Sunday, August 05, 2007

How Affirmative Action Victimizes Whites: Issues Report Showing Federal Overhiring Of Minorities In FY 2006

On July 24th, 2007, Adversity.Net released its seventh annual analysis and critique of federal overhiring of selected races in the name of "affirmative action", accompanied by absolutely NO mainstream media publicity of any type. To the best of my knowledge, only the Council of Conservative Citizens, a paleoconservative pro-white racial populist organization, even publicly acknowledged the existence of this resource.

Click HERE to read the full report as well as to access numerous links to additional data.

The obvious, unspoken reason for the media embargo is because the victims are white males. The government's official statistics show a pattern of "un-hiring" and "retiring" white males and other non-preferred groups while overhiring blacks and other preferred groups by dozens or hundreds of percent above their proportion in the civilian work force. It is alright for the feds to violate the AA creed of "proportional representation" as long as the disproportion favors certain races.

The graphic at the upper left shows the dramatic downward trend in federal hiring of non-preferred groups (white males and others) from 2000 to the present. The graphic to the immediate left shows the dramatic upward trend in federal hiring of preferred minorities from 2000 to the present.

Adversity.Net's analysis is based on the U.S. Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) annual report "Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program". This year's OPM report -- covering federal Fiscal Year 2006 -- among other things boasts that the feds hired 6,912 new minorities last year while at the same time "dis-hiring" or "retiring" 6,280 white males and other non-preferred groups.

As always, the OPM report is confounding in two regards. First, the OPM defines "women" as minorities which category includes women of all races including "white". Second, the OPM continues to refuse to publish any data whatsoever regarding employment of white males, and studiously avoids presenting data which depicts the decrease in employment of white males and other non-preferred groups.

See additional FY 2006 Racial Mania:

1). Black Quotas

2). Hispanic Quotas

3). Asian-Pacific Islander Quotas

4). Native American Quotas

5). Women Quotas

6). Definitions, Math

From FY 2001 through FY 2006 a net total of 48,033 new minority employees have been hired by the feds. During the same period there has been a net decrease of 3,960 white male employees in federal jobs.

Specifically, the feds exceed their hiring quotas for blacks in all 23 independent federal agencies. In fact, the over-hiring of blacks was so blatant it actually restricted the hiring of other protected groups. The three most "black-friendly" agencies:

- CSOS (Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency): Over-hired blacks by 808% over their proportion in the civilian labor force.

- GPO (U.S. Gov't Printing Office): Over-hired blacks by 503% over their proportion in the civilian labor force.

- PBGC (the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation): Overhired blacks by 409% over their proportion in the civilian labor force.

Almost all the other preferred race/gender groups in these three agencies were hired at rates at or below their proportion in the civilian labor force.

Similarly, in 17 of the 18 federal executive departments, blacks were overhired by 14% to 363% over their proportion in the civilian labor force. Here are examples of the dramatic overhiring of blacks by the top three federal executive departments:

- HUD (U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development): Over-hired blacks by 363% over their proportion in the civilian labor force.

- The Department of Education: Over-hired blacks by 329% over their proportion in the civilian labor force.

- The U.S. Department of State: Over-hired blacks by 231% over their proportion in the civilian labor force.

Most of the other preferred groups were hired by these three agencies at significantly lower levels than blacks.

Here's a link to one of the primary sources used by Annual Report to the Congress, Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program, FY 2006.

Adversity.Net is neither race-conscious nor race-blind. They appear to believe in "race-irrelevancy", which acknowledges racial differences but does not factor them into decisions. The group was founded in 1997 to promote fair and equal treatment under the law without regard to race, gender or ethnicity. Their educational, tax-exempt mission includes:

- Broaden and inform the public debate on the issue of racial preferences, targets and goals which are, by definition, racially discriminatory

- Distribute facts about the adverse impact of racial preferences on those of us who are not members of any government-defined preferred class (also known as historically disadvantaged)

- Provide a resource and support system for victims of reverse discrimination

Adversity.Net is a non-profit, educational organization dedicated to the elimination of prejudice and discrimination -- including the elimination of divisive racial preferences and quotas -- and to the defense of human and civil rights secured by law. They are a 501(c)(3) non-profit, tax-exempt organization under IRS rules. Donations to Adversity.Net are fully deductible. Their core audience consists of the victims and survivors of racial preferences, quotas, set-asides, and race-based "targets" and "goals" in hiring, promotion, school admissions, and government contracting.

Commentary: While this specific minority over-hiring is not an official reverse "Jim Crow", formally enshrined by law, it is strongly encouraged through the imposition of affirmative action both administratively and judicially. Furthermore, the minorities have their powerful racial lobbies which exert leverage upon the public and private sector alike in the case of perceived minority under-hiring.

In contrast, the white community does not have equally effective and powerful racial lobbies sounding off on their behalf. Many whites to this day remain afraid of the dreaded tag of "racism", reinforced by periodical witch-hunts against "white racism". So the majority of lobbies avoid a race-conscious approach, but fail to stem the tide.

The white nationalist lobby has been too racked by infighting and misconduct to have more than a marginal effect, until recently. "White power" has been more geared towards a "lifestyle" rather than actual power. Too many racially-conscious young whites have been more interested in boot parties than in political parties. Malcontents and misogynists have been allowed to typify the movement. Dr. David Duke has been the only consistent advocate on behalf of the white community. However, others, most notably Alex Linder of the Vanguard News Network and Bill White of the ANSWP, are beginning to sit up and take notice, moving towards a more mainstream strategy without diluting the core message. The recent strategy of public rallies, though the rallies themselves have been rather sparsely attended, are valuable in "showing the flag" to the public and getting fractious personalities accustomed to working together towards common goals.

But while whites are the main victims, they are not always the only victims. Here's the incredible case of a courageous black man who was actually penalized by the city of Austin, TX, for refusing to register his business as a "minority-owned business":

Mr. [John] Goode sold BBQ and other products to patrons of Palmer Auditorium, the Austin Convention Center, and the City Coliseum in Austin, TX during special events from 1989 to 1996. In the Spring of 1996, the Austin City Council passed an affirmative action plan which required minorities seeking contracts or subcontracts to fulfill specific requirements in obtaining certification as a minority owned business. There were no such requirements, to our knowledge, for white contractors and subcontractors doing business with the City.

John Goode declined to certify himself as a minority owned business because he felt his BBQ could stand on its own merit and he did not want any special treatment on account of his race. He simply wanted to be included in the 75% of subcontractors who didn't have to prove minority status.

However, in an August 2, 1996 letter to Mr. Goode, Fine Host Corporation terminated its contract with Mr. Goode stating, "Due to the lack of proof of M/WBE certification with SMBR (formally known as the Office of Minority and Business Affairs), and the fact that we do not show an application pending from Mr. Bones BBQ, nor do they show Mr. Bones BBQ as having ever been certified as a Minority/Women Owned Business Enterprise, we cannot continue this business relationship." They go on to state that, "Our commitment to the City of Austin is to do our best to maintain a 25% concession percentage with certified minority/women owned business enterprises. In order for your partnership to be included in our percentage you must be a certified M/WBE with the City of Austin department of Small and Minority Business Resources."

In other words, Goode was penalized for not accepting the "benefits" of affirmative action. He could have easily been included in the 75% of the remaining contracts, but he was never given that chance. As a result, Mr. Goode lost his business, his house, and now has nothing. Mr. Goode has even testified about his case before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.

I don't recall the NAACP, Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton raising hell on behalf of John Goode, do you?

So affirmative action not only penalizes whites, but it can also be used against minorities who don't want to participate. So here we have a program that penalizes whites and promotes dependency and entitlement amongst minorities rather than EMPOWERMENT. What a deal, huh?

No comments:

Post a Comment