27 Comments

Great job reaching out Richard.

Ultimately an institution or two needs to pay out a large settlement for discriminating against whites/Asians/men before the balance of fear will bring about neutrality.

Expand full comment

Really enjoyed this in two respects:

The first, the meta aspect. Every single conservative in the land can angrily denounce "activist judges" or "red tape" or, more recently, "radical DAs." But you look at them and say: well, those are generally enacted by fiat, so just get people into those positions and it's all reversible. They look at you like they have two heads. It should be obvious: Philadelphia hasn't legalized murder. San Francisco hasn't legalized drugs, nor even shoplifting. It's all bureaucracy, it's all "pen and phone", and what can be done or undone with the pen can be reversed. It's incredible how few conservatives believe this to be an option: faced with the might of the administrative state, they either lay down and die or quixotically insist on some kind of legislative victory that's neither required nor realistic.

The second, the substance of civil rights law itself. It would indeed be a huge victory - and one that I think can be achieved - if quotas via the back door were in bold capital letters made illegal. If this country wants to have racial quotas at work, the Left should be made to do the hard work of codifying it in law, which would quite possibly involve a constitutional amendment.

Expand full comment

Amazing stuff, it's unreal how many conservatives don't realize it's simply illegal for Anheuser-Busch (or anyone else) to do anything they want. I don't know how we make this standard knowledge in the vast red-state blob.

What drives me nuts is this should be good news to cons, since "we have friends in high places, they just don't like being sued for millions of dollars" is more workable than "everyone in power hates us"!

Expand full comment

The irony is that these rules are not actually meant (today) to benefit the individual employee from a disadvantaged group (as defined) but rather to help advance the interests of activist groups and help them steer the political agendas of large corporations and anyone doing business with government. It is about power rather than equal rights or even affirmative action.

Well, it also helps pay the trial bar, too, and keeps their donations coming.

Expand full comment

I recall reading that collecting race information is forbidden in France, which seems like a superior way. They have a mixed makeup and nowhere near the race relations problems as the USA. Shame that isn’t on the table.

Expand full comment

This article brings to mind a common theme on the right that is bad and I used to be a prime offender of; entirely writing off certain professions within our legal system as illegitimate and to be avoided. Unfortunately, we did that and ceded the majority of those fields to the left. Even if what vaguely comprises the right in America consists of mid to high proles (like me), we sure as shit need some heavy hitters in our legal system.

Expand full comment

HI Richard,

I take it you read the Economist? This is just an Instagram link, but it's so u! "Business leaders fear South Africa could become a failed state".

https://www.instagram.com/p/Csl0y5DMTKy/?img_index=1

Expand full comment

Good speech. I hate the disparate impact stuff. My local Mexican restaurant is mostly staffed by Central Americans. Should they be taken to court and forced to hire more white people? Absurd.

What I can't figure out is how lawyers and clerks, etc. are able to make it through the credentialing processes (undergraduate, law school, state Bar, etc) while espousing conservative views. Why doesn't the left simply lock them out of the process? Make it impossible to become a conservative lawyer? What's stopping them?

Expand full comment

Well, here is another one thread......Nobody saw this coming, you know....

https://twitter.com/monitoringbias/status/1661063260525805591

Expand full comment

Surely it matters if something happens via hard 'nos' or by changing who you selectively encourage.

Indeed, it's presumably illegal to directly refuse to hire applicants based on race (and I don't think you are suggesting overturning this) but if you abolish this distinction how do you respect the free speech rights of the person doing the hiring to encourage some people and not choose to encourage others?

Expand full comment

Quotas are honest and clear. We should go back to them. Especially in government

Expand full comment
Removed (Banned)May 23
Expand full comment