ethnicity, race, color, etc.) in all areas of employment, education, and business in general, these procedures would come to be known as Affirmative Action.
In the mid 1960’s L.B.J. delivered a speech in which he stated, ‘‘—it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All of our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates.” The Johnson years saw many social programs enacted that were designed to not only guarantee opportunity but also bestowed ability to the Black Race in America; you might say that this was a form of reparation being made to the entire Black Race. The proponents of a color-blind society were quick to forget the principle that for over 100 years they so diligently fought for,—the principle of no distinction because of race or color—, and because the CRA of 1964 was a little to constraining, in the eyes of many activists, there was a move to allow racial distinctions,—distinctions that were purported to be benign—. Elated with the philosophy of the executive branch and enjoying a sympathetic Court, the social engineers embarked on an agenda designed to destroy and rewrite the Constitution in the areas of color-blind equality; and alas, Affirmative Action that we know today emerged from the wombs of the social engineers
Implementation of Affirmative Action:
The social engineers, specifically Alfred Blumrosen of the EEOC, threw their earlier color-blind premise to the winds and proceeded to demand numerical representation in all areas of society; if the race or color quota (goal) was not met it was mandated that a qualified person be passed over and that preference be granted, even if the person was not qualified; a 180 degree turn from their original agenda and goal. In order to circumvent any argument relevant to qualifications they created ‘‘norming practices’’ and imposed tougher standards for people of non-color and lowered standards for all others, thus creating more qualified minorities and giving them ability that they did not have. As Affirmative Action gained momentum it spilled over not only to the American Black but to every minority of color known to man, and the Supreme Court of the 1960’s and 70’s continued to rule, on case after case, not objectively but emotionally; the floodgates governing immigration crumbled and the Constitution begins to erode, as the original intent to make reparation to the American Negro became as distant as the farthest planet in our universe. Quotas, set asides, and preferences based on race and color became the accepted practice, not only in government jobs but also spilled over to the private sector; our schools were forced to alter their standards to accommodate the minorities, this being accomplished by ‘‘purse-string control’’ invoked by government. If there is doubt in anyone’s mind, about affirmative action definitely being premised on quota or numbers, they need only recall Jesse Jackson and his statement, “Equality can be measured, it can be put into numbers;’’ and that is how Affirmative Action has been implemented with no regard to ability, standards, merit, or qualifications so long as the numbers are satisfied.
People of color from the world over flocked to the U.S. and got on the Affirmative Action merry-go-round; it mattered not whether they had been discriminated against, because what had been purported to be benign reparation to Blacks became a malignant cancer in the form of an entitlement for all races of color, minorities, and also encompassed were women. The Court continued to ignore the color-blind premise of the Constitution and repeatedly ruled in favor of the colored race, even if the plaintiff—being not of color—had been discriminated against. In all segments of society the minorities of color were extended preference; whether it was in government, private contracting, business, or academe qualifications and standards were tailored to accommodate the minorities and no consideration was given whether the welfare of greater society would be adversely impacted. The misinterpretation of Affirmative Action got so out of hand the social engineers were able to, in brazen arrogance, publish employment opportunity notices stipulating that the qualified need not apply; and in many government assistance programs if you were not colored, or another designated minority, you need not apply. Under the guise of Affirmative Action, many universities and colleges were forced to turn away highly qualified applicants in order to comply with the ridiculous agenda the social engineers were imposing. As with many government programs, there were created many bureaucratic offices given the authority to investigate, administer, and enforce the provisions of the CRA of 1964 and its’ step-child, Affirmative Action. The Court continued to favor impact disparity when handing down their decisions, a practice definitely contrary to a Constitution that recognized disparate treatment of the individual, not group discrimination. This logic allowed Affirmative Action to become an instrument not only for remedying societal discrimination, but also for overcoming under-representation of minorities in all areas of society.
In the late 1980’s the Court developed a change of philosophy, deciding to interpret the Constitu-tion according to the true intent of the framers, and began to base their decisions on individual discrimination as opposed to group discrimination. The Court made it very clear that plaintiffs in impact disparity cases had to identify the actual practices they felt were causes of his alleged discrimination complaint. The Court of the late 80’s took on more than the average cases, pertaining to discrimination allegations, as a means to re-establish the original meaning of TitleVII; a statute that outlaws disparate treatment not impact disparity. The CRA of 1991 was signed by George Bush, then President of the U.S., and it did little more than, as usual, fortify the existing CRA’s; however, it did bolster the requirement that made the plaintiff identify specific practices responsible for disparate outcomes. A few provisions of the CRA were hotly contested during Congressional debate and the impact on Affirmative Action is unclear; however, as the lower courts have an opportunity to interpret and apply these provisions “we shall see what we shall see’’. One thing for certain the CRA of 1991 established was that low numbers in employment, education, etc., should not create a presumption of discrimination; also covered was the practice of ‘‘race-norming’’ and the adoption of the CRA made that practice explicitly illegal. It is evident the Court is again deciding cases objectively and upholding the Constitution in the spirit of its framers.
Summary:
It is obvious the framers of our Constitution did commit errors and omissions; however, by incorporating provisions and procedures to rectify any injustices the document remains as valid today as it did the day it was adopted. Though there have been many attempts to undermine and destroy the Constitution, It remains a symbol to all peoples of the world of fairness guaranteeing the rights and liberties of an individual regardless of race, color, or gender; and in spite of the perverse social engineers and their legerdemain practices to destroy the document by influencing Justices of the Court to render decisions under the guise of ‘‘political correctness’’, the Constitution does prevail. Impact disparity cases are no longer valid on their face, it is again re-quired that plaintiffs in discrimination show there has been disparate treatment of the individual; we are reverting to the original spirit of the Constitution, a document that protects an individual not elite groups. There is no room for Affirmative Action as it has been invoked and implemented; as J.F.K. stated: “the rights of everyone are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened’’.
Conclusions:
Affirmative Action as it has been implemented, and as we know it, supports discrimination in its most perverse form; the blatant stripping and violation of an individuals rights, under the color of equality and justice, is probably the most deplorable act ever foisted upon the citizens of the U.S.; not only is discrimination promoted, the appurtenant consequences are disgusting. To give people ability to go through the open gates of opportunity there has been a lowering of standards for the exalted elite; the results have been devastating. In the public safety sector of our society the qualifications for employment have been drastically reduced rendering the safety of the general populace in jeopardy; considering the demands of the job the now qualified hires are physically and intellectually deficient. The area of higher learning is also being compromised as the standards are lowered to accommodate the deficiencies of the exalted minorities, so we now don’t know whether a graduate is competent or just the by-product of a failed social engineering “boondoggle”.
The Affirmative Action proponents and activists have not done any favors for those who
