Say Anything Blog

You’re right that an anti-merit system is damaging people on either side of the enthusiastically enforced racial divide. Rewarding failure, and punishing success is sure to lead to more failure and less success. It is only official aggression which could perpetuate a policy of this kind. Those who advocate an anti-merit system which only aggression can sustain are obviously grossly immoral. Call it anti-diversity or anti-minority or anything else; it is still the true and the good, to want a pro-merit or pro-ability society. The reason why oficials chose race as the point of division, and scholars cheer them on, is because it makes for irreconcilable hostilities, and because they have given up on the class war which once nourished their hopes of dictatorship. An all-merit society is in the majority interest at the very least, but it does not serve the goals of absolute power-seekers. The use of aggression to establish government cultural institutions is what allows irrational objectives like these to be served.

Furthermore, the fact that advocates of Affirmative Action do all they can do tear down minorities who DO succeed on merit (such as Condi Rice and Colin Powell) proves that their goal is not the advancement of minority races but rather the appearance of advancement, so that those races will forever be in their debt when election day comes along.

Argh! I can’t think about this any more… it makes me want to search Google for “kill Michael Moore game” in the hopes that someone has created a Flash game where I can stick his head in a blender.

Well said.  This issue really gets to me.  One minor quibble: strict quotas are technically illegal, so Affirmative Action programs don’t directly use them.  Instead they give a handicap to all those who are not a member of a minority (or give an advantage to those who are… same thing).  A quota would be like “We cannot admit/hire any white kids until we have admitted/hired a certain number or percentage of black kids.”

Regardless, AA makes minority applicants seem more valuable, while at the same time implying that they are inferior.  It would be like wanting to an adopt a child with Down’s Syndrome “because those retarded kids are so cute.” People feel the need to pander to under qualified minorities because “it’s the right thing to do.” By lowering the standards to admit under qualified minorities, these institutions are treating them as window dressing, designed to make their classrooms appear color-balanced and increase their “diversity.”

In my perfect world, Affirmative Action means that colleges send representatives to high schools in poor neighborhoods to give talks on the benefits of going to college and encourage the kids to apply.

You are right about how minorities become like hostages to the politicians and professional race-baiters, if I may take it further; these representatives (most often unelected) need them to be in a continual pathetic state. Encouragement of dependency is a common policy for those who want to rule, and who see weakness that could look up to such leaders. Once we have the overwhelming majority in this state of crying out for their quota on an ethnic basis, there will be no call for freedom. The courts say quotas are illegal, but they avoid the issue by saying that it is only a fixed predetermined number which can be called that. Yet if a place decides that the percentage of some minorities is too low, and they decide to increase it even for a short time, the new number is the current quota.