I agreed with the ruling in the Harvard case; 100%. For the majority of my adult life, I have stood against affirmative action, especially with regard to college admissions processes.
But I must say that I wasn't at all impressed by this piece.
Seriously. We need to broaden this discussion. Otherwise it's just another shallow boring talking point, and a massive wasted opportunity.
It is too easy to say, "We stand against racial discrimination!"
Real life is a bit more complicated. Hopefully, we are about to find out.
The same legal outfit that prevailed over Harvard have now sued a VC fund that targets Black & Latino female entrepreneurs. Fearless Fund was established as a result of Black & Latino female entrepreneurs complaining about Silicon Valley VC funds discriminating against them.
As I understand it, they could never prove their charge--no smoking guns.
In fairness, I don't know if these high-tech "good ol' boys networks" were guilty or not. But for argument's sake, let's say they were never guilty of any such discrimination. In the case of Fearless, it didn't matter; these ladies opted for another path:
"Let's do our own thing. If others wish to join us, we will welcome them with open arms."
Sounds eerily similar to, "Let's pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. Let's take control of our own community. Let's make the free market work for us."
I could have sworn this school of thought was a staple in conservative philosophy (or used to be). But that's beside the point.
Bottom line, Fearless Fund was wide open about why they were created and what they were about. If anything, it was a key part of their pitch, and yes, an obvious form of racial and gender discrimination.
Enter Edward Blum's so-called American Alliance for Equal Rights. Apparently they are kind of feeling themselves these days: "Yeah, we kicked Harvard's butt! Who else wants some? How about the VC industry?"
I get it. But I don't think they realize what's ahead of them. As the article suggests, we may see a few unexpected allies in this fight. Some of the most anti-woke capitalists in Silicon Valley--like Jason Calacanis--are supporters of efforts like Fearless.
STRONG supporters. Have been for YEARS.
It all begs the question: What do we mean when we say we are against racial discrimination? Does that mean ANY discrimination based on race, or any OVERT discrimination based on race?
If the courts rule against Fearless, how do so-called conservatives reconcile their age-old principle of pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps? Is it a simple matter of removing the explicit race-specific language on a firm's mission statement and moving forward with the same agenda "in stealth"? (Which, btw, is more or less what Harvard et al are going to do?)
I cannot wait to see this unfold. I am not a big believer in the slippery slope theory, but how far are they planning to go with this?
Ever heard of Project 21? They describe themselves as an initiative with the goal of "promoting the views of African-Americans whose entrepreneurial spirit, dedication to family and commitment to individual responsibility have not traditionally been echoed by the nation’s civil rights establishment."
Sounds a little like racial discrimination on some level, yes? What about Candace Owens' idiotic and obviously fraudulent "Blexit"? Are they next on deck? If not, why not?
A society with zero racial discrimination means one thing to me: One in which race doesn't mean a damned thing to anybody (a concept that I am 100% down with, by the way).
But what percentage of this country--left, right OR center--agrees?
If we agree that racial discrimination is wrong, then we must understand that the government meddling either for or against discrimination is wrong. Government is force, and the hallmark of civil society is choice. I'll give two examples:
During the Articles of Confederation, six black slaves sued for their freedom in six separate cases, and were successful. After the Constitution enshrined black slaves as worth 2/3 of white votes, but accruing to the slave owner, no slaves sued or were freed of their own choice.
After Jim Crow laws were repealed, and before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the people (black and white) were on their own to find their own way into civility. The CRA has actually slowed that process, and in some ways reversed it.
I am white, and I was raised to believe that a civil society is a society of chosen association, and that association can be race-based, religion-based, friendship-based. No one has the right to force anyone else to associate with anyone, nor anyone associate with me.
Businesses or groups that routinely shun people based on irrational standards, lessen the pool of intelligent people who could enrich their life with wisdom and kindness.
My Romanian grandmother gave me the strength to survive prejudice and discrimination (of which there was always plenty). She would say, "They're just jealous." The implication was, "Get over it, and you can triumph over it." I believe that.
If you truly want a color-blind America, not in the sense that we fail to see the individual qualities of people, but that the government is silent on these matters, because if we're all equal under the law, our individual, immutable characteristics don't matter to the law. The law must be silent on discrimination if you really want to diffuse this bomb.
A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests. - Thomas Sowell
For national security reasons alone, we must apply a proper understanding of the 14th Amendment. The CCP controls its people precisely because they have no real legal protections. Can we pull together before they pull us apart.
beautiful
I agreed with the ruling in the Harvard case; 100%. For the majority of my adult life, I have stood against affirmative action, especially with regard to college admissions processes.
But I must say that I wasn't at all impressed by this piece.
Seriously. We need to broaden this discussion. Otherwise it's just another shallow boring talking point, and a massive wasted opportunity.
It is too easy to say, "We stand against racial discrimination!"
Real life is a bit more complicated. Hopefully, we are about to find out.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/group-behind-affirmative-action-cases-130312268.html
The same legal outfit that prevailed over Harvard have now sued a VC fund that targets Black & Latino female entrepreneurs. Fearless Fund was established as a result of Black & Latino female entrepreneurs complaining about Silicon Valley VC funds discriminating against them.
As I understand it, they could never prove their charge--no smoking guns.
In fairness, I don't know if these high-tech "good ol' boys networks" were guilty or not. But for argument's sake, let's say they were never guilty of any such discrimination. In the case of Fearless, it didn't matter; these ladies opted for another path:
"Let's do our own thing. If others wish to join us, we will welcome them with open arms."
Sounds eerily similar to, "Let's pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. Let's take control of our own community. Let's make the free market work for us."
I could have sworn this school of thought was a staple in conservative philosophy (or used to be). But that's beside the point.
Bottom line, Fearless Fund was wide open about why they were created and what they were about. If anything, it was a key part of their pitch, and yes, an obvious form of racial and gender discrimination.
Enter Edward Blum's so-called American Alliance for Equal Rights. Apparently they are kind of feeling themselves these days: "Yeah, we kicked Harvard's butt! Who else wants some? How about the VC industry?"
I get it. But I don't think they realize what's ahead of them. As the article suggests, we may see a few unexpected allies in this fight. Some of the most anti-woke capitalists in Silicon Valley--like Jason Calacanis--are supporters of efforts like Fearless.
STRONG supporters. Have been for YEARS.
It all begs the question: What do we mean when we say we are against racial discrimination? Does that mean ANY discrimination based on race, or any OVERT discrimination based on race?
If the courts rule against Fearless, how do so-called conservatives reconcile their age-old principle of pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps? Is it a simple matter of removing the explicit race-specific language on a firm's mission statement and moving forward with the same agenda "in stealth"? (Which, btw, is more or less what Harvard et al are going to do?)
I cannot wait to see this unfold. I am not a big believer in the slippery slope theory, but how far are they planning to go with this?
Ever heard of Project 21? They describe themselves as an initiative with the goal of "promoting the views of African-Americans whose entrepreneurial spirit, dedication to family and commitment to individual responsibility have not traditionally been echoed by the nation’s civil rights establishment."
Sounds a little like racial discrimination on some level, yes? What about Candace Owens' idiotic and obviously fraudulent "Blexit"? Are they next on deck? If not, why not?
A society with zero racial discrimination means one thing to me: One in which race doesn't mean a damned thing to anybody (a concept that I am 100% down with, by the way).
But what percentage of this country--left, right OR center--agrees?
Great essay, thanks!
If we agree that racial discrimination is wrong, then we must understand that the government meddling either for or against discrimination is wrong. Government is force, and the hallmark of civil society is choice. I'll give two examples:
During the Articles of Confederation, six black slaves sued for their freedom in six separate cases, and were successful. After the Constitution enshrined black slaves as worth 2/3 of white votes, but accruing to the slave owner, no slaves sued or were freed of their own choice.
After Jim Crow laws were repealed, and before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the people (black and white) were on their own to find their own way into civility. The CRA has actually slowed that process, and in some ways reversed it.
I am white, and I was raised to believe that a civil society is a society of chosen association, and that association can be race-based, religion-based, friendship-based. No one has the right to force anyone else to associate with anyone, nor anyone associate with me.
Businesses or groups that routinely shun people based on irrational standards, lessen the pool of intelligent people who could enrich their life with wisdom and kindness.
My Romanian grandmother gave me the strength to survive prejudice and discrimination (of which there was always plenty). She would say, "They're just jealous." The implication was, "Get over it, and you can triumph over it." I believe that.
If you truly want a color-blind America, not in the sense that we fail to see the individual qualities of people, but that the government is silent on these matters, because if we're all equal under the law, our individual, immutable characteristics don't matter to the law. The law must be silent on discrimination if you really want to diffuse this bomb.
A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests. - Thomas Sowell
For national security reasons alone, we must apply a proper understanding of the 14th Amendment. The CCP controls its people precisely because they have no real legal protections. Can we pull together before they pull us apart.