Submitted by Martin Luther
Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to a church door in Wittenberg, Germany 500 years ago this month (October 2017). His 1517 broadside ignited the Reformation and triggered cultural upheavals whose effects endure to this day. In commemoration of Luther’s landmark action, AltRight.com is publishing in three parts a new 95 Theses attacking one of liberalism’s holiest of holies. These 95 Theses Against Affirmative Action are timely, not only because of Luther’s 500th but also because of the Trump administration’s ongoing investigation into affirmative action at universities and because of Michelle Obama’s recent anti-white-male comments at a women’s conference. Let the reformation begin.
- Society’s resources are finite, not infinite.
- For these 95 theses, society’s resources are admission to America’s top colleges/universities and good jobs.
- Degrees from top colleges and universities confer lifelong advantages in reputation, networking, and job opportunities.
- Good jobs pay higher salaries and valuable benefits.
- Good educations and good jobs, joined with smart hard work, largely enable the American dream: material comfort and security, good housing, medical care, retirement.
- Admission to America’s top colleges/universities is constrained by annual limits. Every year, available seats are finite, and a correspondingly limited number of freshmen enroll every fall.
- Good jobs in America’s companies, corporations, organizations—public and private, for-profit and non-profit, large and small—are finite. At every point in time, the size of a workforce and the number of positions is fixed. Each position employs one worker.
- If an economy or an organization is growing, let alone shrinking, every employed position still employs one worker. A single hire is made for a single position. At every point in time, the total number of good jobs is finite, not infinite.
- Anyone who claims that society’s resources are not finite is disingenuous, uninformed, or naive. The disingenuous, especially if apostles of affirmative action, know that society’s (their organization’s) resources are limited. They want the jobs and the college admission slots for themselves and their favorites.
- Because of the desirable advantages conferred by top educations and good jobs, people compete keenly for both.
- In competing for prime educations and jobs, people present their accomplishments, preparation, experience, performance, talents, abilities, and references to offices, committees, and individuals who make admissions and hiring decisions. All of these factors represent authentic and proper qualifications for admissions and hiring.
- Affirmative action privileges applicant sex and race in awarding university admission and jobs as indulgences. In dispensing its indulgences, affirmative action favors women and minorities over white males.
- Because affirmative action favors sex and race, women and minorities, estrogen and melanin, vaginas and dark skin in admissions and hiring, its biological criteria supersede authentic and proper qualifications in the keen competition for society’s resources.
- By favoring sex and race, estrogen and melanin, vaginas and dark skin as bases for college admission and employment, affirmative action mocks and subverts authentic and proper qualifications.
- Since the establishment of affirmative action in 1965 (LBJ’s executive order 11246), estrogen and melanin have widely become valuable job and admissions qualifications. They typically exceed accomplishments, preparation, experience, performance, talents, abilities, and references as determinative qualifications for college admission and employment through affirmative action.
- In different but equivalent terms, vaginal possession and dark skin, being female and/or a minority are winning qualifications for college admission and employment through affirmative action.
- Affirmative action practitioners in higher education and human resources strive vigorously to “diversify” their student bodies and workforces by raising estrogen and melanin levels to attain “inclusiveness.”
- Devotees of affirmative action float different rationales. Whatever the claim, the practice results everywhere in the same intended outcome: fewer white males in student bodies and workplaces.
- The arc of the moral universe is long and bends toward indeterminacy.
- Federal law (Title VII) prohibits discrimination in employment based on sex and race.
- The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires federal and state laws to treat people equally. College and job applicants cannot be treated unequally because of sex or race with respect to laws prohibiting discrimination based on sex and race.
- Non-discrimination statements on admissions and job announcements and applications universally include language like “[This organization] does not discriminate based on sex and race.”
- Affirmative action statements on announcements and applications universally include language like “[This organization] is an equal opportunity / affirmative action employer. Women and minorities are encouraged to apply.” Or “[This organization] undertakes affirmative action to assure equal employment opportunity for minorities and women.” Or “[This organization] is committed to diversity. Women and minorities are encouraged to apply.”
- If admissions offices and employers do not (cannot legally) favor or discriminate against applicants based on sex and race, how can they “undertake affirmative action for women and minorities”?
- If admissions offices and employers do not (cannot legally) favor or discriminate against applicants based on sex and race, why do they specify women and minorities as desirable applicants? Why do they exclude white males from their invitations and “equal opportunity” statements?
- In the artful language and practice of affirmative action and “equal opportunity,” “encouraging women and minorities to apply” is legal. “Seeking women and minorities” is illegal. Linguistic and procedural subterfuge is evident. The necessary artifice to discriminate “legally” against white males is in place.
- Defenders of affirmative action are legal contortionists. They rationalize illegal discrimination based on sex and race by bending, twisting, warping rhetoric and public justification so they can self-approvingly practice sexism and racism. Their deception and dishonesty are, however, transparent.
- To define affirmative action more literally, votaries also call it “positive discrimination,” a term that openly announces and embraces discrimination as its tool. “Positive” for women and choice minorities, negative for white males and AA’s throw-away minorities.
- In the language and implementation of affirmative action and “equal opportunity,” minorities are narrowly defined. The four broadly favored groups are African-American, American Indian, Asian-American, and Hispanic American.
- The nuts-and-bolts implementation of affirmative action and “equal opportunity” requires narrow definitions to discriminate based on race. “African-American” is too general and inexact, since black Americans may come from 54 African and numerous West Indian countries. “Asian-American” is too general and inexact, since Asian-Americans may come from 48 Asian countries. “Hispanic American” is too general and inexact, since Hispanic Americans may come from 22 Spanish-speaking countries. The wide world of color is too big, diverse, and inclusive for affirmative action’s very specific biases.
- In practice, “African-American” means descended from American slaves, not immigrants from Africa or black people from the West Indies. “Asian-American” means people of Cambodian, Hmong, Laotian, or Vietnamese descent, not Chinese-, Indian-, Japanese-, Korean-, or Asian-Americans of other heritages. “Hispanic American” means of Mexican or Puerto Rican descent, not Cuban-, Guatemalan-, Nicaraguan-, Peruvian-, Spanish-, or Hispanic Americans of other heritages. Affirmative action’s specific categories of eligibility and acceptable ethnicity are internally prejudiced and exquisitely racist.
- Once exposed, the specificity of affirmative action’s racism is even more offensive and indefensible, beyond its discrimination against white males.
- When affirmative action apostles deny they have specific racial favorites, press them to reveal their internal working definitions, their selection process and goals, and their all-important racial tracking data, unredacted and aggregated over time. Require them to show, not tell.
- Affirmative action privileges women as women across the board for being women.
- Affirmative action’s jackpot is the African-American female. The ne plus ultra, the crème de la crème. AA’s Promised Land, its Holy Grail, Paradise Found. “Equal opportunity’s” darling, its heartthrob, equalest of all. Visibly the most qualified (female, black) by affirmative action’s biological qualifications (estrogen, melanin).
- By contrast, affirmative action’s devil incarnate is The White Male. Source of all evil, supreme oppressor, arch villain, prince of privilege, mortal enemy, monopolizer of oxygen and all space, the social justice warriorette’s bugaboo and worst nightmare.
Part two of 95 Theses Against Affirmative Action enumerates how white males self-defeatingly created affirmative action, how sexism and racism are affirmative action’s stock-in-trade, and how women and minorities will gladly displace white males, then demand even more. Stay tuned for theses 37-62.