Racism Saves Lives • #RacismIsLove #4Racism Racism is Love #RacismIsLove #4Racism
 • Anti-Racism is Anti-Science

#TheTruthIsRacist • #BlackLivesMatter2RacistsDisclaimer • 4Racism.org

4Racism.org is under construction and very incomplete

Affirmative Action

 Unequal Rights for minorities, for "historically underprivileged" classes is the hallmark of Anti-Racism. An alleged injustice long ago is the excuse for "reverse racism", a certain and institutionalized privilege today. The intent isto close racial, ethnic, or gender performance  "gaps".

A MCAT medical test score of 24 is likely to get you into medical school only if your skin color is black (details below)

Dangerously incompetent fire fighters, weakened by gender quotas ...

Dangerous police: affirmative action kills

Affirmative Action's Costs and Harm

Affirmative Action harms Blacks

Affirmative Action kills

Affirmative action - reverse racism this

White Quotas to end under-representation?!

Affirmative action - reverse racism


Few people are aware that affirmative action for women, and for racial "minorities" are similar issues.

See also

Unequal treatment, unequal rights :

Unequal Rights #3, Black and Leftist Privilege:
Unequal Rights #2

Affirmative Action is Anti-Science.

Scientifically developed aptitude tests for job admission are ignored or abolished. These tests have been shown to choose the best candidates for a job. 

in 1995 the law school at Berkeley accepted every black applicant with an undergraduate grade-point average between 3.25 and 3.49 and a LSAT score between the 70th and 75th percentiles, while rejecting every white and Asian in the same GPA and LSAT range. At the same time, the average MCAT (Medical College Admission Test) scores of black and Hispanic students enrolled at Harvard Medical School were 100 points (approximately one standard deviation) below the average score of whites who were rejectedby all American medical schools. [Amren: further proof in full book text]

Grade Inflation for affirmative Graduation

 America’s colleges and universities have accommodated non-Asian minority students with a much-publicized “grade inflation.” Many press reports have called attention to the increase in the proportion of “A” grades, but Prof. Farron maintains that “the most important effect has been a dramatic decrease in the failure rate.”
This means that as more minorities benefit from preferences, the test-score and class-rank gaps between black and white students have increased, but the disparity in graduation rates has narrowed. This does not, however, eliminate differences in competence. [Amren: further proof in full book text]


New chart illustrates graphically the racial preferences for blacks, Hispanics being admitted to US medical schools



For students applying to medical school with slightly below average GPAs of 3.20 to 3.39 and slightly below average MCAT scores of 24 to 26 (first data column in the table, shaded light blue), black applicants were more than 9 times more likely to be admitted to medical school than Asians (56.4% vs. 5.9%), and more than 7 times more likely than whites (56.4% vs. 8.0%) – see the group of four bars on the left side of the chart above. Compared to the average acceptance rate of 16.7% for all applicants with that combination of GPA and MCAT score, black and Hispanic applicants were much more likely to be accepted at rates of 56.4% and 30.5%, and white and Asian applicants were much less likely to be accepted to US medical schools at rates of only 5.9% and 8.0% respectively. [Source]
Bottom Line: Medical school acceptance rates in recent years suggest that medical schools must have “affirmative discrimination” and “racial profiling” admission policies that favor black and Hispanic applicants over equally qualified Asian and white students. Even if factors other than GPA and MCAT scores (which are probably the two most important ones) are considered for admission to medical school, wouldn’t it still be very hard to conclude that admissions policies to medical schools are completely “race-neutral” and completely free of any “racial profiling” practices that favor blacks and Hispanics over equally qualified Asians and whites?
Here’s why the issue is important: In some states like California, Washington, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, New Hampshire, and Michigan, racial preferences in college admissions to public universities are currently prohibited by state law. For example, Proposal 2 in Michigan, which was passed into Michigan Constitutional law by a 58% margin of voters in 2006 (and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2014), states: [...]
Based on national data, is there any conclusion other than the obvious one – that US medical schools are granting special preferences for admissions on the basis of race for certain preferred minority groups (blacks and Hispanics) over other equally qualified non-preferred minority groups (Asians) and whites? When a black applicant with average academic credentials is four times more likely to be admitted to a US medical school than an equally qualified Asian applicant, what other conclusion is there?

Colin Flaherty Video

@colinflaherty, I am sorry to say, you are in denial, deceit and delusion about the deadliness of quota women in police. It is very clear (minutes 2:20 to 2:40) , the two women holding on to the perp's arms were too weak. He managed to pull lose, one quota police woman got shot and they had to kill the suspect. 


Affirmative Action is supposed to be temporary


4. Special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be deemed racial discrimination, provided, however, that such measures do not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups

50 years of affirmative action in the USA is not yet maintenance of separate rights? When is an end in sight?

 and that they shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved. UN Convention

Of course, here is the problem. As Races (and sexes) differ, the objective will NEVER be reached.




Fighting the Bell Curve: Why Affirmative Action is an inevitable disaster

Affirmative Action (AA) started out as a well-intentioned effort to increase the representation of black, then other minorities and women, at the higher levels of the American educational system. Well-intentioned, but ill-founded because it was based on the article of faith that the only reason there were fewer blacks in colleges, universities, and professional schools is the legacy of racism and discrimination.
Initially AA was first defined as making every effort to find qualified minority members. The search was expanded to include even the “potentially qualified,” but when that failed, the program transmogrified into one of “goals and timetables” — a euphemism for quotas based on race, etc. This is the antithesis of the supposed objective of the Civil Rights movement, namely judging on “the content of character.”
Well, AA could have benefited from some advice from the other AA — Alcoholics Anonymous, one of whose admonitions to family members of recidivist abusers is “you didn’t make ’em that way, you can’t fix ’em.”
While fair-minded commentators and the public at large  have had their fill of reverse discrimination, ethnic activists continue to make every effort to enforce more and more AA until some critical mass of minorities inhabits every desirable sector of American society.  
In California, citizens led by former University of California Regent Ward Connerly (who happens to be African American) passed Proposition 209, which banned “preferential treatment” of race, sex or ethnicity in admissions to California’s public universities. The box score: by fall 2006, only 250 of the 12,189 students admitted to UCLA’s freshman class were African American, roughly 2%. This is the lowest number since at least 1973 — results that could have been predicted right out of the tables and graphs in The Bell Curve.
The Bell Curve, the outstanding tome by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, shows that African Americans have a mean IQ of 85, one whole standard deviation below the white mean of 100. Even more disconcerting to AA advocates is that Richard Lynn has summarized findings that sub-Saharan Africans have a mean closer to 70.
And the devil in the bell curve is not only in the details but in the tails of the curve. The normal or bell curve describes continuous biological variation that is the result of many genes. The classic case is height, but IQ is almost the same: Most individuals fall at the middle or closely around it. The further one goes either up or down from the average, the fewer the number of individuals. The further out one goes, the greater the effect.
And this applies with a vengeance when two groups differ in their average score. The further out you go in either direction — up or down, good or bad — the greater the differences between the groups. What this means in terms of education is that as one goes from high school to junior college to college to graduate/professional school, the percentage of qualified blacks goes steadily and increasingly down. And the ratio of qualified whites to qualified blacks goes up dramatically.

The figure shows what happens if you have two IQ distributions that differ by a standard deviation — whites on top, blacks on the bottom. If the test is made so that 50% of whites pass, then 16% of blacks will pass. This would mean that if we consider a population of 1000 people taking the test in a population that is 10% black and 90% white, then 16 blacks would qualify, compared to 450 whites—a ratio of around 28 to 1 — much higher than the population ratio of 9 to 1.
The 28 to 1 ratio is pretty steep — exactly the sort of thing that gives the affirmative action industry fits. And it explains why even tests for fire fighters and policemen — which are geared for the middle of the IQ distribution — have to have lower standards for blacks. Here’s a case where white firefighters who scored high on an employment test successfully sued the city of Boston for favoring lower-scoring blacks.
But if the test is made more difficult, it gets way worse. The figure shows what happens when only 16% of whites pass. (This would make the test more like a law school admissions test.) In that case, only 2% of the blacks pass. This means that if we consider a population of 1000 people, 10% black and 90% white, only 2 blacks of the 1000 would qualify, compared to 144 whites—a ratio of over 70 to 1. Hence the desperate need for affirmative action.
And imagine what happens when one adopts the standards of an elite law school like Harvard where the average of successful white applicants approaches the 99th percentile. Finding a black that can compete on the basis of mental ability in a situation like that is like finding a needle in a haystack.
Which reminds us, we’d love to see Barack Obama’s grades and test scores at Harvard Law. In fact, Stanford Law Professor Richard Sanford has already shown that black lawyers have no difficulty being hired by elite firms but are much more likely to leave these firms without making partner. Just recently he filed suit to obtain the records of the Bar Exam of California to replicate previous findings that black law school grads are over 6 times more likely to fail the bar exam even after multiple attempts than whites. His thesis is that blacks are being set up for failure: They are admitted into schools where they cannot hope to compete with those admitted on the basis of intellectual ability.


For Affirmative Action, Brazil Sets Up Controversial Boards To Determine Race [Amren]

A few weeks ago, these race tribunals were made mandatory for all government jobs. In one state, they even issued guidelines about how to measure lip size, hair texture and nose width, something that for some has uncomfortable echoes of racistphilosophies in the 19th century.

Anti-Racists want to discriminate by race. They call this reverse discrimination.  Anti-Racists or Left-Racists want to privilege people because of the black color of their skin. So one must prevent whites from cheating. from claiming they are Black. 

Candidato de pele branca e olhos verdes volta a ser aprovado por .. : Self declared black physician got accepted into Brazilian medical service, looks quite White with green eyes.  Seems he was in first place among Blacks [Médico se declara negro e passa em 1º lugar em concurso ]

"It is something terrible. I believe this kind of strategy can weaken the support of society for affirmative action policies," says Amílcar Pereira, an associate professor at the School of Education in the Federal University of Rio, who studies race relations. "These policies have huge support ... the majority of Brazilian society supports affirmative action."
"But this kind of commission can jeopardize the support because it's so controversial. It's unacceptable to come back to the 19th century, to determine who is black and who is not," he says.
But the race commissions have a lot of support from the black community.
Leizer Vaz is coordinator of NGO Educafro, which works to open up access to education for black Brazilians. He, like most black activists here, supports the commissions. The reason is simple — history.
"We are very far from the equality," he says from his home in Sao Paulo.

Why Susan Rice’s Kids Wouldn’t Get Affirmative Action in Brazil

My current Taki’s column talks about black privilege is operationalized. A couple of key aspects are that most white Americans seem to feel that cheating would be dishonorable, and that if they tried to get away with claiming black privilege, they’d eventually run into a large-and-in-charge black lady bureaucrat who would say “Oh no you isn’t black” and that would be the end of that.
In Brazil, however, things are very different with their newish affirmative action program. Brazilians like cheating and Brazil’s definitions of race are based on a color continuum not a color line and on looks rather than the self-identification of your ancestors. From Foreign Policy
Brazil’s New Problem With Blackness
As the proudly mixed-race country grapples with its legacy of slavery, affirmative-action race tribunals are measuring skull shape and nose width to determine who counts as disadvantaged.
PELOTAS, Brazil – Late last year Fernando received news he had dreaded for months: he and 23 of his classmates had been kicked out of college. The expulsion became national news in Brazil. Fernando and his classmates may not have been publicly named (“Fernando,” in fact, is a pseudonym), but they were roundly vilified as a group. The headline run by weekly magazine CartaCapital — “White Students Expelled from University for Defrauding Affirmative Action System” — makes it clear why.
But the headline clashes with how Fernando sees himself. He identifies as pardo, or brown: a mixed-race person with black ancestry.





Facebook’s Hiring Process Hinders Its Effort to Create a Diverse Workforce, Bloomberg  Despite incentives, company still has few blacks or Hispanics.



Can the Trump Court End Affirmative Action?


Turn Back Campus Totalitarianism—By Abolishing Affirmative Action



Can’t Smear The Greer: Turn Back Campus Totalitarianism—By Abolishing Affirmative Action


Yet all of this is ultimately a treatment of the effects, rather than the causes of Leftist campus tyranny. Ultimately, the problem can only be solved by policy changes at the deepest level. And after decades of failed Beltway Right efforts to meaningfully resist the creeping Bolshevization of American higher education, the American conservative movement has finally produced someone who is saying exactly what needs to be done—abolish Affirmative Action.
Scott Greer, Deputy Editor of the Daily Caller, has a new book, No Campus For White Men: The Transformation of Higher Education into Hateful Indoctrination. And while books bemoaning radical Leftism on campus are nothing new, Greer is unique in that he specifically identifies Affirmative Action (aka racial discrimination against whites and Asians) as the key policy which enabled the destruction of the American university.
“Arguably, the most decisive factor for the transformation of higher education is Affirmative Action,” says Greer. As he observes, students rely upon their race to gain admission to these institutions, so it is natural they focus their studies and political activities towards those things which further reward them for their identity.
Greer makes the familiar conservative argument that racial diversity does not translate into ideological diversity. He also makes the standard denunciation of racial double standards.
However, he goes further by noting the frank anti-white hatred which is at the heart of the “diversity” agenda. “Diversity in today’s America simply means having fewer whites around,” he writes. “Segregation, such as universities having racially exclusive dorms and events, is great as long as that racial exclusion doesn’t mean ‘white only.’”
This anti-white animus of the contemporary Left is something far too many conservatives either ignore or pretend to ignore. Greer doesn’t. [Source]
What’s more, by pinning the blame on Affirmative Action, Greer goes a long way towards explaining the “rage of a privileged class” which produced people like Michelle Obama. As he notes, there is little real evidence suggesting “diversity” provides any real benefit to institutions and quite a bit suggesting it imposes real costs like the collapse of social trust. His book is a sign that mainstream conservatives are slowly, painfully beginning to understand it is “diversity” itself which causes dysfunction.
Greer also challenges Beltway Right clichés when he dismisses the usual conservative claim that Left wing students are delicate “snowflakes” who are simply too spoiled or rich to handle conservative dissent. Instead, Greer urges conservatives to admit the truth: these supposedly effeminate Millennials are actually operating as effective political soldiers.
“[It] is not the result of overly coddled backgrounds and helicopter parenting,” he writes.
It’s the beginning of an extreme version of identity politics. An identity politics that encourages students to demand power and privilege on the sole basis of their race, gender, or sexual orientation. An identity politics that hopes to disenfranchise and humiliate large segments of one’s fellow students. An identity politics that’s increasingly bordering on outright hatred for white people, especially white men.
When there is not enough real white racism, it has to be invented. One of the most enjoyable parts of No Campus For White Men is Greer’s compilation of fake Hate Crimes on campus—amusingly titled The Art of the Hoax.
Of course, it gradually becomes less funny as the author explains, remorselessly, how one campus after another lost its collective mind over incidents which alternately seem ludicrous or trivial.
For many conservatives, especially college age conservatives, this might not be new. Yet conservative apparatchiks have made not noticing the racial motivation of the Left into a kind of art form. Conservative sneering at “snowflakes” is framed as tough-guy mockery of noodle-armed progressives, but it’s really an act of moral cowardice.
In contrast, Greer explains why the seemingly-unhinged actions of these Leftist campus activists make sense—especially the unlimited demands made in the name of fighting “white privilege.”
“If whites submit to their guilt and beg for penance from the races they have wronged, there’s no limit to what the morally superior groups will extract from the now-capitulated oppressor,” he says. “Especially when that unequal relationship gives them power to make extraordinary demands. The admission of guilt only serves to intensify the grievances of those who feel whites have done them wrong.” [Emphasis added]
This is a critical point which the American Right must internalize if it wishes to survive. There is nothing about campus Leftism which can be reasoned with in good faith. It must simply be opposed and ultimately defeated.


Skin Color Determines “Who Gets In”

Roger Clegg, Center for Equal Opportunity, May 16, 2017
A new book by Rebecca Zwick, Who Gets In?, has some interesting data on, among other things, the effect of racial preferences on university admissions. According to the discussion this week in Inside Higher Ed:
What she found is that an admissions system based solely on grades and test scores would result in significant increases in Asian [and white] enrollments and declines in enrollments of underrepresented minority [i.e., black and Latino, and sometimes American Indian] students. …
Model for Impact of Different Admissions Models at Colleges That Admit Less Than 10% of Applicants



If Decisions Based Only on Grades/Test Scores

If Race-Based Affirmative Action Added

If Socioeconomic Affirmative Action Added











More than one race










The article notes, “Zwick is a major proponent of affirmative action, but some of the data in the book may well be useful to those trying to eliminate the consideration of race in admissions.” You bet.

Original Article

 The problem of IQ

Prof. Farron is what might be called “an IQ absolutist.” Early in his book, he quotes Arthur Jensen: “If there is any unquestioned fact in applied psychometrics, it is that IQ tests have a high degree of predictive validity . . .” He also emphasizes that “scores on standardized tests are the best measures of knowledge and aptitude,” and that “innumerable extensive studies have demonstrated without exception the predictive accuracy of grades, the SAT, LSAT, etc.”
Prof. Farron shows that in modern times the “magnitude of preference” for black and Hispanic candidates is enormous: generally in excess of one standard deviation. To mention just two of Prof. Farron’s many, many examples: in 1995 the law school at Berkeley accepted every black applicant with an undergraduate grade-point average between 3.25 and 3.49 and a LSAT score between the 70th and 75th percentiles, while rejecting every white and Asian in the same GPA and LSAT range. At the same time, the average MCAT (Medical College Admission Test) scores of black and Hispanic students enrolled at Harvard Medical School were 100 points (approximately one standard deviation) below the average score of whites who were rejectedby all American medical schools.
In 1963, at the beginning of the era of desegregation, a psychology professor at the University of Georgia, Robert Osborne, predicted that double standards eventually would lead to “differential marking and evaluation systems [for] the two groups.” Prof. Farron shows that this has come to pass. America’s colleges and universities have accommodated non-Asian minority students with a much-publicized “grade inflation.” Many press reports have called attention to the increase in the proportion of “A” grades, but Prof. Farron maintains that “the most important effect has been a dramatic decrease in the failure rate.”
This means that as more minorities benefit from preferences, the test-score and class-rank gaps between black and white students have increased, but the disparity in graduation rates has narrowed. This does not, however, eliminate differences in competence. In 1983, in four states (California, Texas, Florida, and Arizona) about 75 percent of white candidate teachers passed teacher competence tests on the first try, as compared to about 25 percent of blacks. Among all medical school graduates who took the National Board Examination for the first time in 1988, the pass rate was about 87% for whites, 83% for Asians, 64% for Hispanics, and 49% for blacks.
Many people were angry to learn of the extent and the effects of affirmative discrimination. In California, Michigan, and Washington, the state constitutions were amended to forbid racial discrimination by state agencies, and other states enacted statutes to the same effect. By and large, however, America’s colleges and universities continued their discriminatory policies. This persistence was so determined as to amount to a second era of “massive resistance” (which usually refers to white resistance to public school integration in the 1950s and 1960s), although the mainstream media rarely labeled it as such. In 1995, when asked what Berkeley would do about the impending prohibition of racial discrimination, Chancellor Chang-Lin Tien candidly replied, “We can come up with some tricks.”



Excerpts of the speech open all seven chapters, as well as the prologue and conclusion. Kassam writes streamlined prose with great effect, especially when excoriating Britain’s Leftist political class and its MSM enablers. He shows with great detail how Powell’s predicted dystopia is even worse than even Powell anticipated.
“In 2016 there were advertisements for the British Broadcasting Company for positions in journalism that were explicitly closed to white people,” Kassam writes. “Despite the uproar that followed this blatant instance of discrimination, the BBC continues to this day to run the scheme, as does the second largest broadcaster in the country, ITV, which in 2017 advertised positions that were ‘only open to UK nationals from a black, Asian or non-white ethnic minority.’”
Does this not sound like the prognostication of the constituent in Wolverhampton Powell cited, who feared “that in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.” [ENOCH WAS RIGHT: Raheem Kassam Vindicates Enoch Powell]