THE RACE BASED BOONDOGGLE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Intro: It looks as though the Supreme Court is poised to quash the racist practice of affirmative action, hopefully sending a message to America that race-based boondoggles no longer have a place in this country. You are listening to the Last Gay Conservative. I'm your host, Chad Law.
Chad: Oh yeah, let's go Brandon. Come on y'all. Let's go Brandon and get fired us today. Let me hear you say FJB FJB FJB! Yeah. Hello everybody and let's go Brandon. Welcome to another episode of the Last Gay Conservative. I'm your host with the most Chad Law, America's binary brother, the holiest homo, and the true leader of the gay world. This is the real queer eye. Queer eye for the smart guy and like always we're broadcasting today from our gay conservative studios, which of course is my safe space, free of wokeness and tantrums, but most importantly, where we broadcast our truth through the airwaves on our red, white, and blue rainbow.
You got it. Just want to say quick thank you for those who shared our last show, our last episode about the Colorado Springs massacre had a massive uptick in downloads and we've received many notes with friends shouting out their friends who referred them to the show. Please keep sharing. There will be huge opportunities for all of us, including you, my core, as we grow. Alright folks, we've got a lot to cover today. I have quite a few big news items to cover and then I wanted to take a deeper look at affirmative action and some of the other race-based boondoggles. The Supreme Court is reviewing yet another case on affirmative action. Affirmative action is one of those things that has been around forever, is continually challenged, but hardly anyone really understands what it means.
Set the details aside, fighting racism with racism has never worked. Furthermore, there's never been a successful race-based, or what I say, guilt driven program run by the government that has worked. In fact, these programs have worked against the various groups. They're supposed to be protecting for decades. Look to the Native American reservation program with the legalizing of casinos, letting them manage their reservation as if it's their own country, which is fine, but not only are there no taxes paid on their massive earnings, the massive earnings hardly trickle into their communities. Native reservations have some of the highest levels of poverty, lowest levels of education, but at least we propped them up and gave them reservations. Completely backwards. Now I do believe people will often need help and there should be programs to assist in those cases, but race or ethnicity should have no bearing on the acceptance or participation in these programs.
Furthermore, the program should be designed to give people another opportunity, not keep them dependent on the government. I will get into all this a little later in the episode, but in the meantime, I do have a very quick funny story for you today. I was in Home Goods yesterday. I was at Costco and the Home Goods is actually right across the parking lot and decided to pop in and see if I could find some non tacky Christmas throw pillows for the house. I know, how gay right? Christmas throw pillows. I might as well be liberatchy. However, if you've ever been to a Home Goods, you can't just pop in for one item and there's a hundred dollars minimum exit fee, kind of like Target. So Ron and I are walking around and I have him on an extenzo leash, one of the ones that go back and forth into the handle because if I don't, he pulls to say hi to everyone.
So typical me, I'm shopping, I don't realize Ron has gone all the way to the next aisle, but when I look up I can see the cord of the leash all the way around the end cap and I called for him as always, he comes over right away, but the leash had wrapped around the end cap and it was all tangled. And when he came around the corner towards me, he pulled off an entire shelf of candles, just shattered everywhere and no, not just a couple of candles, at least 20. So naturally a big scene ensued and I'm guarding the glass. I stuck Ron in the cart so he wouldn't cut his foot. Couple minutes go by and this guy comes up like some cop and goes, is everyone okay here? I thought it was the manager at first. So I quickly explained that it was my dog and that someone had left to go get an employee to help me clean it up.
The employee who was going to help, ironically remembered me because I'm there all the time and she loves Ron. She says, oh, I'm going to go get the broom. I'll be right back. So right away, as she walks away, this want to be cop dude, mall cop, whatever, says nice sweatshirt, very sarcastically to me. And I look down and of course I have my, let's go Brandon, hoodie on. I immediately roll my eyes. As the show has gotten bigger, I do try not to wear that stuff out only because it draws attention and I hate it. But my eye roll was partially at myself and partially at him. I was upset that I wore it out and I was upset that he would call out in such a sarcastic way so rudely, but I'm sure you can all imagine mall cop Joe starts lecturing me on why I shouldn't use that type of leash and how I need to pay more attention to my dog.
There were a few passers by making comments like, oh, little guy didn't mean to do it and it's just candles, no biggie. Not this guy. He then has to make it political, of course. I could have guessed someone with let's go Brandon did this because they have no regard for anyone else he says, and I just said, sir, I will handle it with the team here. Your assistance is not needed. It didn't stop for like five minutes, which seemed like an eternity. Remember folks we're in Orange County, there are a lot of conservatives and as his voice started to raise a bit, I had a woman and a man at my side telling the guy to get a life. The whole situation was becoming a scene and it was all over broken candles, which of course I offered to pay for in full, but a liberal cannot be happy until they publicly humiliate other people, cause scenes and stick their noses where they don't belong.
So I went on shopping and lo and behold we get in the line and the libtard is three people in front of me. I just ignore him while everyone just dotes on Ron and enjoys the holiday spirit. It's actually quite a nice Home Good, so everyone in there is generally pretty happy. The guy is probably 65, big gray beard, skinny and tall, hair in a ponytail with light jeans and some weird t-shirt not put together at all. Borderline homeless looking and he had quite a bit more stuff than I did in the checkout. So ultimately I ended up following him out and he starts loading his car and I kid you not, he has a big rainbow sticker that says Love wins. So of course I couldn't help myself when I said to him, man, that wasn't a very loving display in the store, verbally assaulting a gay man. He looked like he was going to shoot me. And then he says, there was no gay man there. I immediately rose my hand and he became very flush and said, oh, well you're a let's go Brandon guy, it doesn't count.
And you can imagine this class act of a gentleman drove by me loading up my car, giving me the finger. I mean this hysterical anger within these woke followers is so funny. It's like in the slightest moment they get triggered and just flip out. But hey, at least I passed as straight to the LGBTQ fan club all because of the sweatshirt I was wearing. Because people think that if you're gay, you must be liberal. So don't fall into that trap. Stand proud people. Seriously. You just have to make sure you're being smart about it. 10 years ago, I would've gone around wearing any political hat, shirt, bumper sticker. These days not so much because it's dangerous. Cars get keyed, people get beat up and liberals keep getting worse. The more they don't get responses that they want, the more they escalate their behavior.
Just thought that was always classic when people think the whole reason why I do my show because I'm gay and I'm not liberal, but I guess it doesn't matter how woke and open-minded you are, that does not work within the woke formula. Alright, let's jump into some of the news. I'm sure most of you all saw Biden's non-binary clown getting taken down for stealing luggage from baggage claim. The American Wire News reported Samuel Brenton, a flamboyant LGBTQ Advocate, who was named deputy assistant secretary for spent fuel and waste disposition over the summer was caught on video, allegedly stealing luggage from an airport baggage carousel at the Minneapolis St. Paul Airport about two months ago. "If I had taken the wrong bag, I am happy to return it, but I don't have any clothes for another individual," he told the officer. That was my clothes when I opened the bag. Two hours later, Brenton would apologize to the officer for not being completely honest, claiming that he took the bag due to tiredness.
However, as they've reported consistently through Fox News, he's been seen using the bag for two months around the country. At other trips around the country, idiot. The guy was charged with felony theft of a movable property without consent. Brenton is due in court on December 19th and faces five years in prison and or a $10,000 fine. Senator John Barrasso from Wyoming, who's the ranking member of the Committee on Energy, has called for him to be fired in a letter to Jennifer Granholm, which is the Secretary of Energy. Now, as much as I would like to tie this to gender issues, they really don't play here other than his need to put himself in the spotlight and claim to be some Jesus like figure in DC. I mean, how stupid can you be? Think about it like this. Do any of you know anyone else in this department?
We have the Department of Energy, but do you know any of the names that ring when you hear DOE? I don't. Traditionally for reasons just like this, bureaucrats fly under the radar protected, however this thing turns himself into a reality TV star online having that look and in a high profile position is something to look at. Within his odd look and online it seems that he thinks he knows fashion. When I first saw the bag in pictures, it was a hard shell and it looked like what I usually carry, which is ramoa. Ramoa suitcases are around a thousand dollars per suitcase. And I thought, oh, good eye. And it made more sense to me. Come to find out it wasn't even a ramoa, it was a Vera Bradley, some TJ Max bag brand with hideous designs. They retail for about $295. So if that's the case, then we can assume that he's a kleptomaniac.
I mean, there is no other reason to steal someone else's bag for something that cheap with cameras everywhere and knowing the spotlight is on you. This is Winona Rider syndrome or just pure stupidity like double-digit IQ stupidity. Many people wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt until they tracked him traveling with the bag as his own for two months. But of course that's not all. Come to find out, although he is on leave because of the felony theft investigation, it seems that he's still considered employed and is being paid by our tax dollars. The White House refuses to say whether or not this creep is getting paid and they've refused to answer, which always of course means yes, we are paying the kleptomaniac. Doesn't this just lend the typical liberal line of thinking, folks, I want it, it's mine and I'm going to have it.
You see, you can't be a loser taker degenerate politically and then be an upstanding citizen out of work. Liberalism, like I say, it's a skid mark that sticks to your undies and cannot be bleached out. It's a mental state, not opinions or beliefs. Liberalism is a mental state, it's a state of mind. He wanted a new suitcase, so he took it and he never returned it, then acts like, so what, I wanted it. I'm in charge of nuclear waste. The only thing about this entire story that makes any sense to me is the guy who oversees waste disposal, which he clearly has a deeper personal insight into, might just be the right position for him. Alright let's go here. Let's see, what's the next story? Okay, perfect.
Just as we thought Planned Parenthood cannot sink any lower than providing cartoon videos, encouraging kids to transition, somewhere around 2012 this man named Mr. Taverner, he's the head of sexual education, contended that a children of a certain age should be taught and exposed to pornography in sex ed. Fox News determined that he had held his position up until just this last February, 2021. During this interview that has been unearthed, if you will, from 2012. The gentleman stated that some erotica was useful in schools. He says, I think that there's this yearning for information that young people have that hasn't changed. The delivery of how we get information is quite different. I think that the internet is a major influence on how people learn about sexuality.
There's access to erotica, pornography that was very different from young people 30 years ago. You're telling me Victoria's Secret magazines. It's certainly not as accessible, certainly not as instantaneous. So there's a lot of information that is useful he remarked at the time. In a guide titled Fundamentals of Teaching Sexuality, Planned Parenthood asserted that sexuality is part of life through all ages and stages. Babies, elders and everyone in between can experience sexuality. I mean, can someone tell me how this man is leading sexual education for a group that is the leading provider of women's health? I mean, come on people, is using porn and erotica to welcome kids into their own sexuality part of the health services they so lovingly provide to the community? I mean, how does this place still have nonprofit status? 40% of Planned Parenthood income comes from various government assistance.
Actually, the exact number is about 43% of Planned Parenthood revenue came from government reimbursements or grants in the 2020 fiscal year. Out of the 1.29 billion in total revenue, 553.7 million came from the government reimbursing Planned Parenthood for providing medical services covered by programs such as Medicaid or from government grants from the Department of Health and Human Services, the remainder of revenues mostly comes from donations and some patient fees. Now, although they make the claim that abortion is only 3% of the services they provide, they can't show how reimbursed Medicare dollars or HHS grants are separately held from abortion services. Furthermore, there is no proof that shows where Planned Parenthood offices exist, that they have a positive impact on pregnancy or STDs.
There's no direct affiliation between the two. So regardless of your stance on abortion, which usually is at the center of every Planned Parenthood conversation, Planned Parenthood is a political machine. They endorse candidates, they donate to political campaigns and use its reach into younger women populations to sway them politically, the way that benefits them most. The money they earn from Medicare, Medicaid reimbursement and taxpayer funded grants are being used for political purposes. Essentially, we are, as the taxpayers are funding Planned Parenthood politics. They cannot keep raking in hundreds of millions of dollars from us in our taxes and then go lobby in Washington and support political agendas, especially extreme left agendas.
It's an ethics violation and another DNC money laundering scheme. So the more we learn, the more we know our tax dollars are paying for abortions, gender affirming care, child sex education with porn, and now liberal politicians, it never ends folks. Had to put that story in because it's so important. Now that we've seen the way that liberals funnel money through, like FTX for example. Planned Parenthood is a perfect example. Guess what, Rachel Levine, the big tranny in HHS sends money to where? Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood turns around and endorses and donates to liberal candidates. It's all the same.
Alright, what's next here? Oh, this is a good one. An Apple store in Palo Alto experienced their own unique version of Black Friday when two masked men did a mad dash to the store, stealing about $35,000 in product. Ironically, both suspects involved were black, which added a little something extra to the traditional Black Friday shopping sprees. Coincidentally, this is the same store that was robbed before twice in 2018, where now they've lost up to $400,000 worth of inventory having been stolen. The worst part of the crime on camera is that the Apple store employees all step back, put their hands up and watched. When other customers tried to intervene, you can hear the Apple employees yelling, let them go, let them go. Now granted that probably is the safer move and I'm sure that's what corporate has trained them to do, but the message it sends to the criminals is, we're here come and rob us, not to mention why didn't they install an armed guard at the door after the last three robberies?
These grab and go style robberies are only getting more popular as DAs refuse to prosecute this type of crime. The criminals are getting smarter about the attacks on these big businesses and know not to engage or touch any of the customers because it automatically raises the charge. Now also, it's very common to see unique tools that were created specifically to remove the Apple products from the security cord. In this particular case, both men were unarmed. However, one did threaten a customer with violence, which allowed the Monterey Police Department to upgrade the charge from shoplifting to burglary. Lieutenant Jake Pinkus of the Monterey Police Department says these types of robberies are now commonplace in California. Theft has skyrocketed since the pandemic occurred. And he told Monterey County now and an interview that authorities begin identifying the crimes as a recurring issue in the fall of 2021. It's a little late.
He said, "you started to see the more brazen robberies where they're bringing in tools to take phones or laptops or breakthrough glass," he asserted. That definitely seems to have started after the pandemic year 2020 and went further into 2021. Always the pandemic. I mean, again, another example of how these spineless woke companies would rather send messages to these criminals that they won't do anything, which in turn makes it easier and easier for thieves to take what they want from wherever they want it. I mean, at least Starbucks started locking bathrooms, closed dangerous locations and rolling huge employee safety protocols out and training. Apple, on the other hand, has done absolutely nothing. Hey, their insurance will cover the loss and they can always just raise the price for those of us paying schmucks. Apple now does use arm guards during the holidays to keep the rush under control. But why they don't engage these officers all year round as a mystery, especially with the kind of crime we're seeing in their stores?
I mean, with the influence a company like Apple has, why have they not put their employees and customer safety first? They need to lean on the DAs who are essentially responsible for these crimes and if they're not going to do anything, they need to put pressure on politicians for change. Installing triple alarms and private security at necessary locations would be a great start. Don't have to do anything. A little button under the table. Boom. Just like a bank. It's not about the product or oh, we gotta save the iPhone. No, it's about sending a message to the criminal that you can get caught regardless. And until we start catching them and installing these measures, nothing will ever stop. I mean, in my opinion, it seems as though these retailers are sacrificing the safety of everyone by burying their own heads in the sand and refusing to acknowledge problems that go against their utopian views. So crazy.
Alright folks, let's dive into the meat of the episode here and talk about affirmative action. The Supreme Court is reviewing arguments on both sides of an affirmative action case for the fourth time in history. Affirmative action is one of the most discussed political issues, however, very few really understand it in totality. Now, I didn't plan on covering this topic today originally, but I saw and heard something that really resonated with me that I'd like to share with you now.
Q: "You and Mike Tomlin are two of the few black head coaches in the league. I wonder what your relationship was like with them and your thoughts on Steve Wilkes joining that fold."
A: "I have a very good relationship with Tomlin. We don't look at what color we are when we coach against each other. We just know each other. I have a lot of very good white friends that coach in this league as well, and I don't think it's a big deal as far as us being coaching against each other. I think it's normal Wilkes got an opportunity to do a good job. Hopefully he does it and we coach ball. We don't look at color."
Q: "But you also understand that representation matters too, right? And that when inspiring coaches or even football players, they see you guys, they see someone that looks like them, they can cool up like them. That has to be something."
A: "Well, when you say you see you guys and look like them and grow up like them, means that we're eyeballs to begin with. And I think the minute you guys stop making a big deal about it, everybody else will as well."
So I can tell you what he's trying to say is that this is racism as well, period. It is things like affirmative action that are actually discriminatory and pit races against each other. Historically, folks, affirmative action has been a black-and-white issue, and aside from the very beginning when the feel good policy was put into place, it has been the center around much of the black versus white culture we see today. I mean, essentially what affirmative action has done is convince blacks that whites have it easier. So white people should get no help, but they have it harder, so they deserve additional help. On the flip side, white folks think it's unfair for someone to get special treatment because they're black or because of their skin color. Now this is uber simplified and there's a lot more to it, but at its core, this is the message affirmative action sends.
Life for whites is easy, for blacks, it's hard. And the university admissions process should adopt and use this thinking for deciding who is admitted to school. I mean, since the late sixties when this was a feel-good and celebrated way to diversify colleges and an attempt to make up for some of the horrible atrocities, pre-civil rights, it's been one of the most argued and racially charged issues in history. Affirmative action was a noble attempt to create a place for blacks in colleges who had historically never had the opportunity. And just to be clear, it wasn't technically intended to be just black and white, but it naturally became that because they were the two most prominent groups of focus at the time and we were specifically dealing with post-civil rights, was primarily an African-American issue.
However, when you look at the program itself, it really comes down to what people in education call racial preference. The idea of race preference made sense at the time, but it's become a rat's nest of dishonesty, fraud, borderline illegal measures taken by schools to cover up how far they've gone down this racial preference rabbit hole. I had to go into my treasure trove. Well, I didn't, but I had someone go into my treasure trove and found this piece from 2012 in the Atlantic. Yes, the Atlantic, which is notoriously liberal and not so much journalism, more known for their stories in op-eds, but they did publish a piece in 2012 about affirmative action and it opens by saying this. It has evolved into a regime of racial preferences at almost all selective schools. Preferences so strikingly large and politically unpopular that administrators work hard to conceal them.
The largest, most aggressive preferences are usually reserved for upper middle-class minorities on many of whom inflict significant academic harm, whereas more modest policies that could help working class and poor people of all races are given short shrift. Yeah. So why is it such a hot button and stayed such a hot button? Well, when you look at the most research around acceptance preferences, there are varying aspects of that, that can change and evolve depending on the current socioeconomic times. For example, in the late sixties, this policy or law affirmative action was written to bring blacks into the university system. It was a good idea at the time, it was very noble. There wasn't a significant population of agriculture laborers from Mexico like we see today. So that's something that's changed. We have now a lot more brown minorities or Asian minorities that has changed our macro socioeconomic time that then influences how these schools administer affirmative action.
There's way too much power to the schools to decide what it means, but I guess simplified, due to the nature of the policy, it's always going to be partially influenced by outside factors, which changes the meaning and application of the law. Most researchers show that like anything, whether it be a job, a school, trying to get a role in a high school musical, trying to get a great internship, when determining factors called large preferences into play, it hurts both parties severely. Now, small preferences for selection are things like grades, attendance, test scores, work history, location, background, skills. Large preferences for selection are race, sexuality, gender, religion, et cetera, also known as what we call protected classes. It's illegal almost everywhere as you all know this, to fire, hire, sell to, or discriminate against any of these protected classes or large preferences.
However, it's widely accepted as a way to weigh people, weigh applicants into college, and weigh applicants into jobs, that seems very counterintuitive. I mean, we can talk about fairness and equality and propping up those who have not had the same opportunity all day long. But the big glaring issue with affirmative action is it's 70 years old and still not working. We still have no proof of concept that it's had any impact other than increasing the number of blacks into colleges, which is a good thing, but it often hurts those students and sets them up for failure as well. Affirmative action, what most people don't understand is it's just a spinoff of Marxist race theory. It's an attempt at manmade fairness and equality which cannot exist and function in a democratic capitalistic society.
The way a true democracy works essentially is, you get out of it what you put into it. That's also the basis for capitalism. You can create the life you want for yourself. In a socialist society, people are supposed to be equal, but in order to create equality, some must be pulled down and controlled and some must be pulled up and controlled in order to put them in the middle, which makes it impossible for people to control what they put in or get out because there's no drive to get or work for more in a Marxist society period. And on a quick side note, the proponents of affirmative action who still are pushing for it and live and breathe by that sword today are the founders and proponents of CRT, critical race theory right now. The two go hand in hand. The current cases in front of the Supreme Court, there are two parallel cases. One is centered around Harvard and the other one is centered around the University of North Carolina.
In January when the Supreme Court actually agreed to hear the cases, they combined both into one giving one hour for each party or each attorney to present, students for fair admissions versus Harvard and students for fair admissions versus University of North Carolina. Right before the cases were heard, they chose to separate the cases because of the notable differences and because Justice Brown recused herself from the Harvard case based on her position on a board seat or something similar, which I think is the right thing to do. The cases also represent public schools with North Carolina and private schools with Harvard. The courts have heard arguments of affirmative action several times. I mean, the last case was heard in 2016, and the most notable case comes out of a Texas case in 2003. In all cases, the Supreme Court has upheld some version of affirmative action. What you're going to hear on all the media reports is the radical right Supreme Court is looking to reverse years of diversification, like Roe v. Wade, they're just setting the progress clock back.
They say that's why they're agreeing to hear these cases with years of precedent to attack our rights, constitutional rights, which is crazy. I mean I didn't realize that getting into college was a constitutional right, but hey, who am I? And it is a common question on the minds of many people. It's a fair question. Why are they hearing these cases and uprooting the status quo at such a rapid pace? I mean, my friend said to me the other day, Chad, it looks like they're bulldozing everything. And the simple answer is they are, and they're going to do so because most of these cases are older and they're not working. They either haven't worked or they're not working anymore. Being heard over and over in the courts with hopes of a fix only to just repeat the same thing over and over again and expect a different result is insanity. I mean, affirmative action is from the 1960s and has shown very little positive impacts.
Roe v Wade is from 1973, so it should make sense that after 50, in 60 years, the success of these laws be reexamined based on how they're doing. The sixties and seventies were a time of great reaction under immense pressure to balance the scales and these programs made sense then for most people, but in the long term have done more damage than good. The arguments were very clear and the justices offered some great insight. If you want to watch the whole five hour argument at the Supreme Court, it's all on YouTube and it is really, really a great one to watch. Much better than the Roe v Wade arguments in my opinion. I mean, even Justice Brown had some great points essentially stating that race was merely one of the 40 points taken into consideration and it lends to accessing the total student.
On the flip side of that, justice Roberts said, we didn't fight in a civil war for small issues. We fought the war to end racial discrimination, which is why this issue supersedes things like test scores. What I love about this case is that the justices across the board offered solutions and suggestions that did not just come down to quashing or keeping the program. And CNN reported that justice Amy Coney Barrett, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts repeatedly pushed lawyers for the schools about their efforts to build a class without taking race directly into consideration. Justice Barrett pursued a line of questioning suggesting then maybe instead of checking a box, an applicant could use an essay to demonstrate unique personal characteristics. Roberts then noted if race may longer be taken into consideration, there may be an incentive for the university to actually pursue race-neutral alternatives, which they have not had to do historically because they fall back on affirmative action.
Justice Alito says and I love this. Suppose a student is an immigrant from Africa and moves to a rural area in western North Carolina where the population is overwhelmingly white, this is his hypothetical. He wondered if instead of taking race into consideration, it would be permissible for the student to write an essay about how he had to deal with huge cultural differences. And then Justice Brown, she says, well, I think what you're trying to say is people have to mask their identities when they come into contact with the admissions office just on the basis of their difference. Now, that's very dangerous to me and a very careful line to tread because of two things. One, this is not specific to the admissions office. Affirmative action is a conversation that also permeates through all the other selection or acceptance processes throughout the United States.
Secondly, this argument lends to the belief that you are who you're race is, which I would argue as a gay man, that that basis of large preferences should not determine who you are, how you work, and it doesn't. But the assumptions and the sweeping generalizations that have been put forward from the left then encourage races, various races to use those points in order to get ahead, which I would too. They're smart. The other part of this case I love is there are some Supreme Court precedent that is very unique and another representation of society as a whole. See that case from 2003 Gruder versus Bollinger, the courts ruled that although affirmative action can be a tool to bridge the gap, it should only be a temporary measure, an end by 2028. Gruder says using racial classifications are so potentially dangerous, however compelling their goals, they can, they can be employed no more broadly. They continue and go on to say, this is dangerous and it has to have an end point.
Amy Coney Barrett was the one who stressed this on Monday reading the 2003 decision. Now, she wondered if Gruter was grossly optimistic that in reality schools would never stop taking race into consideration. But she did notice that Gruter called race classifications risky and potentially poisonous. The solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, she was defending and speaking on the behalf of both schools, Harvard and University of North Carolina said that eventually there would be an endpoint when society changed. Roberts then came through and said yeah, well they promised, Gruter promised 25 years. Gruter gave us a number. He asked, do you want to give us a number? I don't see how you can say that the program will never end. Roberts pushed that fact heavily. I love this.
He says, your position is that race matters because it's necessary for diversity, which is necessary for the sort of education you want. It's not going to stop mattering at some particular point. You're always going to have to look at race because you say race matters to give us the necessary diversity. On top of that Justice Kavanaugh said, if you don't have a number, and I understand why it's difficult, but if you don't have something measurable, it's going to be very hard for this court. So this really brings me to my next point, folks. These social programs are never meant to be used forever and they shouldn't be. They should be in place to address inequities or temporary downfalls.
The same concept can be applied to welfare and unemployment. Why have them if they merely keep people on the teeth? We also have to consider the other factor in this case is that minorities feel as though they've been left out of the affirmative action program. I mean, Asian Americans are the ones that are really creating this uproar and they're claiming that even though affirmative action is set in place to help all minorities, they're often passed up because of the black and brown roots of the program. Well, surprisingly to me, this whole Asian American argument is very flawed because they're pushing for more affirmative action. But affirmative action has been the reason that they've been discriminated against in the first place.
So based on what they're saying, affirmative action has been the cause of discrimination against Asians, but also needs to be in place to help Asians. I don't think that can happen. It's mutually exclusive. Seems very counterproductive. I mean, they're claiming they're victims of race-based unfairness, yet broadening this racist program will help that population. Here's the problem with their argument. Like so many other social-based laws that came out of that time in the sixties, affirmative action was written for blacks, period. It was written as a way to increase diversity with black attendance and colleges where in pastimes they would've been discriminated against. That's what it was written. The other issue is that Asian-Americans are not a disenfranchised group. The socioeconomic breakdown of the Asian-American community, especially those of several generations, is on par with white people, Asian-American, see almost no FBI documented race-based hate crimes and there are just a handful of recorded instances of discrimination.
I mean, other than the disgusting Japanese-American measures that were taken after Pearl Harbor in this country and they were held in camps. Other than that instance, there's very little evidence to support Asian Americans are in fact a disenfranchised group. In 2020, there were 5,227 crimes based on race reported to the FBI. 279 of them were deemed anti-Asian. 869 were deemed anti-white. White people had more hate crime against them than Asians did in 2020. On a whole, Asian Americans do well, very well on the economic scale compared with the overall population of the US. In 2019, the average income for Asian people was $85,800 a year compared to the $61 800 among all the United States.
Foreign-Born, Asian households earned slightly more than those headed by US-born Asians. Asians are less likely than Americans overall to live in poverty. Poverty rates amongst US-born and foreign born Asians were 9% and 11% respectively that year.
The poverty rate among immigrant Asian minors, those under the age of 18, was slightly higher at 16%, another statistic. More than half of Asian Americans ages 25 and older have a bachelor's degree or more education compared with 33% of the US population in the same age range. These are the most recent socioeconomic statistics from Pew Research on the Asian-American community. Does it seem like they need affirmative action to thrive?
I mean, Asians like the immigrants, like of my ancestors who came through Ellis Island, have been a shining example of successful immigration and its potential of success in the US. One could argue that hands down, the Asian immigrants that have come into this country are the most successful immigrants to ever immigrate into the US as far as education, income, family development, etcetera. When I say things like that, people always get defensive and tell me, these programs aren't supposed to be for one group.
They're supposed to represent the American landscape, and it's like, Okay, my response, I I say the same thing to people all the time, you guys know. Yes, they are. The program was designed to help the black community, just like our reservation program was meant specifically for Native Americans, but it has been redefined to read like this anti-discrimination and diversity program when it was designed and is still based on evening the playing field for black people, which is not a bad thing and at the time made perfect sense.
The problem is JFK ran with that and used affirmative action to define so much more than just college admissions. I mean, in the early 1960s, Kennedy put forward the idea of affirmative action in the midst of the civil rights movement. One of the arguments of the civil rights movement was that racism is baked into so many institutions in society, criminal justice, healthcare, finance, housing, and of course education. Affirmative action according to JFK was a way to remedy all of these historic injustices and racism. When you compete for things like jobs and education, you're not starting on a level playing field. Well, none of us are. Fairness does not exist. Like I said, the Supreme Court has heard this case, this very similar argument four times. I mean in 1974, the Supreme Court had previously ruled that race can be considered in college admissions if two conditions apply. One, if race is one of a number of factors and two, the second is what's often called the diversity rationale, which says that race can be considered if the university can argue that racial diversity contributes to the educational experience for all students.
How is that provable? How can anyone prove that racial diversity contributes to the educational experience for students? First of all, what are you referring to, educational experience? These open-ended decisions are so bad and this is why the things are coming up over and over again. They're just poorly written decisions. You can throw all the theories you want in there, but to actually quantify diversity and positive educational experiences, you need some sort of data and you can, because it's a feeling. The other problem with the argument is that if the goal for colleges is to represent the diversity of America, why do the population numbers not match at all? I mean, for example, here in California, the University of California system, the UC system, which has been noted as the best public state university system in the United States for a long time, admission of California freshmen just this last year reached an all-time high with 84,000 students and 36,000 of them, or 43% are students from underrepresented, racial and ethnic groups.
Okay, let me say underrepresented racial or ethnic groups. So Latinos were amongst the largest group admitted for the second year in a row making up 37%. Next, Asian Americans made up 34%, then white students 20% and black students, 5%. The scattering of the rest are American Indian, Pacific Islander and those who declined to state their race or ethnicity. Now let's look at the census. 75% of the US is white, 13% is black, 18% is Hispanic, 6% is Asian. Would you not agree that if there was a true representation of American diversity by race, the numbers should not be a hundred percent in line but semi reflect the actual numbers of the US population. So we can, without a shadow of a doubt, say it's not an equal playing ground for anyone involved. It's not fair and it's certainly not American, but it really hurts and harms the recipients of this sort of help, or leg up admissions, as I like to call it.
The one thing that no one ever talks about is the true impacts of the recipients of race-based preferences and it's not good. Many people who pushed for affirmative action in the seventies have now come back and said, we had no such idea such detrimental effects would come from using large preferences for admission. I mean, let's be honest, college admission is really a small piece of this larger conversation which goes into hiring of jobs, getting cast on TV or movies, getting production deals, promotion, anything that involves merit but can be convoluted into large preferences is going to be affected. That's my biggest issue, is that this thing, this well-intended policy, affirmative action has grown tentacles and is now impacting everything in our society.
At this point the left mob expects every part of life to be largely driven by racial preferences given out. It's not just schools, it's companies who get tax credits for having a diverse staff, to the point where an employer will hire the much less qualified minority because of the incentive to keep the cost lower overall, even if that employee can't keep up and has his job threatened regularly, etcetera. The financial assistance from the government often offsets any of the subsequent consequences. In schools it's the same. The truth behind folks, the truth behind race-based preferences is that having a beautifully diverse incoming class to a university looks great after the acceptance letters are out and class has begun. But after that, none of these so-called admissions offices or school leaders who push for affirmative action have any additional vested interest in the success of those students.
Once the butts are in seats and they can have a pretty photograph on their website, they don't care if the student fails, struggle loses financial assistance or even drops out, the schools could care less. I talk about this a lot and it bears repeating, whenever you begin to mess with the natural order of things, no good comes from it. See, time and self-correction are the biggest parts of capitalism people miss on a social scale. A capitalism is not just dollars and cents, there's a social scale associated with capitalism. Over time, the market will correct inequities in society and self-correction within the market will lead to better things than those that we try to force. Don't get me wrong, we still have to take the steps and push for what we want, just not through the root of having the government attempt to correct inequities with money or creating a false economy.
I mean, we've seen this with women, in the fight for women's rights, not even a fraction of the money spent and invested and required to create even headcounts of men and women in the workplace like our government has done for blacks. In the fight for women's rights, not even a fraction of the money spent and invested in the black community had been put forth in evening out the headcounts of men and women in the workplace.
Now there has been some government interference but for the most part a woman's salary rising to be more in line with men, them getting better maternity leave, more flexible schedules to adapt to school schedules have all been market self corrections, not based on throwing good money at bad policy. And you can see that although we have women's rights discussions all the time, and we probably have more to go, the unfair advantages of men have gotten slimmer and slimmer because the market corrected itself and we've had serious improvement, serious and significant improvement in balancing the race scales in this country.
We've not seen the same progress as we saw in women's rights as we do in racial rights and inequities because in the women's program there was way less meddling and government attempts at trying to fix things when they've had their hands and race all of this time. And you can see two equal minority groups progressing in gaining rights and a stronger foothold in an American society. One has completely taken off and the other one is trucking along slowly and the only difference is government interference. So as I was saying, it's easy for admissions offices to use race as a factor in their selection to help tilt the scales, but it's really detrimental to the recipient. It's what many in the educational business call education mismatch. In this piece from 2012 and the Atlantic summarizes it quite nicely, say the mismatch effect happens when a school extends to a student such a large admissions preference.
Now sometimes it's because of their athletics or their connections to the school, but race is usually the primary factor. The challenge is that when they extend such a preference to a student, that student will often find himself in a class where he has weaker academic preparation than nearly all of his classmates. A student who would flourish at say Wake Forest or the University of Richmond instead finds himself at Duke, where the professors are not teaching at a pace designed for him. They are teaching to the middle of the class introducing terms and concepts at a speed that is unnerving even to the best prepared student. So in other words, what often happens is the student given a non merit-based boost into an institution beyond their level, they go through a whirlwind of problems. First of all, the professors and other students will flourish while oftentimes affirmative action recipients fall behind. Grades and attendance often suffer. And beyond that, studies show the panic and self-doubt these students experience also has irreversible effects on their performance and quality of education.
Thousands of students have been followed and tracked and this is what they've found. I mean, I think of it in my own terms. I hated math. I had to really try hard to get decent grades in math, whereas history and English I literally just showed up to class and got an A. Although it may not have been obvious to those around me, math made me insane. I had to get a tutor try and pass, and I did pass with B, but still it was very, very difficult. Now knowing that halfway during the class my counselor says to me, hey, let's bump you up to AP calculus, that way we can get you into a better school. So they put me in the advanced class. I fumble a bit at first probably, but it quickly goes from fumble to flat, constantly struggling. I know, I'm saying if this happened to me, I would be constantly struggling. I wouldn't be able to keep up with the other students that had a full year of the class that I just got bumped up from.
And it just creates a constant spiral of failure, not just academically but socially as well. The difference is I'm not black sitting in a room of white and Asian kids, which in turn adds to the stereotype and the feeling of failure. That's the constant feedback loop affirmative action has caused. The piece goes on to say, so we have a terrible confluence of forces putting students in classes for which they aren't prepared, causing them to lose confidence and underperform even more, while at the same time consolidating the stereotype that they are inherently poor students. And you can see how at each level there are feedback effects that reinforce self-doubts of all students who are struggling. So beyond that affirmative action weighing or scale, if you will, is totally different across the board. So much so that some schools have been found to be using race as an equivalent boost to hundreds of SAT points.
I mean like I talked about in the 2003 case, the University of Texas argument presented to the Supreme Court highlighted some pretty scariest statistics. The typical black student receiving a race preference placed at the 52nd percentile of the SAT. The typical white was at the 89th percentile. In other words, Texas is putting blacks who score at the middle of the college aspiring population in the midst of highly competitive students. I mean, according to the same Atlantic piece, mismatched education and acceptance didn't really come into play until the 1990s and research on the mismatch problem was almost non-existent. It's developed rapidly and we've been able to get so much more data from labor economists. Here are just a few examples. Black college freshmen are more likely to aspire to science or engineering careers than our white freshmen, but mismatch causes blacks to abandon these fields at twice the rate of whites.
Blacks who start college interested in pursuing a doctorate and an academic career are twice as likely to be derailed from this path if they attend a school where they are mismatched. About half of black students rank in the bottom 20% of their classes and the bottom of 10% in law school. Black law school graduates are four times likely to fail the bar exams as whites mismatch explains half of this gap. Interracial friendships are more likely to form among students with relatively similar levels of academic preparation. Thus blacks and Hispanics are more socially integrated on campuses where they are less academically mismatched. These are all great examples of failure of this program across the board. As you can see, like I said, this is so much more complex than just a matter of fairness.
It has become a racial hot button that is now all over the American schools and workforces. On top of that, universities have gone crazy, crazy extensive measures to hide their racially based admissions processes because they've gone so much further than the basic premise and they've probably gone beyond recognition. Another great example in California in 2006, I remember this, they essentially banned affirmative action or racial preference with a prop 209. It was 209. It was centered around the UC schools, but mainly UCLA. And so what happened is is they fought it, fought it, fought it, and then they finally prop 209 eliminated it and UCL did see a subtle dip in minority enrollment and of course created this huge scene and protestors and pushed for race-based acceptance. See, they used these small shifts or declines in numbers to justify their price, but guess what, folks? Guess what? The number of minorities before and after the elimination receiving bachelor's degrees was not impacted.
So it's not as if, okay, UCLA saw a 10% decline in black admissions or black enrollment and they also saw a 10% decline in black graduation of undergrad or receiving a bachelor's degree. But that doesn't happen because if they don't get into UCLA, they go to a school that they're better suited for. Also, the ban on racial preference produced better match students at UCLA. Students who were more likely to graduate. The black four year graduation rate at UCLA doubled from the early 1990s to the years after Proposition 209, which eliminated affirmative action. Second, strong black and Hispanic students who accepted UCLA offers enrolled at much higher rates than before the band went into effect. Their choices suggested that they were eager to attend a school where the stigma of a preference could not be attached to them.
This mitigated the drop in enrollment. And lastly, many minority students who would've been admitted to UCLA with weak qualifications before prop 209 were admitted to less elite schools instead. Those who proved their academic medal were able to transfer up to UCLA and graduate there. I mean, you just have to look at the data guys. You have to see the cases before. Prop 209 in California in the People's Republic in 2006 when it was a little bit more bearable, redefine the landscape of higher education with minorities and helped equalize the system. Again, market self-correction. The schools will never admit failure of this program because for some reason higher learning institutions have it in their head, they're screwed up little heads that criticism of affirmative action is racism itself.
But then you look at this push for political correctness and race sensitivity, which is exactly why there has never been any reform or what Justice Roberts referred to as race neutral acceptance practices because they haven't had to. The most racist practice of all is that affirmative action makes sweeping generalizations and assumptions that black people and brown people are unable to get into these schools on their own, that they are poorer, that they have less opportunity. So then what happens? Then they weigh the black and brown admissions heavily with that assumption that they needed extra help, which then promotes black and brown minorities into the school, oftentimes taking seats from people who are much more impoverished and need the help much more. It's crazy. They give it to middle class blacks and browns and take it away from the poorest Asians and whites, even though it's supposed to be a socioeconomic program, it makes no sense.
That's why it's constantly under fire. Allow me to leave you with this. Racism comes in all forms and most of the time the form of bias, government policy that promotes inequities rather than eliminating them. There has never in history been a social program based on race or what we refer to as large preferences that has worked in helping communities. These programs are supposed to help. I mentioned it earlier, our Native American reparations have failed miserably. Programs designed to bolster the education, jobs, growth of the native population has only led to obesity, suicide rates skyrocketing, huge addiction issues and massive wealth gaps. If you look at Alaska with their native programs, it's the same thing. Liberals will continue to argue that the welfare systems in this country are inherently racist, which is why they keep minorities down and do not have direct benefit on these minority communities themselves.
Liberals say reparations will work because unlike non-racist based social programs, this actually takes race into account making it the primary reason and laws that directly correlate with that race. They lie. Democrats have benefited the most politically from racism. Instead of thinking that Democrats are bleeding hearts and they want this distribution of wealth, etcetera, which is all true, we also have to look in deeper why did they push these programs so hard? What is the resistance against reform? Why attack the Supreme Court for reviewing the details? What is the obsession with affirmative action? It all comes down to this, which you already know. The lower they can keep minorities, keeps it easier for them to promise fixes or change in order to get elected. And as history shows once they're elected, nothing actually happens.
Welfare, affirmative action, all of these things are merely political tools and voter recruitment tools for the left. Affirmative action is part of a much bigger issue in this country. Affirmative action lives at the time teens become adults. College admissions are supposed to set a tone of what getting a job is like post-graduation, so teachers, coaches, human resource managers, admissions officers and hiring managers apply the same methods, which sets everyone up for failure down the road. Forget the unconstitutional nature of affirmative action for a second. Let's look at the damage that's done for groups who are either dropped or fail as a result. Folks, for one second, let's forget the unconstitutional nature of affirmative action and look at the damages it has done to the groups who are either dropped or fail as a result, we can also demonstrate easily how large preferences in hiring can have detrimental impacts on the entire nation. Look at the Biden Camp. Kamala, Junior Senator, no experience but tapped for being a woman of color.
Lloyd Austin, Biden readily admitted that he was hired based on the fact that he was black and he's awful. He's the worst. Karine Jean Pierre. I mean, do I need to say anything there? Pete Budajudge, no experience, tapped for being gay. You want to know what's happening to our country. Washington is the prime example of how well affirmative action works. The worst performing cabinet of all time, none of which were hired solely based on merit. The left will stop at nothing to keep the racial divide and racist welfare programs because the false perception is that the left is the champion of minorities and really minorities are the only thing that keep them in office. They will continue to push and vote for race-based programs that hurt everyone in order to keep their voter base in check rather than invest the time and the money into communities, into programs that we know work, real-world proven strategies to build wealth and work within the market itself. Oh no.
When you discuss affirmative action, keep these things in mind folks. When people talk about the radical right extreme supreme Court killing years of protections and precedents, remember that socioeconomic programs are working are organic programs meant to be tweaked with time and changing circumstances. When you discuss affirmative action, keep these things in mind. When people talk about the radical right extreme and Supreme Court that's killing years of protections and precedents, remember that socioeconomic programs have to work within current society. They're meant to be tweaked with time and changing circumstances. Things like abortion and affirmative action are not absolute because there are no elements that depend on things like research results and data.
I don't know how the courts will rule. I have a feeling they will rule against affirmative action. However, the extent in which they rule will be interesting. I personally love the time limit idea, acknowledging that unchecked programs created for a current goal that continue over the change in time doesn't work and can be very dangerous. My hope would be that they uphold the 2003 ruling when 25 years were given to remove affirmative action. On the other side, the left says it will end when society changes, which is so asinine because you can't on one hand say you need race-based programs to help the inequities of society and then just want to wait for society to change until it's removed.
It's the insane liberal mindset.
React based on emotion, put things in place, then blame society when they're asked, when the program could be discontinued or for some sort of audit or performance review. So you create a law in attempt to push society, but then won't revisit the law when it doesn't work in a new society. Pure stupidity, folks, pure stupidity. This is the left that we're dealing with today. All the data that I just laid out for you will fall on deaf ears. They do not care if it works or doesn't. They don't care, as long as they can say to their fake voter base, we're getting you into college. Again when did it become so clear in this country? When did it become acceptable in this country that in an attempt to create equality and fairness, you take equality and fairness away from someone else? Pure stupidity.
I'm Chad Law reminding you of what Reagan once said. Christmas can be celebrated in the schoolroom with pine trees, tinsel and reindeers, but there must be no mention of the man whose birthday is being celebrated. One wonders how a teacher would answer if a student asked "Why is it called Christmas?" Another brilliant example of the results of liberal meddling. God bless you President Reagan and may God save America.
Outro: You just listened to the Last Gay Conservative podcast hosted by Chad Law. Please visit us at Lastgayconservative.com for this episode and others. We're also on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, U2, and wherever you listen. If you like the show, please like, subscribe and share. Find us on Social at Last Gay Conservatives. We proudly support the following causes, the Convention of State's action, the National Rifle Association, the Heritage Foundation, and Big Brothers Big Sisters of America. Disclaimer, the views and opinions expressed in this program are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of any entities they represent. The Last Gay Conservative is a production of Pen Write Media. All rights reserved 2022.