A Protest for Free Speech

On Wednesday, the Young Conservatives of Texas club at the University of Texas at Austin held an “affirmative action bake sale” offering cookies at different prices based on the race and sex of the buyer.

A cookie cost $1.50 for Asian males, $1 for white males, and 50 cents for African-American and Hispanic males. Cookies for American Indians of both genders were free of charge.

[The affirmative action link is in the original of the above quote; I included it so readers can see Instagram’s complicity at the time of my writing (27 Oct) in censoring this bit of news.]

That pricing is a direct reflection of the nature of UT Austin’s affirmative action programs, which similarly varies accesses to the school based on ethnicity and not merit.

But never mind that.  The school objected to having its racist policies so blatantly illustrated.  Gregory Vincent, the school’s Vice President for Diversity and Community Engagement, had this on the matter:

[F]ocusing our attention on the provocative nature of the YCT’s actions ignores a much more important issue: they create an environment of exclusion and disrespect among our students, faculty and staff[.]

Such dialectics are at the core of freely conducted debate, though.  This university’s management plainly does not understand actual freedoms acknowledged in the First Amendment.

Embarrassingly, Vincent went on, and unable to form a coherent argument on the matter, stooped to attacking the protestors and not the protestors’ argument.

He…questioned the club’s motive behind the bake sale.

This is what our State’s tax dollars are buying, and it’s not education.

What’s the Chinese Term for Aппара́тчик?

Law firms in the People’s Republic of China are about to get them.  In addition to two new Rule by Law directives that prohibit PRC lawyers from criticizing the government on the one hand and that require PRC lawyers to overtly support the Chinese Communist Party on the other, these law firms are required to accept into their organizations

establishment[s] of Communist Party branches[.]

To ensure proper behavior.

Obamacare’s Cost Increases

As even President Barack Obama (D) has finally confessed, Obamacare plan premiums and deductibles are skyrocketing.  But the Democrats and their Progressive fellows are cynically obfuscating the matter.  Here’s a typical remark, by HHS’ Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Kevin Griffis:

Headline rates are generally rising faster than in previous years…headline rates are not what they [recipients of Obamacare subsidies] pay.

Indeed not.  Those rates are what you and I and our fellow taxpayers who don’t get subsidies pay, and they’re rates for which we pay a second time in the form of the subsidies Obamacare passes on to potsful of Obamacare plan purchasers.  We pay for those subsidies with our tax payments.

This is carefully elided by those pushers of Obamacare.

Disparate Impact

Some folks sued RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co over its hiring policy that

allegedly gave preference to applicants with two to three years of job experience out of college and disfavored those with closer to a decade in the workforce. The company’s guidelines provided to its hiring contractor, according to the ruling, said the greener group of workers “adjusts easily to changes.”

The suit centered on the premise that this policy had a disparate impact on older workers.  In the words of Lee Parks, an employment and civil rights lawyer with Parks, Chesin & Walbert, the policy means that

Those over 40 need not apply[.]

Judge William Pryor, writing for the majority at the 11th Circuit, which heard an appeal from the trial court’s ruling, wrote Indeed.  Disparate impact questions only apply to job holders, not those who’d merely like to hold a job.

Apparently disparate impact as justification for “corrective” action or as a cudgel is good only for some groups of Americans, but those who aren’t currently the favored ones don’t get its use.

This is one more reason to do away with disparate impact as an excuse for anything at all.

How Many Layers of Bureaucracy

…whether government’s or private businesses’ will Big Government require before it will allow a failed enterprise to fail?

Regulators want to prevent taxpayers from having to ever again bail out big banks. Their latest idea: make the banks bail themselves out.

Previously, banks had struggled to persuade regulators they had a plan—called a “living will”—that would allow them to be dismantled and shut down if they got into trouble without taxpayers taking a hit. Now, banks are creating new structures that would allow their most important parts to keep functioning, even if the parent company has to file for bankruptcy. The aim is to avoid the kind of market chaos that could cause economic harm.

Never mind the far greater market chaos created by keeping these failed entities around, actively cluttering the market.

Make the banks bail themselves out?  Get regulators out of the way, and let the banks—or any other enterprise—prevent their failure with sound, market-driven business decisions, instead of facing a greater risk of failure by being trapped into decisions driven by Big Government regulations.  Those remaining businesses that fail will deserve to do so from their poor decision making.

The whole concept of a “living will” and a free market enterprise is internally contradictory.   Let a failed enterprise fail, and let the free market, consisting of all of its participants including the enterprises that rise from the bankrupt’s ashes, prosper.