We all understand the left has devised a raft of races and ethnicities that it will accept living on this planet. And they’re afraid to say that we’re not one of them. That’s their unifying fundamentalist agenda. And to achieve that agenda requires an embrace of cosmic hypocrisy. Industrial doublethink and dissembling are necessary to this workflow. We know this. Yet even in the knowing, there are times when I find the entire edifice more ludicrous and malevolent than what any common man should be forced to endure. I call those times…sobriety.
So to begin, let’s establish bedrock principles. Racial profiling is wrong. Eric Holder says so. And with substantially less eloquence, so do The Fergusons. Race should not be a consideration, period. That includes even if a certain ululating segment of society were prone to detonate or decapitate, the first group we’d need to focus on would be a sect of rural Quakers. To repeat: No matter the likelihood, national interest, or precedent, the government does not accept race as a consideration. The end, for Allah’s sake. Here’s a recent article to clarify the government’s position.
The Justice Department is set to announce broad restrictions on racial and religious profiling in federal investigations, including those involving matters of national security.
The expected ban comes amid heightened concerns of Islamic militant groups executing a terror attack on U.S. soil and was reportedly opposed by national security officials.
A Justice Department official told Fox News on Monday that outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder will announce the policy change in the coming weeks and that it will also put an end to profiling based on ethnicity and sexual orientation.
Holder intended to announce the policy change several months ago, but the White House ordered a last-minute hold so the Department of Homeland Security could review the national security implications, a congressional aide told The Los Angeles Times, which on Saturday first reported the story.
The new policy will add to long-standing bans on racial profiling and extend them for the first time to national-security probes.
Whether one agrees or not with this approach, it must be conceded as a natural component of the left’s principled stance on race: it simply can not and will not be considered. They will countenance only race-blind policies. Nothing else.
As a completely unrelated aside, here is the Justice Department’s Diversity Policy.
We value diversity in our workforce and embrace the cultural and demographic dimensions of our country. We work diligently to attract and retain a workforce that represents the range of personal and professional backgrounds, and experiences and perspectives that arise from differences of culture and circumstances. This includes persons of varying age, ethnicity, gender, disability, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, national origin, political affiliation, socioeconomic and family status, and geographic region.
To further promote diversity within the Department, we have developed and implemented a Department-wide Diversity Management Plan. This plan will foster effective diversity management across the Department, sustain progress over time, and ensure accountability for results. Through respect, understanding, and open communication between and among the rich tapestry of our employees, we will enhance critical aspects of our management practices, including policy development, decision making, and problem solving.
And how does the department achieve this “rich tapestry?” By racially profiling, of course. And not even with a “holistic” wink and smile either. It resides in banal black and white within the Diversity Management Plan. There is a prescribed workforce composition, and the department racially profiles to achieve it. Simple. Principled.
But we all know hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue, so maybe this is just an internal policy. As noted before in these pages, unbiased science has proven that white workforces are incapable of innovation. And mining the deep veins of constitutional penumbras requires great innovation indeed.
So let’s review a recent DOJ brief to the Supreme Court regarding the University of Texas’ formal racial profiling program. You would, of course, expect the department to have come out staunchly opposed to the university in accordance with prior sententiously stated principles. Though hopefully the amount wagered was small. Here is the brief. Excerpts below:
The United States has significant responsibilities for the enforcement of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the context of institutions of higher learning, see 42 U.S. C. 2000c-6, and for the enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.2000d et seq,
which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race
Prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race. Apparently sometimes the constitution isn’t constitutional.
The educational benefits of diversity identified in Grutter are of critical importance to the United States. Careers in a range of fields that are vital to the national interest—such as the military officer corps, science, law, medicine, finance, education, and other professions (for which a university degree is a prerequisite)—must be open to all segments of American society, regardless of race and ethnicity. That is not simply a matter of civic responsibility; it is a pressing necessity in an era of intense competition in the global economy and ever-evolving worldwide national-security threats. The government, moreover, has a vital interest in drawing its personnel—many of whom will eventually become its civilian and military leaders—from a well-qualified and diverse pool of university and service-academy graduates of all backgrounds who possess the understanding of diversity that is necessary to govern and defend the United States.
See racial profiling is no longer a principle, but an elastic concept defined by effectiveness. “It is a pressing necessity” to violate the plaintiff’s protections against racial discrimination because…diversity. Racial profiling means just what they say it means at the moment they say it…nothing more, nothing less.
This Court has held that a university may institute a narrowly tailored policy that considers race as part of a holistic, individualized admissions process, when doing so is necessary to achieve the educational benefits of diversity.
And may law enforcement institute a narrowly tailored policy that considers race as a part of a holistic, individualized scrutiny process when doing so is necessary to achieve the criminal reduction benefits of non-diversity? Why no, it may not. We know this because it was stated plainly (and apparently without irony) by Eric Holder himself while speaking at Albert Sharpton’s black advocacy organization: “civil rights organizations and law enforcement leaders (must convene) to identify areas of concern – and reduce the likelihood that race will play any role in the investigation and prosecution of crimes.”
And what of reducing the likelihood that race will play any role in university admissions or hiring at the Justice Department? Those aren’t the racial profiles you’re looking for.
It hardly requires repeating here, though out of simple inertia I’ll do so anyway. There isn’t a trace of animating principle among these people. It is simply result-oriented expedients all the way down. That is why no words on a constitution will ever come to your defense. And the greatest fools are those who think otherwise.