"That Cornell professor had not known most of this."
I try very hard to be charitable toward those who labor under illusions and falsehoods easily dispelled by simply reading the source material, whether it's legislation or a company policy.
I do reasonably well in my efforts, when it's a matter of regular folks, even those with university degrees.
I can no longer spare an iota of charitable sentiment or effort, however, for those in academia who are directly responsible for the heedless ignorance of those former and current students that said academics were paid a sinecure to teach.
"For a moment I even doubted myself."
Understandable, forgivable but certainly not an error to be repeated, Mr. Steele. You read the law and you are well-intentioned, but no naif.
There are myriad poorly-crafted, ill-defined pieces of legislation that (deliberately, often enough) leave critical passages equivocal.
The Civil Rights Act is not one of those pieces of legislation. It is simple and very clear; it had to be, because passing it was known, beforehand, to be the beginning of bloodshed.
As far as the sophistry and falsehoods employed to obscure the meaning of the act are concerned, there was only one intent of the framers; to unify the people of America. Those who used it to divide us, have done so out of self-interest; a hunger for personal profit gained from the blood and toil of others.
Eli, another excellent article. Thank you for all of your research that you did in this subject. And more thanks to you for explaining it so clearly. We as a country need to have more of these discussions amongst ourselves as a whole.
Does anybody know who first stated that black people could not be racists because they didn't have the power to affect other demographics adversely? This line has been going around for decades. And decades ago I heard that it was a black civil rights leader who redefined "racism" in this way.
Thanks for this article, which puts our focus back on what the U.S. Constitution really says. The Constitution has been incredibly grounding in the past five years, as the left subjects it to nonstop assault, in this instance by pretending it says something other than what it actually does.
You might want to read "Redefining Racism" by Joseph (Jake) Klein. The entire book is about exactly what you ask. It explains how the 'idea' that all whites are guilty and all blacks are victims was developed and dumped on all of us.
The idea that black people cannot be racist is generally sold by white racists aka as woke progressives whose ideology cannot fathom that black people can ever attain power or autonomy. Therefore no matter how high a black person may rise in society, according to the neo racists, their achievement means nothing because they are powerless solely due to the colour of their skin. While a white person even if they are the dregs of society, has more power because they are white. So black people will always be inferior and victims of white people no matter what they've accomplished because. Basically white leftists perpetuate racism because they cannot fathom the idea of black people actually not needing woke whites to save them.
I long ago recognized the obvious: Laws are written and enforced by people. These people are not generally our best and brightest. They are the people who wanted the job most, and nobody stopped them.
Keep in mind that you could, almost without warning, be dragged all around a courtroom by a lawyer who wasn't good enough to make it in the real world, but was given immense power anyway. The only solution I can see is not to make it about democrats and republicans, but to make it about vastly weaker governments. To say that governments are there to protect freedom is an oxymoron.
I first saw discrimination against whites back in 1977. I was in my first office job and wanted to recommend a friend for a position that opened up. I was surprised to be asked if she was black or white. And further shocked to be told they were only going to hire a black person for the job.
That was my first introduction to so-called "Affirmative Action" and blatant discrimination based upon race. There was little to no interest in the new hire's ability or knowledge.
The young black woman who was hired told me she was only going to work 26 weeks - long enough to be able to quit and get unemployment benefits. Which she promptly did upon her 27th week there. (I assume she did not understand that when one quits a job, there is a wait period involved for benefits. But who knows, maybe they waived that rule for her as well, She unfortunately lacked intelligence as well as a work ethic.)
I thought you couldn't get unemployment if you quit, only if you were laid off or fired without cause.
Edit: Research says, you typically *can't* get unemployment if you simply decide to quit. If you are facing abuse at work or health and safety issues or unfair demotion/reduction in pay that you have *attempted unsuccessfully* to resolve with your employer, you may qualify. If you have to quit because you have to become a caregiver for a family member or because a change in your circumstances makes it difficult for you to get to your workplace, you may qualify; but again, you need to have made a reasonable effort to resolve those issues before you quit.
Not sure what the rules were in 1977 but as a former recent business owner in the state of NJ you generally cannot collect unemployment benefits if you actively quit a job. To qualify you must show cause, like unsafe or a hazardous work environment, or that you accepted another position and it fell through. That being said, if the former employee doesn’t challenge the filing, typically the person can collect.
Well, that aligns with what I had believed at the time. The person who told me there was a wait time if you quit was obviously incorrect. And again, I never tested the theory because I am not like that young woman.
I agree, though even at 19 I knew quitting was something not rewarded by SUI. The person who told me differently several years later had experienced the opposite. I can now only assume he had quit due to some workplace issue that made his job untenable and the state agreed with him, thereby allowing him to be on SUI.
All in favor of a colorblind world say aye. All opposed explain why not. And all who stereotype on the basis of race ( regardless of which race) stifle yourselves
You are and were correct - the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does include whites. But don't tell that to the Cornell professor, a very nice man, who said that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not include whites. That's the culture of this society/culture of ours. Of course, it is the whites and only the whites who perpetrate racism.
I tell people the idea was to flatten the pyramid, not to reshuffle it. The real shocking thing is that you really need to totally miss the spirit of the law to think that it does not apply to everybody. I call it to kill the mockingbird.
I think a point you may be missing is that the subversion was not simply done to reshuffle the pyramid, it was down to undermine the principle of equal application of the law. Take that away, and our civilization is no more. DEI is a Trojan horse.
The original “disparate impact” wasn’t that crazy either, it was written to stop extraneous requirements used to function in lieu of overt discrimination but didn’t cover necessary job requirements or instruments to test actual aptitude for said job. It has been misread and misinterpreted as well.
“The law hasn’t failed us. We have failed to read it. ” too often laws are not read or understood by people who complain about them. This happened with anti-CRT laws. They did not say “You can’t teach history“ only that you can’t teach people should feel guilty because of how they were born, etc. I find it’s really simple to read most of these laws as the bulk of it is boiler plate or readily agreed upon definitions. The key aspects are only a few pages at most and usually only a few paragraphs.
Great piece. Simple message. The times are changing. Stop the corruption.
"That Cornell professor had not known most of this."
I try very hard to be charitable toward those who labor under illusions and falsehoods easily dispelled by simply reading the source material, whether it's legislation or a company policy.
I do reasonably well in my efforts, when it's a matter of regular folks, even those with university degrees.
I can no longer spare an iota of charitable sentiment or effort, however, for those in academia who are directly responsible for the heedless ignorance of those former and current students that said academics were paid a sinecure to teach.
"For a moment I even doubted myself."
Understandable, forgivable but certainly not an error to be repeated, Mr. Steele. You read the law and you are well-intentioned, but no naif.
There are myriad poorly-crafted, ill-defined pieces of legislation that (deliberately, often enough) leave critical passages equivocal.
The Civil Rights Act is not one of those pieces of legislation. It is simple and very clear; it had to be, because passing it was known, beforehand, to be the beginning of bloodshed.
As far as the sophistry and falsehoods employed to obscure the meaning of the act are concerned, there was only one intent of the framers; to unify the people of America. Those who used it to divide us, have done so out of self-interest; a hunger for personal profit gained from the blood and toil of others.
Eli, another excellent article. Thank you for all of your research that you did in this subject. And more thanks to you for explaining it so clearly. We as a country need to have more of these discussions amongst ourselves as a whole.
I won’t hold my breath waiting for PBS or The View to invite Mr. Steele to engage him in that much needed conversation.
Does anybody know who first stated that black people could not be racists because they didn't have the power to affect other demographics adversely? This line has been going around for decades. And decades ago I heard that it was a black civil rights leader who redefined "racism" in this way.
Thanks for this article, which puts our focus back on what the U.S. Constitution really says. The Constitution has been incredibly grounding in the past five years, as the left subjects it to nonstop assault, in this instance by pretending it says something other than what it actually does.
You might want to read "Redefining Racism" by Joseph (Jake) Klein. The entire book is about exactly what you ask. It explains how the 'idea' that all whites are guilty and all blacks are victims was developed and dumped on all of us.
Thanks!
The idea that black people cannot be racist is generally sold by white racists aka as woke progressives whose ideology cannot fathom that black people can ever attain power or autonomy. Therefore no matter how high a black person may rise in society, according to the neo racists, their achievement means nothing because they are powerless solely due to the colour of their skin. While a white person even if they are the dregs of society, has more power because they are white. So black people will always be inferior and victims of white people no matter what they've accomplished because. Basically white leftists perpetuate racism because they cannot fathom the idea of black people actually not needing woke whites to save them.
I long ago recognized the obvious: Laws are written and enforced by people. These people are not generally our best and brightest. They are the people who wanted the job most, and nobody stopped them.
Keep in mind that you could, almost without warning, be dragged all around a courtroom by a lawyer who wasn't good enough to make it in the real world, but was given immense power anyway. The only solution I can see is not to make it about democrats and republicans, but to make it about vastly weaker governments. To say that governments are there to protect freedom is an oxymoron.
Applause to you Eli.
I first saw discrimination against whites back in 1977. I was in my first office job and wanted to recommend a friend for a position that opened up. I was surprised to be asked if she was black or white. And further shocked to be told they were only going to hire a black person for the job.
That was my first introduction to so-called "Affirmative Action" and blatant discrimination based upon race. There was little to no interest in the new hire's ability or knowledge.
The young black woman who was hired told me she was only going to work 26 weeks - long enough to be able to quit and get unemployment benefits. Which she promptly did upon her 27th week there. (I assume she did not understand that when one quits a job, there is a wait period involved for benefits. But who knows, maybe they waived that rule for her as well, She unfortunately lacked intelligence as well as a work ethic.)
I thought you couldn't get unemployment if you quit, only if you were laid off or fired without cause.
Edit: Research says, you typically *can't* get unemployment if you simply decide to quit. If you are facing abuse at work or health and safety issues or unfair demotion/reduction in pay that you have *attempted unsuccessfully* to resolve with your employer, you may qualify. If you have to quit because you have to become a caregiver for a family member or because a change in your circumstances makes it difficult for you to get to your workplace, you may qualify; but again, you need to have made a reasonable effort to resolve those issues before you quit.
That was what I thought too. I was told some years later, that at least in NJ, if you quit there was a wait period before you could collect.
As I am intelligent and have a work ethic, I never tested the theory to find out if it was true. Unlike that young woman in 1977.....
Not sure what the rules were in 1977 but as a former recent business owner in the state of NJ you generally cannot collect unemployment benefits if you actively quit a job. To qualify you must show cause, like unsafe or a hazardous work environment, or that you accepted another position and it fell through. That being said, if the former employee doesn’t challenge the filing, typically the person can collect.
Well, that aligns with what I had believed at the time. The person who told me there was a wait time if you quit was obviously incorrect. And again, I never tested the theory because I am not like that young woman.
Thank you for clarifying.
No worries. It can be confusing.
I agree, though even at 19 I knew quitting was something not rewarded by SUI. The person who told me differently several years later had experienced the opposite. I can now only assume he had quit due to some workplace issue that made his job untenable and the state agreed with him, thereby allowing him to be on SUI.
All in favor of a colorblind world say aye. All opposed explain why not. And all who stereotype on the basis of race ( regardless of which race) stifle yourselves
You are and were correct - the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does include whites. But don't tell that to the Cornell professor, a very nice man, who said that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not include whites. That's the culture of this society/culture of ours. Of course, it is the whites and only the whites who perpetrate racism.
What this tells you is that most of these people believed the CRA’s text and intent was “get Whitey,” and they approved.
I tell people the idea was to flatten the pyramid, not to reshuffle it. The real shocking thing is that you really need to totally miss the spirit of the law to think that it does not apply to everybody. I call it to kill the mockingbird.
I think a point you may be missing is that the subversion was not simply done to reshuffle the pyramid, it was down to undermine the principle of equal application of the law. Take that away, and our civilization is no more. DEI is a Trojan horse.
The original “disparate impact” wasn’t that crazy either, it was written to stop extraneous requirements used to function in lieu of overt discrimination but didn’t cover necessary job requirements or instruments to test actual aptitude for said job. It has been misread and misinterpreted as well.
“The law hasn’t failed us. We have failed to read it. ” too often laws are not read or understood by people who complain about them. This happened with anti-CRT laws. They did not say “You can’t teach history“ only that you can’t teach people should feel guilty because of how they were born, etc. I find it’s really simple to read most of these laws as the bulk of it is boiler plate or readily agreed upon definitions. The key aspects are only a few pages at most and usually only a few paragraphs.
America - where even our command of the obvious is blinded! But, thankfully not yours! 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
👏👏👏 Bravo Eli bravo!
Yeah....sure this suit is super credible....just like Comey....SPLC.....etc.