Tag Archives: rights

Another Blow against the Bigotry of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order last Wednesday, news of which the press is busily trying to spike. Titled RESTORING EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY AND MERITOCRACY, the EO gets right to the heart of the matter.

Section 1. Purpose. A bedrock principle of the United States is that all citizens are treated equally under the law. This principle guarantees equality of opportunity, not equal outcomes. It promises that people are treated as individuals, not components of a particular race or group. It encourages meritocracy and a colorblind society, not race- or sex-based favoritism. Adherence to this principle is essential to creating opportunity, encouraging achievement, and sustaining the American Dream.
But a pernicious movement endangers this foundational principle, seeking to transform America’s promise of equal opportunity into a divisive pursuit of results preordained by irrelevant immutable characteristics, regardless of individual strengths, effort, or achievement. A key tool of this movement is disparate-impact liability, which holds that a near insurmountable presumption of unlawful discrimination exists where there are any differences in outcomes in certain circumstances among different races, sexes, or similar groups, even if there is no facially discriminatory policy or practice or discriminatory intent involved, and even if everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed. Disparate-impact liability all but requires individuals and businesses to consider race and engage in racial balancing to avoid potentially crippling legal liability. It not only undermines our national values, but also runs contrary to equal protection under the law and, therefore, violates our Constitution.
… As the Supreme Court put it, “[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
Disparate-impact liability is wholly inconsistent with the Constitution and threatens the commitment to merit and equality of opportunity that forms the foundation of the American Dream. Under my Administration, citizens will be treated equally before the law and as individuals, not consigned to a certain fate based on their immutable characteristics.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible to avoid violating the Constitution, Federal civil rights laws, and basic American ideals.

The EO proceeds from there, including removal of the LBJ administration’s approval of regulations implementing “disparate impact” and direction to the Attorney General to begin removal of related regulations implementing—Trump generously calls them pernicious, I say openly racist—Civil Rights Act of 1966 Title VI. Additionally, the EO instructs the EEOC, HUD, CFPB, FTC, and “other agencies” to take actions necessary to end the use of disparate impact in enforcement actions both ongoing and contemplated.

The EO can be read in its entirety here.

Finally

Posted on by
Reply

HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy, Jr, is moving to remove the Wuhan Virus vaccines from the CDC’s list of vaccines recommended for children.

Finally. Regardless of what anyone—expert or not—thinks of the efficacy of the vaccines or of their side effects, the simple fact is that children, 16 years old, or so, and younger, almost never got infected by this virus, and that number drew even closer to zero as the age dropped.

There never was a need for the vaccine for children, and injecting anything into kids who don’t need it is monumentally stupid, to say nothing about the dangers involved.

What’s Missing?

Posted on by
Reply

A Wall Street Journal news writer wrote about the accumulation of additional wealth by the already wealthiest in the United States.

New data suggest $1 trillion of wealth was created for the 19 richest American households alone in 2024. …
It took four decades for the top 0.00001% of Americans share of total US household wealth to grow from 0.1% in 1982—when 11 households made up that rarefied group—to 1.2% in 2023, according to an analysis by Gabriel Zucman, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley and the Paris School of Economics.

What’s missing is any discussion of economic mobility, which always has been at the center of our nation’s economic development and overall wealth increase. Who are these households, and who were they?

Those in Zucman’s research on the top 0.00001% in the US are worth at least $45 billion per household and include Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and private-equity investor Stephen Schwarzman.

All of these, with the possible exception of Buffett, are Johnny-come-latelies to this tier—that’s upward mobility, and part of that eight household increase.

JPMorgan Chase’s private bank estimates US billionaires numbered nearly 2,000 last year, up from about 1,400 in 2021, when it began tracking billionaires. Wealth-data firm Altrata, meanwhile, estimates the figure at 1,050 billionaires in 2023, the most recent year for which it has data, up from 975 in 2021.

There’s a hint there. General wealth is increasing and individual folks and households move up the economic ladder. With mathematical certainty, others move down: even with a growing population—and ours is only barely growing—0.00001%, 0.01%, 50% of our population are finite numbers, and while more are rising than falling, some still must be moving down.

That’s economic mobility. And this: even as wealth is getting concentrated, it’s getting concentrated in an ever-increasing number of households.

It’s good to be rich. It’s even better to live in a free market economy where any of us can get there. After all, it’s not the concentration of wealth that matters so much, it’s the ability of any of us to accumulate that wealth and move up the economic ladder in the first place that’s important.

Not a Bad Idea

Posted on by
Reply

A letter writer in The Wall Street Journal‘s Monday Letters section had one.

The column about how AI can mimic the voice of a family member to facilitate scams showed how important it is for families to have a code word or phrase, known only to immediate family members, that they don’t use online. If somebody calls a family member in distress and needs help, he or she has to supply the code word or phrase. Therefore, a caller who says, ‘Mom, I’m in trouble,’ will earn the response, ‘OK, what’s the code word?’ Without it, mom promptly hangs up the phone.

The code phrase (I think a word is too easily social-engineered into discovery, especially by AI) cannot be delivered by telephone or messaging apps, though; those pathways are too easily hacked or even merely eavesdropped on. The phrase needs to be delivered in writing and in person or at most by first class snail mail.

One more tweak: given the nature of emergencies, that phrase should be kept on the person, in a wallet or purse (because it likely won’t be frequently used and so likely will be forgotten). That, in turn, necessitates promptly changing the phrase in the event of a mugging or a pickpocket success.

And a follow-up: after mom has hung up the phone, she needs to report the AI phish effort.

They Don’t Have to Accept the Deal

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration has frozen $2.2 billion in funds for Harvard, out of some $9-ish billion in progress, over Harvard’s refusal to rid itself of the antisemitic bigots and terrorist-supporters in its student, professor, and school management populations. The editors at The Wall Street Journal object, but they’re missing the point.

Stipulate that the feds have a duty to enforce civil-rights laws, and Harvard failed to protect Jewish students during anti-Israel protests. But the university agreed to strengthen protections for Jewish students in a legal settlement with Students Against Antisemitism, which praised it for “implementing effective long-term changes.”
The Trump Administration nonetheless demanded last week that Harvard accede to what is effectively a federal receivership under threat of losing $9 billion. Some of the demands are within the government’s civil-rights purview, such as requiring Harvard to discipline students who violate its discrimination policies. It also wants Harvard to “shutter all diversity, equity and inclusion” programs, under “whatever name,” that violate federal law.
But the Administration runs off the legal rails by ordering Harvard to reduce “governance bloat, duplication, or decentralization.” It also orders the school to review “all existing and prospective faculty…for plagiarism” and ensure “viewpoint diversity” in “each department, field, or teaching unit.”

Leave aside the underlying premise that the words of “the university” have any value given the ongoing assaults against Jewish students, interference with their getting to class and the ability to participate in class/hear the lecture of those who do make it, interference with their ability to speak at all, and the ongoing disruptions by the terrorist supporters.

Stipulate that Harvard is a private institution, and it can do pretty much what it wants concerning “governance bloat, duplication, or decentralization,” “plagiarism,” and “viewpoint diversity.” As long as the school takes Federal dollars, the Federal government gets to specify how those dollars get used, just as any other donor can do.

Harvard doesn’t have to accept the deal on offer. Harvard also doesn’t have to get Federal dollars. The one is intrinsic in the school’s status as a private enterprise. The other is not at all intrinsic in it. Those Federal donations are nothing more than that—a privilege being received by Harvard, not anything to which Harvard has any right, in any sense of that term.