jews are special at american univ.



Who's to Blame for the Affirmative Action Fiasco?
By Hugh Murray

Searching for employment in the late 19th century, many Irish
immigrants in America encountered the sign, "NINA" (No Irish Need
Apply). Today, their descendants face much the same discrimination. Of
course, now, it is not limited to the Irish - for in America men are
routinely denied jobs, promotions, contracts and scholarships because
they are of Irish, Italian, English, German or general European
heritage. Worse, not only is this discrimination government sponsored,
it is performed in the name of "Equal Opportunity." How did this come
about? Why do the media prefer to ignore it? Who fostered this
discrimination against white men?

In high school a white boy may be denied entrance into special
programs because he is not a preferred minority; or, in some cases, he
may be denied because he is not a girl. There are scholarships
available, but many cannot be awarded to a white male (for example,
Bill Gates of Microsoft was recently lauded by the media for
establishing a billion-dollar scholarship program - one in which
recipients are restricted to blacks only.) When the teen applies to
university, the administration will admit "basically qualified"
minorities, but reject better-qualified whites. When applying for
jobs, the same discrimination occurs. If the teen finds employment,
special, on-the-job training for promotion may be denied him as it is
reserved for minorities, even if they are lesser qualified and have
been on the job a shorter period of time. Once hired, he may be
required to attend "diversity training" sessions, in which he is
supposed to confess his alleged guilt of racism and sexism.

How did this systematic discrimination arise?

What did it mean to forbid discrimination? From the early days of the
20th century through 1964, most liberals were clear as to what this
meant-show no bias against or preference for a person because of his
race, sex, religion etc. This was the dominant view. But in the debate
over the civil rights bill in 1964 some opponents declared that if
passed, it would lead to, among other things: racial quotas and racial
balance in the workplace, preferences for blacks over whites in
employment, promotion, bank loans etc.

But, in Congress, the debate went otherwise. No senator who favored
the civil rights bill spoke up for quotas, "positive integration,"
racial balance or preferences for minorities above whites. Quite the
contrary.

How then did a law which promised to end discrimination by outlawing
discrimination against any individual, a law that promised preferences
for no group, which agreed to retain testing to reject unqualified
applicants-how was this law subverted into its opposite? Here the role
of Alfred Blumrosen is crucial. Blumrosen was among the zealots
working for the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission who did not
want the agency to function as created.

Alfred Blumrosen was instrumental in this and other shifts. He was a
professor at Rutgers University who became the EEOC's liaison chief
for federal, state and local agencies, and he admitted that his
"creative" reading of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was "contrary to
the plain meaning." But why worry? By 1965 when the Bank of America
instituted quota hiring under a euphemism, "the standard refrain of
the EEO bureaucracies, [was that] affirmative action [AA] had nothing
to do with racial quotas. That was illegal." Unfortunately, that
deceptive refrain is still heard today.

The goal of Sonia Pressman, another ideologue in the EEOC, was "to
document large disparities in employment patterns, [so] that
discriminatory intent might legally be inferred." ...the EEOC sought
to impose quotas while not calling them such because quotas were
clearly illegal. The agency sought to break the law.

Blumrosen and Pressman pushed the EEOC to defy the Civil Rights Act of
1964 by imposing quotas, demanding racial balance in the workplace and
giving preferences to blacks over whites. Essential to the Blumrosen-
Pressman campaign was the collection of statistics to show "disparate
impact," how minorities were underutilized, employed in a smaller
proportion in various occupations to their numbers in the general
population.

Blumrosen was set upon "selectively enforcing" the civil rights act by
using disparate impact theory and proportional representation only
when it affected others. (More accurately, Blumrosen was "selectively
malenforcing" the civil rights law, imposing quotas for
underrepresented blacks, using quotas to curb whites; for women,
against men; but never for gentiles and against Jews.)

Of course, had the EEOC sought to restrict Jews as it has white men,
the storm of protest would have cast "disparate impact" theory into
the dustbin of history. Thus, the role of Blumrosen and his allies in
the media, academia etc., was to create a false target - the
"overrepresented," "privileged" and "oppressive" white male. According
to the EEOC, the statistics proved just that. However, the statistics
proved otherwise. The partial statistics used by Blumrosen were simply
the effort to deflect criticism to another group instead of the one
most overrepresented, privileged and oppressive - his own.

By not asking the religious question on the EEOC questionnaires, the
EEOC created a scapegoat of the white male. Once smeared as
"privileged" and "oppressive," the non-privileged, working-class and
poor whites began to pay the price for the "moral" system of
affirmative action by being legally discriminated against and denied
equal opportunity.

The proportional test, the liberals' test of all tests, when applied
to the religious clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, shows Jews to
be the most privileged and oppressive of people in America. The fav-
orite test of liberals reveals white men to be less privileged than
the Jews. Why does not The New York Times, the EEOC, NBC, CBS or ABC
report that statistic? The media remain silent on the issue of Jewish
privilege while simultaneously exposing every time white men are
somewhat overrepresented. Why the silence regarding Jews? A glance at
the ownership of the media just might have something to do with this
disparity in exposing "privilege." And if any individual in the media
dared to expose some Jewish privilege, there would be a thunderous
assault upon that individual's "bigotry." However, daily, reporters
write of white male privilege, but almost no one denounces this anti-
white bigotry.

Once smeared as privileged, the non-privileged middle-class, working-
class, and poor whites pay for the "moral" system of AA by being
legally discriminated against and denied equal opportunity. But then
the history of America since the 1960s is often the record of wealthy
liberals using the law to curb and oppress blue-collar whites, because
the blue-collar folk are deemed privileged, prejudiced and provincial.
Therefore, such blue-collar whites deserve to be passed over in
scholarships, jobs and promotions; the blue-collar crowd should be
shunted aside, and instead the "pets" of the elite should be elevated:
the children of illegal immigrants, of wealthy minorities and the
daughters of rich liberals. And this is done in the name of morality,
fairness, and justice.

In summary, the great hoax concocted by Blumrosen and his
collaborators in the media, academy, and government is "white male
privilege." Most white men are not privileged. Those who are, often
support AA because it is no loss to them - their children will not
require a scholarship, an entry-level job, a position as policeman or
fireman, or a promotion. It is the poor and middle-class whites who,
denied equal opportunity, must pay with thinning wallets and shrunken
dreams for the "morality of diversity" imposed by the wealthy, liberal
elite.

Even if every CEO in America were a white male, that would be no
reason to discriminate against a poor, white teenage boy seeking a
scholarship and give it to a lesser qualified girl or minority. "White
male privilege" is a social construct created by liberals. They have
used their power in government, media, and academia to deny equal
opportunity to white men, to undermine and stigmatize America's
working class, and to immobilize with guilt the white middle class.
America does not suffer from white male privilege and oppression; it
staggers beneath Jewish privilege and oppression.

Excerpted from article found at:
http://www.barnesreview.org/Nov__Dec_2001/Who_s_to_Blame_for_the_Affirma/wh
o_s_to_blame_for_the_affirma.html

www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
.