Laws should be for individuals, not races. By Steve Sailer.
Here are some key points the [US Supreme] Court should make in upcoming years to counter the growing antiwhite hate and discrimination of our era.
In an increasingly childish age in which the dominant worldview tends to be similar to those of Marvel movies in which there are Good Guys who clearly deserve to beat up the Bad Guys, the Court can speak out for the grown-up idea that in American law no race is born good or bad.
(1) The key is not to try to abolish civil rights laws, which would be impossible in the current climate, but to articulate that civil rights are inclusive. No race is excluded. Everybody possesses equal civil rights. Same as everybody else, whites and men are protected classes.
(2) For instance, one crucial step is to declare in clear, ringing language that the 14th Amendment’s famous Equal Protection Clause applies not just to the currently more favored races but also to whites and Asians. …
My impression is that conservatives assume that of course the 14th Amendment pertains to whites as well as nonwhites: Just read it. On the other hand, liberals assume that of course the Equal Protection Clause does not apply to whites: That would be racist (which in practice they define as the law treating people equally).
The Supreme Court should clear up this muddle definitively.
(3) Similarly, the Court should announce that hostile environment law very much protects whites and men as well as its traditional beneficiaries. Therefore, mandatory training classes preaching the antiwhite doctrines of Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity and/or Critical Race Theory represent prima facie evidence of a hostile work environment for white employees. Nobody would doubt this if the races were reversed and blacks were forced to endure organized harassment by professional white bigots, so why should it be legal for employers and schools to impose a hostile environment upon whites?
(4) Statements of support for DIE/CRT by holders of powerful positions in institutions are to be taken as prima facie evidence of intention to discriminate illegally against whites and/or Asians. …
(9) The United States legal system is not in the business of enforcing a “racial reckoning.” We treat individuals as individuals. …
(13) Allow race quotas to continue to be used for police departments, due to their extremely political nature, but not for fire departments, which must deal primarily with nonpolitical reality. Instruct lower courts to take guidance from this distinction.
(14) Disparate impact theory must be brought into accord with the findings of social science over the past half century. Racial differences in key traits such as intelligence and crime are statistically pervasive. Rather than make equality of outcome the default assumption with the burden of proof on those trying to explain why it wasn’t achieved, the burden of proof should rest on those insisting that this particular instance would have been the rarity in which equality would exist without discriminatory behavior on the part of the deep-pocketed.
(15) What social science hasn’t determined is whose fault are these racial gaps. Assuming that the cause must be due to the culpability of another race, who thus must pay, is evidence of discriminatory intent. And greed.
(16) A final principle that needs enunciation: You can’t discriminate in favor of one race without discriminating against at least one other race. That’s just the way math works.
Amen.
