Tag Archives: morality

St Louis Fed Fails

Posted on by
Reply

The St Louis Federal Reserve Bank is busily going woke (my term, not Belongia’s and Ireland’s). They describe the following failure of the St Louis Fed:

The Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis is in the early stages of creating an Institute for Economic Equity “to support an economy in which everyone can benefit regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or where they live,” with an emphasis on “economic outcomes experienced by historically marginalized groups.”

This is a two-pronged failure, and a double disaster if it comes to fruition. By its own description, the St Louis Fed’s IEE is racist and sexist at its core. Beyond that, by pushing outcomes rather than opportunities, the IEE is fundamentally socialist.

And what does the drive to create such an office say about the St Louis Fed’s president and board members?

A Compendium of Reasons

Posted on by
Reply

Nike provides them, to do two things.

Here’s Nike’s ad regarding the WNBA. Especially beginning at 0:19, and most especially Nike’s closer, starting at 0:23.

The two things: continue not watching the WNBA, and not doing business with Nike (which company also does enthusiastic business with the genocide-committing People’s Republic of China, so here’s an additional reason for not doing business with Nike).

 

H/t Not the Bee

College Entrance Discrimination

Posted on by
Reply

A letter writer in Monday’s Wall Street Journal Letters section wants the Supreme Court to rule in favor of racial discrimination, at least as practiced by Harvard, in the Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard case.

If the plaintiffs…win, you can bet that elite college- and graduate-admissions offices around the country will establish workarounds to assure that opportunities remain for admittance of significant numbers of underrepresented minorities.

Therefore, he asserts,

The justices would be wise to take a pass on the Harvard case, or to affirm the lower courts’ decisions.

Which decisions upheld Harvard’s practice of racial discrimination for admission to its ivy-coated halls.

Harvard, to the letter writer’s first plaint, already uses “workarounds”—opaque and obscure criteria for assessing admissions “essays” and “descriptions of what this means to me” for starters—in selecting entrants on the basis of race while nonselecting other entrants on the basis of race.

Were the letter writer serious, he’d stop demanding free passes for the “underrepresented minorities” solely on the basis of their under-representation; that’s just racism under another guise. They’re underrepresented because they’re not qualified.

The solution is not free passes at the late date of college admissions applications, it’s getting these high school “graduates” actually educated and qualified.

More importantly, the solution is working to correct the K-12 systems and broken families that are the cause of unqualified-ness. But that takes actual work, and it’ll be a generational struggle to correct the ills so deeply embedded in what we’re pleased to call our education system. That solution is not the feel-good quick fix of which the Left is so enamored.

Another letter writer, however, takes a markedly differ view of the matter.

It [The Supreme Court] ought to take this case and apply strict scrutiny to the rationales advanced to justify treating some students more favorably than others merely on account of their ancestry.

But that doesn’t go far enough. As Chief Justice John Roberts already has said, [t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. On this, he’s right.

There is no justification for discriminating on “account of ancestry.” No more strict scrutiny; end the use of race as a discriminant, no matter how far down the list of selection criteria. Any—any—use of race as a selection criterion is rank racism.

Full stop.

Biden, Planned Parenthood, and Abortion

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden’s (D) fleshed out budget proposal will have an indication of his fiscal attitude toward abortion and taxpayer dollars.

It’s an important indication, too, as Melanie Newman, Senior Vice President of Communications and Culture for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, was cited in the article as noting:

removing the [Hyde] amendment from the budget “would send a clear signal from the president of the United States that our federal laws should support everyone’s ability to access comprehensive healthcare services, including safe, legal abortion.”

But what about the babies’ ability to have access to comprehensive healthcare services, including safe, legal birth, and life?

Oh, wait—babies don’t vote.

Nor do babies donate to Planned Parenthood.

Race as a Discriminant of Merit

Posted on by
Reply

A Wall Street Journal editorial gets at this as the editors urge the Supreme Court to take up Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard, a case in which Harvard uses race explicitly as a meritorious discriminant for admission.

Harvard personnel actually insist they aren’t discriminating against Americans of Asian descent; they’re merely favoring Americans with black or brown skin. Anyone not chewing the halls’ ivy can see the obvious disingenuousness of that claim; the WSJ‘s editors are entirely correct to push the Court to take up the case.

The larger stakes are whether the Supreme Court will wink as America divides in ways that have proved so destructive in the past.

And

In America today the principle that drove the civil-rights movement—equality for all—is fast giving way to the view that race must be a dominant factor in every decision from college admission to eligibility for a federal farm program to the makeup of corporate boards to who gets priority for a Covid vaccine.

But then the editors wander astray.

It is true that the racial discrimination alleged in Harvard isn’t the same as that of the Jim Crow South. In that era federal government intervention was required to break the state-enforced discrimination against black Americans. Race preferences were rooted then in the false claim of African-American inferiority.
No one thinks Harvard is discriminating because of animosity toward Asian-Americans, much less because it believes they are inferior.

The discrimination is so closely related, though, as to be a conjoined Siamese twin of Jim Crow. Harvard management personnel are setting race-based preference in favor of blacks, rather than against them, precisely because those school managers still believe the claim of African-American inferiority; the school’s management personnel still believe[] [blacks] are inferior.