Just What Is Racism?

~ A Fairy Tale ~

A beautiful fairy appeared one day to a destitute refugee claimant outside a Illinois immigration office.

'My good man,' the fairy said, 'I've been told to grant you three wishes, since you just arrived in the United States with your wife and three children.'

The man told the fairy. 'Well, where I come from we don't have good strong healthy teeth, so I want new teeth, maybe a lot of gold in them.'

The fairy looked at the man's almost toothless grin and -- "Ping!" -- he had a brand new shining set of gold teeth in his mouth!

'What else?' asked the fairy, 'two more to go.'

The refugee claimant now got bolder. 'I need a big house with a three car garage in Chicago on Lake Michigan with eight bedrooms for my family and the rest of my relatives who still live in my country. I want to bring them all over here.'

'Ping! - In the distance there could be seen a beautiful mansion with pool and spa, a three car garage, a long driveway, a walkout patio with a BBQ in an upscale neighborhood overlooking the lake.

'One more wish', said the fairy, waving her wand.

'Yes, one more wish. I want to be like an American with American clothes instead of these tore cloths, and a baseball cap instead of this turban. And I want to have white skin like some Americans happen to be born with.'

'Ping! - The man was transformed, wearing worn out jeans, a Chicago Cubes T-shirt and a baseball cap. He had his bad teeth back and the mansion had disappeared from the horizon.

'What happened to my new teeth?' he wailed. 'Where is my new house and other things?' Why are you doing this?

The fairy said "Tough Luck Whitey!

Now that you're a White American, you'll have to make it on your own! No special privileges or freebies given to you!"
...And she disappeared!

"Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of White Men and do not apply to them." PAGE LINK

What Exactly IS Racism Anyway?

"What is Racism?" By Thomas Jackson
There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in greater horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable texture of American life. "Racism" is never shrugged off. For example, when a white Georgetown Law School student reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as white students, it set off a booming, national controversy about "racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would have attracted far less attention and criticism. Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what is racism?
Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the word. They usually define it as the belief that one's own ethnic stock is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal more than this.

Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are equal.

Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil.

The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If blacks, for example, are equal to whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is white racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive racism.

Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state. All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic.

Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on white wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences. Thus, even if today's whites can find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's whites must have oppressed them. If whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress them Un-consciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be identified, then "institutions" must be racist.
Or, since blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be millions of white people we do not know about, who are working day and night to keep blacks in misery...

The dogma of racial equality leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion, an indictment of white people.

The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to believe that the only explanation for non-white failure is white racism, every time a non-white is poor, commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, white society stands accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-whites is standing proof that white society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the same level as whites, whites will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them.

This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be committed almost exclusively by white people. Indeed, a black congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of Detroit, have argued that only white people "can" be racist.
Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she explained that "all" whites are racist and that "only" whites can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?

Although some blacks and liberal whites concede that non-whites can, perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-whites have been forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of white oppression. What appears to be non-white racism is so understandable and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist.

What would surely be called racism when done by whites is thought to be normal when done by anyone else. The reverse is also true.

Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost tedious to list them:

When a white man kills a black man and uses the word "nigger" while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random whites, the media are silent.
College campuses forbid pejorative statements about non-whites as "racist," but ignore scurrilous attacks on whites.
At election time, if 60 percent of the white voters vote for a white candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black opponent, it is white who are accused of racial bias.
There are 107 "historically black" colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically white colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name of... the same thing.

To resist would be racist...

"Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything that could be construed as an expression of white pride is a form of hatred.
It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect school instruction and driver's tests in their own languages, whereas for Native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist.
Blatant anti-white prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if practiced in favor of whites, would be attacked as despicable favoritism.
All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club or association expressly for whites is by definition racist. At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have set up student unions for whites, analogous to those for blacks, Hispanics, etc, and have been roundly condemned as racists. Recently, when the white students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club like the ones that non- whites have. They were turned down in horror.

Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a white enclave but whose members simply happen all to be white is branded as racist.

Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality of American racism is "celebration of diversity." It has begun to dawn on a few people that "diversity" is always achieved at the expense of whites (and sometimes men), and never the other way around.

No one proposes that Howard University be made more diverse by admitting whites, Hispanics, or Asians.
No one ever suggests that National Hispanic University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity of having non-Hispanics on campus.
No one suggests that the Black Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a lack of diversity.

Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to celebrate "homogeneity." And yet any all-white group – a company, a town, a school, a club, a neighborhood - is thought to suffer from a crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as possible.

Only when whites have been reduced to a minority has "diversity" been achieved.

Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate" or "embrace" diversity, as we are so often asked to do, is no different from "deploring an excess of whites."

In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess of whites. Our current immigration policies are structured so that approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are non-white. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the country every year are virtually all non-white.

It would be racist not to be grateful for this laudable contribution to "diversity."

It is, of course, only white nations that are called upon to practice this kind of "diversity." It is almost criminal to imagine a nation of any other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind.

What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated citizens across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into thinking that Mexico was being "culturally enriched?" What if the state of Chihuahua were losing its majority population to poor whites who demanded that schools be taught in English, who insisted on celebrating the Fourth of July, who demanded the right to vote even if they weren't citizens, who clamored for "affirmative action" in jobs and schooling?

Would Mexico - or any other nation - tolerate this kind of cultural and demographic depredation?

Of course not. Yet European-Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians entering their country as a priceless cultural gift.

They are supposed to "celebrate" their own loss of influence, their own dwindling numbers, their own dispossession, for to do otherwise would be hopelessly racist.

There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non-whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of "hating" another group. Blacks can join "civil rights" groups and Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and hate mongers. They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can come only at the expense of whites.

They can demand preferential treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are "anti-white."

Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked and hateful.
Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage.

None of this is thought to be racist.

At the same time, "whites" must "also" champion the racial interests of non-whites.

They must sacrifice their own future on the altar of "diversity" and cooperate in their own dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and cultures. To put it in the simplest possible terms, white people are cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and cultural suicide.

To refuse to do so would be racism...

Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to love one's people and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative action preferences over native-born whites, but can they be blamed for accepting them?

Is it surprising that they should want their languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take possession and put their mark indelibly on the land?

If the once-great people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?

No, it is the white enterprise in the United States that is unnatural, unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have let themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to dispossession, much less to work for their own interests.

Never in the history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates to strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens. Never before has a people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in history. Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked into thinking that a preference for one's own kind is racism. Only whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow "hatred" of others. All healthy people prefer the company of their own kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men love their families more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no ill will towards non-whites.

They only wish to be left alone to participate in the unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies.

What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his neighbors, since to do otherwise would be "racist."

What then, is "racism?"

(It is considerably more than any dictionary is likely to say.)

"It is any opposition by whites to official policies of racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of "people-hood" that have defined nations since the beginning of history - but it is only racism so long as the aspirations are those of whites."

By Thomas Jackson "What Is Racism?" was originally published in American Renaissance, Vol 2, No. 8., P.O. Box 527, Oakton, VA 22124

The Truth of Interracial Rape in the United States

Like Ahab's search for the Great White Whale, liberals' search for the Great White Defendant is relentless and never-ending.

When, in 1988, Tawana Brawley's and Al Sharpton's then year-old spectacular charge that several white men including prosecutor Steven Pagones (whose name Brawley had picked out of a newspaper article) had abducted and raped the 15 year old was shown to be completely false, the Nation said it didn't matter, since the charges expressed the essential nature of white men's treatment of black women in this country.

When the Duke University lacrosse players were accused of raping a black stripper last year, liberals everywhere treated the accusation as fact, because, just as with the Nation and Tawana Brawley, the rape charge seemed to the minds of liberals to reflect the true nature of oppressive racial and sexual relations in America.

To see the real truth of the matter, let us take a look at the Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2005. (Go to the linked document, and under "Victims and Offenders" download the file for 2005.)

In Table 42, entitled "Personal crimes of violence, 2005, percent distribution of single-offender victimizations, based on race of victims, by type of crime and perceived race of offender," we learn that there were 111,590 white victims and 36,620 black victims of rape or sexual assault in 2005. (The number of rapes is not distinguished from those of sexual assaults; it is maddening that sexual assault, an ill-defined category that covers various types of criminal acts ranging from penetration to inappropriate touching, is conflated with the more specific crime of rape.)

In the 111,590 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was white, 44.5 percent of the offenders were white, and 33.6 percent of the offenders were black.

In the 36,620 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was black, 100 percent of the offenders were black, and 0.0 percent of the offenders were white. The table explains that 0.0 percent means that there were under 10 incidents nationally.

The table does not give statistics for Hispanic victims and offenders. But the bottom line on interracial white/black and black/white rape is clear:

"In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.

What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man."

The Department of Justice statistics refer, of course, to verified reports. According to the Wikipedia article on rape, as many as half of all rape charges nationally are determined by police and prosecutors to be false:

Linda Fairstein, former head of the New York County District Attorney's Sex Crimes Unit, noted, "There are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen.... It's my job to bring justice to the man who has been falsely accused by a woman who has a grudge against him, just as it's my job to prosecute the real thing."

No wonder there was such absolute belief in the guilt of the Duke students among the leading sectors of liberal America. A drug-addled, half-deranged, promiscuous black stripper accused three young white men of raping her.

There are virtually zero rapes of black women by white men in the United States, and half of all rape charges against specific individuals turn out to be false. But in the agnostic, inverted world of liberal demonology, the white students had to be guilty.

Meanwhile, in the real America, week after week, the newspapers report the rapes of white women by black men—though, of course, without ever once using the words, "a white woman was raped by black man."

Just last week in the New York Post there was a story about a serial black rapist who invaded women's apartments on Manhattan's Upper West Side; you knew the rapist was black from a police drawing accompanying the story, and you knew the victims were most likely white from the neighborhoods where the attacks occurred. But even when news media's reports of black on white rape make the race of the perpetrator evident (which the media only does in a minority of instances), no explicit reference is ever made to the racial aspect of the case. Each story of black on white rape is reported in isolation, not presented as part of a larger pattern. There is never the slightest mention of the fact that white women in this country are being targeted by black rapists.

In the inverted world of liberalism, the phenomenon does not exist.

By Lawrence Auster May 3, 2007

Lawrence Auster is the author of Erasing America: The Politics of the Borderless Nation. He offers a traditionalist conservative perspective at View from the Right. Article Link

For Non-Whites Only
By Terence J. Pell
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 27, 2006

When fifteen-year old Emily Smith applied to Virginia Commonwealth University ’s Urban Journalism Workshop last April, she didn’t think her experience would become the basis for a new federal lawsuit designed to crack down on the illegal use of racial exclusions by colleges and universities.

But neither did she expect a phone call from one of the program directors inquiring about her race -- after she had been admitted to the program. When she said that she was “white,” the director immediately rescinded her acceptance. “I’m sorry,” she was told, “but you can’t come.”

It turned out that the Urban Journalism Workshop is one of dozens sponsored each year by the Dow Jones Newspaper Fund, a philanthropic arm of the publisher of the Wall Street Journal and other publications. Since it started the program in 1967, the Dow Jones Fund has required that participants be black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian or Alaskan native.

There was little way Emily could have known the program was racially segregated, since the application materials no where asked her to indicate her race. Moreover, it wasn’t until she received that phone call a few weeks before the program was to begin that she learned that the program discriminated on the basis of skin color. And so, while Emily Smith met every other requirement of the program (and even was accepted), she couldn’t attend solely because she was the wrong race.

Yesterday, Smith filed suit against VCU, the Dow Jones Newspaper Fund and the Richmond Times Dispatch -- the three program sponsors. In addition, her suit names the individual officials responsible for establishing and operating the workshop in a plainly discriminatory manner. She is represented in this effort by my organization, the Center for Individual Rights, which has challenged racially exclusionary admissions policies at other public colleges, including most notably the University of Michigan .

Smith seeks a legal ruling that programs that exclude individuals solely because of their race and for no other reason are unconstitutional. Unlike racially preferential admissions policies in which race is one factor used to ensure classroom diversity, the Urban Journalism Workshop excludes individuals solely on the basis of race and without considering any other factor. Moreover, a 100% racial quota does not make the classroom more diverse -- it does just the reverse.

Most schools, including the likes of Princeton University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard Business School , have ended race exclusive programs. And in February 2006, Southern Illinois University acceded to threatened legal action by the U.S. Department of Justice and entered into a consent decree obligating it to end several racially exclusive graduate programs.

Though it is laudable for philanthropic organizations, state universities and others to make efforts to bring individuals with varied backgrounds and diverse viewpoints into professions such as journalism, the time is long past when race can be used as the sole measure of diversity.

Programs that segregate students by race don't encourage students to challenge racial stereotypes. Indeed, a race-exclusive admissions policy reinforces the idea that it is appropriate to set aside the rules for certain racial groups. It is but a short step from that principle to the rather more malignant idea that some races just can’t compete on the same level as everyone else. These programs aren’t meant to be harmful, but they produce harmful consequences just the same. It is time to put an end to them.

Funding Racist Schools: Your Tax Dollars At Work

By Michelle Malkin

Top White House adviser Karl Rove traveled to Los Angeles this week to pay homage to the anti-immigration enforcement lobbying group for Latinos: the National Council of La Raza.

"La Raza" is Spanish for "The Race."

It's bad enough the White House lent its prestige to The Race's annual conference. But did you know the Bush administration has forked over millions of federal tax dollars directly to The Race?

According to GOP Rep. Charlie Norwood of Georgia, The Race snapped up $15.2 million in federal grants last year alone and more than $30 million since 1996. Undisclosed amounts went to get-out-the-vote efforts supporting La Raza political positions. The U.S. Department of Education funneled nearly $8 million in taxpayer grants to the group for a nationwide charter-schools initiative.

Among The Race's most infamous government-funded charter schools is La Academia Semillas del Pueblo, the Los Angeles public school that teaches "Aztec math" (ancient dot math is the new math) and the Mexican indigenous language of "Nahuatl."

The ethnic separatist principal of the school, Marcos Aguilar, told a sympathetic UCLA interviewer:
"We don't want to drink from a white water fountain; we have our own wells and our natural reservoirs and our way of collecting rain in our aqueducts. We don't need a white water fountain. ... We are not interested in what they have because we have so much more and because the world is so much larger. And ultimately, the white way, the American way, the neo-liberal, capitalist way of life will eventually lead to our own destruction."

That's the tip of the iceberg. I found dozens of other publicly subsidized charter schools sponsored by The Race and funded with our money, including:

* Aztlan Academy in Tucson, Ariz. According to The Race, the school's success rests on "Aztlan's ability to integrate a meaningful Chicano Studies program into their lives, language and academics, as a means of developing their intellects as well as their pride and self-esteem." The school's name – a reference to a mythical swath of the vast Southwestern U.S. expanse, which Latino activists claim is their rightful homeland and which they seek to reconquer for Mexico – says it all.

* Mexicayotl Academy in Nogales, Ariz. Who needs the three Rs? At Mexicayotl, it's all about the three Ms: me, me, me! The school's program is "structured and developed around the concepts of identity, culture and language." Second mission: supporting local ethnic lobbying efforts "to right social injustices by educating the community and helping create social change." Under "greatest achievements," the school's website lists its participation in a "Peace and Dignity Run"; its visit from Rigoberta Menchu (the Marxist academic fraud from Guatemala who lied her way to a Nobel Peace Prize); and its sponsorship of the local annual Dia de los Muertos (the Mexican holiday).

* The Dolores Huerta Preparatory High School in Pueblo, Colo. It's named after the far-left Latina labor union activist who recently railed that "Republicans hate Latinos," praised illegal-alien marchers and screeched that "We didn't cross the borders, the borders crossed us" in a hate-filled tirade before Arizona students.

* Academia Cesar Chavez Charter School in St. Paul, Minn. Board of Directors member Louis Mendoza, an activist Chicano Studies professor, pushed the school to lobby for the federal DREAM Act (providing in-state tuition discounts to illegal-alien students not available to legal non-residents). The school's website features one flag on its front page: the Mexican flag.

The White House will tell you that the National Council of The Race is a "moderate," mainstream civil-rights group. But there's nothing "moderate" about The Race's advocacy of driver's licenses and in-state tuition discounts for illegal aliens. Or its opposition to strengthening security for identity documents and improving cooperation on immigration enforcement between state, local and federal enforcement immigration officials. Or its all-out war on the House GOP's border security and enforcement-first bill passed last December.

President Bush pays lip service to immigration enforcement and assimilation, while the White House sends Karl Rove to make nice with the separatist leaders of The Race and the Bush Education Department showers our tax dollars on radical Reconquista schools.

It doesn't add up.

Unless, of course, you're using Aztec math.

By Michelle Malkin Visit Michelle's website soon!

Just What Exactly Is Racism?

Here's A Perfect Example.

(QUOTE) "...and they’re monitoring our people to try to prevent the one person from coming up with the one idea. And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people?"

Link To Racist's Video Taped Speech

"Because that, in my estimation, is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off of the face of the planet to solve this problem."

Now that's what the APFTE calls a racist remark!

If A White person would have made the same statement about Blacks or another Minority they would be accused of Hate Speech by every News Agency in our land and condemned by every Commentator and Black Race Hustler In America. Jessie Jackass and Al Sharpie possibly the two biggest Race Hustlers of them all, would be considering busing paid Protesters into the home town of the accused... just to make things miserable for the person.
Why wasn't this Black Racist Hitler accused of hate speech by everyone for going so far as to encourage murder on a mass scale? Will he be responsible if some listener and admirer of his decides to go on a killing spree? That type of racist thug, Hitler stylized hate speech is capable of inciting others into domestic Terrorism. Why can some people get away with saying those seditious remarks and others not?

Because of their skin color... and our justice system turns a blind eye to seditious hate speech if it's not a "European-American" or White American person committing it.

Can you say "Double Standards?"

Go ahead, say it... "Double Standards"... That's how genocide or what some call "ethnic cleansing" begins with, Double Standards. So, in reality, double standards is racism and our Government is condoning it! Nice eh?

Think about it...

Rick Smith, APFTE

Visit "Extremism In America" For A Real Eye-Opener On Hate Groups In America, Hate Isn't Practiced By Any Single Racial group.

It's discrimination...

It's wrong!

By Sharon L. Browne

When Crystal Meredith of Louisville tried to enroll her young son in Bloom Elementary School, she was told he couldn't transfer out of Young Elementary, the school where he was already assigned.

Why? Not because of his grades or interests. It was because he is white. As a federal district court later recounted the facts, he "was denied admittance because his transfer to Bloom would have had an adverse effect on Young's racial composition."

Did this happen in 1950, when students were routinely barred from certain schools on grounds of skin color? No, it was 2002. Called "managed choice," the race-based policy is the district's attempt to achieve the so-called "right" racial balance of students, ensuring that schools have at least 15% African-American students and no more than 50% African-American students.

Not surprisingly, Ms. Meredith objected to her son being turned away from a public school because of his skin color. She filed suit, arguing that he had been denied his equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution.

This month, the U.S. Supreme Court sent a hopeful message when it agreed to hear this case and a similar one brought by Seattle parents, setting the stage for a decision on the constitutionality of these practices.

Some say these race-based policies are about diversity. They're not. They amount to blatant and illegal racial discrimination.

Sadly, Louisville and Seattle school administrators aren't alone. Nearly 1,000 school districts today are using race-based policies to assign students.

Supporters of these policies say that getting a balance of different races in each school can help the academic performance of minority kids. That claim is questionable.

Judges opposing Seattle's race-based assignments cited this passage from a report co-authored by George Mason University social scientist David Armor: "... racial composition by itself has little effect on raising the achievement of minority students or on reducing the minority-white achievement gap. Some studies show that there is no relationship at all between black achievement and racial composition ... and other studies show that there is no relationship between the black-white achievement gap and racial composition."

The high court's decision to take these cases is particularly important since lower courts have misapplied prior decisions involving higher education institutions, using those rulings to wrongly justify discriminatory practices in K-12 public schools.

The court has repeatedly made a clear distinction between universities and their academic freedom to exchange ideas and K-12 public schools where students are required to attend. Further, the court has said that race cannot be the sole factor in categorizing students, yet the Louisville and Seattle K-12 schools have used race mechanically.

In 2003, the Supreme Court rejected the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions point formula that was even less racially focused than the systems in Louisville and Seattle, where students have been assigned to schools solely based on their color.

More than 50 years after the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, our nation's justices can put an end to government-ordered discrimination policies.

In 2006, decades after the civil rights movement, no one in America should be judged by skin color. That's a message that everyone, from school administrators to children, needs to hear.

Sharon L. Browne is a principal attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, a non-profit, public-interest organization based in Sacramento that filed briefs in both cases before the Supreme Court.
By Sharon L. Browne
Article Link

APFTE Note: Typical double standards like the one above have to be corrected before our society is torn apart even more than it already is. Fair is fair, discrimination is discrimination. It seems simple enough to figure out, but not for Citizens that want special treatment.

Equal Rights For ALL, Special Privileges For None!

“I am absolutely sick and tired of having to have my appearance at the White House validated by white people,” Cynthia McKinney.

"White Boy" Comment Draws Ire of Black Conservatives
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
August 10, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - Conservative African Americans Tuesday slammed liberal black activist Dick Gregory for referring to a Cybercast News Service reporter as a "white boy" during a nationally televised cable news program Monday night. Gregory later apologized for the remark.

The exchange took place during the "Hannity & Colmes" program on the Fox News Channel. Gregory and Cybercast News Service Senior Staff Writer Marc Morano discussed comments Gregory made during an Aug. 6 march in Atlanta commemorating the 40th anniversary of the signing of the Voting Rights Act.

Reading from Morano's article, co-host Sean Hannity asked Gregory to confirm whether he had made a number of controversial remarks during the event.

The activist readily acknowledged that he had referred to Republicans as "white racist thugs" and called the United States "the most dishonest, ungodly, unspiritual nation that ever existed in the history of the planet."

But, when Gregory hesitated in his responses, Hannity turned to Morano for confirmation.

"You don't have to confirm what I said," Gregory charged. "I've already said it. So I don't need no white boy to come on and say yes, he said it."

Surprised by Gregory's reply, Hannity repeated, "No white boy? No white boy?" and asked Gregory if he wanted to apologize to Morano for calling him a racially charged term.

"Yes, I apologize for it," Gregory replied.

"Well, I was already called a black tyrant by [Harry] Belafonte yesterday, so I welcome whatever Mr. Gregory wants to call me," Morano said in response.

While the rest of the interview went amicably, leaders of two black conservative organizations Tuesday were sharply critical of Gregory's remarks -- both during the interview and at the earlier event in Atlanta.

Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, founder and president of the Brotherhood Organization for a New Destiny (BOND), said the reaction to Gregory's "white boy" comment showed that America has a double standard in this area of race relations.

"Just imagine what would have happened if Morano had called Gregory a 'black boy,'" Peterson said. "They'd be protesting Cybercast News Service and Fox News Channel, calling for the heads of the presidents of these organizations.

"But because Dick Gregory said it to a white man, it's okay," Peterson said.

He added that "we have a double standard in this country today, where black liberals can do and say whatever they want" because whites "have allowed themselves to be intimidated" by the fear of being called racists.

Mychal Massie, a radio talk show host and member of the black conservative group Project 21, agreed with Peterson, telling Cybercast News Service that Gregory's remarks provided "an unambiguous display of overt black racism."

Massie's disdain extended to the Atlanta event, which he called "a pep rally for hatred." He was also critical of many of the participants, including U.S. Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Rev. Jesse Jackson, U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), actor Greg Mathis and singer/actor Harry Belafonte.

"Combined, these people have a greater aggregate income than some third-world countries," Massie said. "How has America hurt them? How have they been injured by what's taking place in America? And where are their ideas and solutions?"

Peterson also criticized what he called the "so-called rally" in Atlanta to extend the Voting Rights Act.

"Whether this act is confirmed in 2007 is not going to make a difference whether blacks go out to vote," he said. "Blacks aren't voting -- not because of the lack of opportunity -- they're not voting because there's too much apathy."

Peterson charged that the real purpose of the event was for groups like the NAACP and the AFL-CIO to begin a campaign for the 2008 presidential election. He also claimed its organizers "have used racism to fatten their pockets and maintain power. And now, they're going broke. They're desperate to get back in power."

Gregory is also a hypocrite, according to Peterson, for castigating the United States while enjoying a successful career here. "Dick Gregory has done better in this country than he would have done anywhere else in the world," Peterson said. "I'd like to know where he could go and be able to do what he has done here."

Massie added that he believes the event was entirely unnecessary because "there's not one thing a black person cannot do in America if he or she wants to do it and is prepared educationally or skill-wise.

"To hear Jackson and Belafonte and these people talk, the only thing black people can do is shine shoes at a bus stop," Massie said. "If that's what they're doing, it's because that's what they're qualified to do, or they're not looking high enough.

"The civil rights battle is over," Massie added, "and we won."

_________________________________________________________________________