mixed race. LGBTs are not separately specified. White males are flagrantly omitted.
Commentary: This reveals the fatal flaw of the civil rights movement within the United States. It no longer merely promotes equal opportunity, but demands positive discrimination to achieve equal or proportional outcome, except where Whites might benefit. For example, there's no demand that either the National Football League or the National Basketball Association increase the number of White players in their leagues in order to compensate for the deficiency in the percentage of White players. Neither the NFL nor the NBA have announced a program to pay its executives bonuses for increasing the percentage of White players.
Defenders of Microsoft's initiative will tend to cite "white privilege" theory to support their arguments. Under the theory of "white privilege", Whites are automatically assumed to have privilege merely by virtue of the color of their skin because of "historical oppression" of minorities by Whites, even though most Whites are unaware of this privilege because they don't benefit from it. That's like assessing a tax on income against a person who didn't actually receive that income.
The theory of "white privilege" also has detrimental long-term effects upon non-whites. By giving them a convenient target to blame their problems on, they keep non-whites shackled to the chains of entitlement rather than free them to strike out for the liberation of empowerment through acceptance of personal responsibility.
The LDS Church's second Article of Faith rebuts white privilege, historical guilt, and ancestral guilt. By proclaiming that "man is responsible for his own sins, and not for Adam's transgressions", it proclaims that a man can be held accountable and responsible only for his own sins, or the sins of those over who he has direct control, such as children.
Here's a quirk the proponents of white privilege didn't consider. If I'm automatically "privileged" by my white skin regardless of personal economic or social circumstances, does this mean I'm automatically superior to non-whites because of the color of my skin? In other words, proponents of white privilege actually provide an ideological foundation for the justification of white supremacy. Is this what they intended?
The choice for America is simple. Either a united nation where common American nationality takes precedence over individual heritage, or a series of racial republics where heritage becomes nationality. Equal opportunity promotes the former; equal outcome the latter. One can either have equal opportunity OR equal outcome. One cannot have both.