Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Misguided Students Support Anti-White Racism, Rally For Affirmative Action At The Utah State Capitol

Approximately 150 students from the University of Utah and an assortment of nearby local high schools with a significant non-White student population rallied at the Utah State Capitol steps in Salt Lake City on March 15th in support of affirmative action. They were protesting against HJR 24, a resolution sponsored by Rep. Curtis Oda (of Asian descent) that would do away with affirmative action practices in Utah. By the way, the bill did not pass; it's been dumped to the file. Primary media source is the Daily Utah Chronicle, the independent student newspaper of the University of Utah.

Organizers mobilized not only university students, but also high school students from East (33 percent non-White), West (39 percent non-White), Kearns (25 percent non-White) and Granger (35 percent non-White) high schools and Northwest Middle School (65 percent non-White). Statistics reflect latest numbers from Schoolbug.org. Students from East and West were taken to the Capitol in buses donated by the Salt Lake City School District. It should be noted that school district buses are funded by taxpayers, thus taxpayers were implicitly funding anti-White racist activities when the district used them for this purpose.

Chamorro Leon, a representative of the FACE Movement, one of the groups that organized the event, explained the purpose of the rally. “We got together, we’ve talked to the community, we’re educated and we’re letting everyone come out here and have a voice...There’s a lot of racism that goes around, so these students want to declare their rights. They are students that want to declare simple rights to not be discriminated against”, Leon said. But the FACE Movement was identified in this previous post as an anti-White oriented group, which limits its mainstream credibility.

Also present was the Brown Berets, a Latino supremacist group. A member of the Brown Berets chastised legislators for not realizing the consequences of their “poli-tricks” on the communities of Salt Lake City. However, the Brown Berets have even less credibility because of their employment of unprovoked physical violence against political opponents at other locations around the country. For example, on October 24th, 2009, when around 20 members of the National Socialist Movement (NSM) were staging a peaceful rally against illegal immigration in Riverside, CA, standing near a Home Depot which had just opened up comfort facilities for "day laborers", about two dozen members of the Brown Berets rushed toward the neo-Nazis and the two groups yelled at each other. One unidentified Brown Beret member, who was later arrested, pushed over a barricade and a brawl between both sides barely started before dozens of officers wearing riot gear and using batons quickly stopped it. You can read the NSM's own after-action report HERE.

The ideologies of the NSM and the Brown Berets are irrelevant at this point. It is not acceptable to physically attack a group exercising its right of assembly in the public square simply because one does not agree with its ideology. It would have been just as objectionable for the NSM to have launched an unprovoked physical attack on the Brown Berets.

Affirmative action is objectionable because it not only frequently displaces Whites (and occasionally Asians), but also imposes a double standard. A particularly egregious example of affirmative action is in place at the U.S. Naval Academy. In June 2009, Bruce Fleming, a highly accomplished professor of English at USNA, wrote in the Annapolis newspaper that the Naval Academy revealed that it had an incoming class that was more diverse than ever before: 35 percent minority. But here's why. Midshipmen are admitted by two tracks. White applicants out of high school who are not also athletic recruits typically need grades of A and B and minimum SAT scores of 600 on each part for the Board to vote them "qualified." Athletics and leadership also count. But a vote of "qualified" for a White applicant doesn't mean the applicant's being admitted; it merely means the applicant can then compete to win the "slate" of up to 10 nominations that (most typically) a Congress(wo)man draws up. That means that nine "qualified" White applicants are rejected. SAT scores below 600 or C grades almost always produce a vote of "not qualified" for White applicants.

For applicants who self-identify as one of the minorities, a different set of rules apply. Their cases are briefed separately to the board, and SAT scores to the mid-500s with quite a few Cs in classes (and no visible athletics or leadership) typically produce a vote of "qualified" for them, with direct admission to Annapolis. They're in, and are given a pro forma nomination to make it legit.

The bottom line - White applicants must clear two hurdles during this process to be admitted, while nonwhite applicants only need to clear one hurdle. Diversity trumps competency.

Respondents to the Daily Utah Chronicle story are generally hostile to affirmative action. Here's a sampling of comments:


Anonymous Tue Mar 16 2010 15:33
"We live in a representational government, not one ruled by a majority." Please tell me what you are talking about. A representational government is one that represents the views of the majority. That's what makes it representational.

"Diversity is all too important to this school.." Please tell me what makes diversity so important, and tell me what I am gaining from it. I would prefer to be in a class of homogeneous intelligent individuals than diverse idiots. That is the price you are asking me to pay with affirmative action. Also, is race the only type of diversity? Just because your skin is a different color doesn't mean your experiences are diverse, or any different than mine. It also doesn't mean that you work harder to get where you are than white people. This is a classic example of how affirmative action breeds reverse racism - you feel like minorities work harder and are more deserving than white people. Yet another reason to completely do away with it.


Anonymous Tue Mar 16 2010 00:59
I can only say AMEN to the comments that have already been posted. This is not about being "free from discrimination". This is about getting handouts because you happened to have been born a different race, and it is racist towards white people. Just say what you mean, "I want to get special treatment because I'm brown/black/indian, or whatever." Affirmative action has done way more harm than good, because it undermines confidence in minorities' abilities. This is because they are not held to the same standards as white people, and therefore people assume that a white doctor/lawyer/professor, etc. will be better because their accolades are all merit based. By trying to fight racism, they are simply institutionalizing it.


Jeff Mon Mar 15 2010 18:08
Shouldn't I have the right to live without fear of disrcimination for being white? Why do the minorities hold the cards when it comes to discrimination? Its becoming chic to say that you have a "diverse" hiring/admission pool (i.e., we don't hire white males.)


Anonymous Mon Mar 15 2010 14:51
Affirmative action is only furthering the discrimination in society by creating an anti-caucasian sentiment. I applaud our legislators for being willing to take a stand against the unfair practices that are long since overdue to be canceled. This may have been needed 40 years ago, but now there is no need for this now. Again, thank you for realizing that everyone should be able to have a fair shot at jobs/scholarships/whatever. Now we need to pull the funding for the NAACP, which if you look closely is just an african-american version of the KKK (minus the violence) but they still promote racist practices in a nation that doesn't need any more of it. We have a black president for goodness sakes.

No comments: