Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘affirmative action’

Liberals Can’t Wish Away Nature

Tuesday, September 19th, 2017

Affirmative Action is worse than officially sanctioned state-sponsored “racism.” It is also, corrupt, inefficient and stupid enough to fail the very people it was intended to save. It does as much for a single mother in a project somewhere as King Canute accomplished by commanding the tides.

And that actually seems to be the point if we assume the people in charge of this were cynical. Yet another indicator of how far LBJ‘s vision of greatness falls short involves how little Affirmative Action has done to effectively improve the educational outcomes of targeted minorities.

Even after decades of affirmative action, black and Hispanic students are more underrepresented at the nation’s top colleges and universities than they were 35 years ago, according to a New York Times analysis. The share of black freshmen at elite schools is virtually unchanged since 1980. Black students are just 6 percent of freshmen but 15 percent of college-age Americans, as the chart below shows.

This, according to The Left was not supposed to happen. Government could step in and make the family and the smaller community irrelevant. But lots of things happen that are not supposed to happen. One thing that I personally don’t think is supposed to happen is widely accepted illegitimate human breeding. But, nope, they don’t listen to cranky old JPW and put a sock on the cock unless the deliberately intend to breed. David French briefly uncucks and notes an interesting correlation between what The Carlos Slim Blog doesn’t want to see happen and what JPW would rather not have occur.

The cohort that’s most overrepresented in American colleges and universities, Asian Americans, also happens to have the lowest percentage of nonmarital births in the United States. In fact, the greater the percentage of nonmarital births, the worse the educational outcomes. Only 16.4 percent of Asian and Pacific Islander children are born into nonmarried households. For white, Hispanic, and black Americans the percentages are 29.2, 53, and 70.6, respectively.

This was also something that Managerial State Liberals never wanted to see happen. They were smart guys like Jonathan Gruber who could bullshit reality and change its course because, MIT or somesuch credential. This is hubris. This is the fatally-flawed foundation upon which all Leftism is ultimately built. If poli-sci is downstream from theology, then LBJ’s Great Society is the policy consequence of a leadership steeped in a contemporaneous version of The Gnostic Heresy. Who needs a family when Gov-a-God can command that all women lead the Life of Julia.

Follow the BezosBlog link to the original Life of Julia advertisement on BarackObama.com and you’ll fly the 404-Flag. They’ve called the Fire Department on this one and Montague has dutifully arrived. This is fitting. The Life of Julia ranks up there in believability with “If you like your doctor, you can keep him.” The Life of Julia is better represented by this. The real “Life of Julia” doesn’t lend itself to raising kids who are typical Harvard Material.

The problem is, like so much of our political rhetoric, Julia is not a composite; she’s a myth. Some of the nation’s single moms may be successful Web designers, but many are poor — fully half have incomes of less than $30,000 a year, compared with just 15 percent of married women. It’s not Pell grants and SBA loans these women rely on but Medicaid and food stamps. And it’s not comfortable retirements in community gardens they contemplate but bleak old age. Whereas government benefits were once the state’s compassionate response to women who had lost their husbands, in Julia’s world they are the unquestionable entitlement of women who never married.

The hubris of Amerikan central planners has destroyed the lives and betrayed the hopes and dreams of countless women of every background and color. It has taught them to diminish the family, which has predictably, destroyed and diminished any lasting legacy they hoped would endure beyond their final passage from the terrestrial vale of tears. You cannot undo the stupid with another layer of stupid. Julia’s kids are not getting the benefits of Affirmative Action. The ones raking in money are 3.2% Cherokee and 100% Butthole.

In the end, Affirmative Action is nothing except a fraud and a lie. The only people who still sincerely believe in it’s good intentions are rolling to disbelieve anytime reality bites them in the posterior. Grifters and Card-Sharps use it to steal money, status and honor based on drummed-up racial guilt trips. It can never work because no administrative state in world history has ever been able to change human nature. From Nebuchadnezzer on forward, every attempt at anything resembling an affirmative action program has failed. And here I figured the smart guys at Harvard would piece the truth together and move past…

Trump, DACA And The Dubious Concept of “Limited Government”

Thursday, September 14th, 2017

So: Trump punted on DACA. The border wall now involves strengthening existing walls, instead of building a bad-ass Escape From New York style barrier. And the dreamers can stay. It sure sounds like “we” lost to me. Or does it?

American politics is based on the simple idea that government is harmful when it acts in its own interests, so it must be crippled by an extensive system of hoops, chutes and ladders that makes it almost impossible for government to get anything done. This system has a weakness, of course, which is that once government makes a mistake, it is doubly impossible to remove it. First, the system hampers any action; second, voters are usually oblivious to any changes which remove things, as they would prefer to think about good things coming their way, like winning a lottery or the chance that their favorite team might win the superbowl.

To date, Trump has outplayed every adversary he has come up against. When he began his campaign, it was all but written in stone that Hillary Clinton would become Barack Obama II, or rather William Jefferson Clinton III, and then use her power to bring in more immigrants from around the world to vote Leftist. Like others of her type, she does not care about consequences, like the destruction of the nation, so long as she gets her way. If you are thinking of Captain Ahab commanding the ruins of his boat to chase down the white whale, here, you are correct. The white whale is the Western European majority and Leftists will not be happy until they have subjugated it forever, and they do not care if this destroys themselves in the process (imagine someone saying “Allahu Ackbar!” with a Beltway accent). Of course, even that will not make them happy because Leftists are fundamentally unhappy people, but for them to confront that is to self-destruct.

The departure of Steve Bannon was a major event in the Trump administration because it represented a shift in strategy. Instead of trying to remain united, the group that brought us the Trump presidency has begun fighting on different levels. Trump dispatched Bannon to apply pressure on Trump from the media, since it has become clear that Breitbart will replace Fox News as the major source of information for conservatives, followed by the Daily Caller and aggregators like the Drudge Report and Real Clear Politics. When Bannon left, it signaled that the initial phase of establishing an administration and setting up strategy is over, and the Trump has a game plan for both of his terms.

For the first half of his first term, his goal has changed. He cannot directly achieve any more than he is currently doing with executive orders, through which he is restricting the extremes of Obama-era policy, and through appointments, through which he is dismantling the lower-level infrastructure of fanatical Leftists that infests the American government. Instead, he needs to clear aside some obstacles, and he is doing this in a classic formula from his days as a builder: offer a solid plan, let the opposition destroy it, and then force them to come up with their own instead of adjusting his own plan to meet their needs, as any other candidate would do. He will give lip service to compromise, but really, he is going to keep trotting out plans that he does not believe in simply because they are centrist compromises that will unite the Democrats and domesticated Republicans in opposing them. At that point, he sits back and forces the decision onto them, which fractures their fragile coalition and makes Congress the “owners” of existing bad policy and the type of hacked-up committee thinking replacements that career bureaucrats — sorry, “politicians” — like to cook up.

While he is doing that, Trump continues to play a game of misdirection and false signals. He has made statements about DACA, but not anything that immigrants can rely on. He did not offer amnesty, nor did he adopt a compromise policy, but instead deferred action. At the same time he is doing this, agents of his administration are increasing pressure on those who hire illegal immigrants, which is causing a steady outflow along the borders but, more importantly, beginning to slow the inflow. This is the “pincer strategy”: raises costs for doing what is not wanted, while making what is wanted seem more appealing. By increasing the crackdown while refusing to adopt amnesty, Trump is raising the cost to be an illegal immigrant in the US; by stabilizing regions around the world, he is also making the prospect of staying home become sweeter. This will slow the influx and have ripple effects as the trend of immigrating to the US dies out, at which point many people here will reconsider what they are doing. No one wants to be on the wrong side of a trend.

If he is as experienced and critical of a thinker as many suspect, his real target is an idea: the notion that the majority should be penalized in order to increase diversity. This is summarized by a range of laws and legal theories, including disparate impact and affirmative action, that form the heart of the Civil Rights and Social Justice movements. He will probably target these through the interpretations of laws such as our Civil Rights code, changing perceptions so that simply cracking down on non-majority people, or refusing to hire or sell to them, is no longer seen as a violation of their rights. When this theory — the basis of affirmative action and all quota programs — falls, the pincer strategy will have more power. When a non-majority person can walk into any job knowing that they will be hired over a majority person simply because the business fears a lawsuit, they can dominate; when parity is achieved, the march of the Leftist-minority coalition into American institutions will stall and then violently reverse itself. This is the real target in the short term.

Trump will spend the first half of the first term making Congress weak. The 2018 elections are coming up, and all of these actions which he has deferred will then be questions before Congress, which means that people will be forced to see how their local representatives choose. At the same time, a number of people riding Trump’s coattails will be running for office. In a pure win situation, Trump ends up with a quarter of Congress being people who are elected for the sole purpose of being like Trump, which means they are going to vote with him. Even if only a few Congresscritters get voted out, the fear will spread. At that point, Republicans will find themselves judged on whether or not they uphold conservative policy, and Democrats will be seen as obstructionists, because Trump has not advanced any radical bills as the media predicted he would. Instead, he is systematically dismantling illusion, which is not a shift to the Right so much as a reversal of the shift to the Left which has pushed us very far from center over the past thirty years.

His “now you own it” strategy is terrifying to face. The foes who reject anything he offers must then come up with something of their own, and it will either appear too far Left or too indecisive, at which point they lose face and with it, power with the electorate. His pincer strategy is driving back the Leftist-minority coalition and creating market forces that create replacements for minority labor, at a time when automation is just entering the market and replacing most of those jobs anyway. Someday, the robots will do all of our jobs, at which point people will make their living solely by trading and owning stock, and many will simply exit the first world anyway to go live in the more comfortable third world environments where subsistence farming, shopkeeping and artisan activity will keep them busy. In preparation for that, he is clearing away the unskilled labor and starting the momentum against The Diversity Project at the same time.

Is any of this emotionally satisfying? Not really, compared to the Great Wall Of Texas or other wonderful visual images. But Trump is trying to dismantle seventy years of fanatical Leftism that has systematically infected and dominated American government, while working within a system designed to impede and thwart such radical changes. In addition, he faces a deeply entrenched self-serving cartel of Leftists who apply nepotism rigorously to help each other across government, media and industry. The old Leftist slogan was “never trust anyone over thirty,” but our new slogan might be, “never trust anyone with an office job.” Counteracting that, Trump has his work cut out for him, but it is not time to lose heart yet.

Racial Quotas Increase Oligarchy

Saturday, September 2nd, 2017

The Left has been trumpeting its latest “study,” which purports to show that gender quotas increase competence by squeezing out low-competence men and replacing them with women:

Gender quotas increase the competence of organisations by leading to the displacement of mediocre men, a new study has found.

…The study found that the average competence of male politicians increased most in the places where the quota had a larger impact. The findings can also be applied to workplaces, the researchers said.

On average, a 10 percentage point increase in female representation raised the proportion of competent men by 3 percentage points. The researchers observed little discernible effect on the competence of women.

Naturally, this is the oldest form of “fake news,” namely that the study itself makes some critical logical errors. Briefly, these are:

  1. It studies a political party. “The LSE team studied a strict gender quota introduced by Sweden’s Social Democratic party for its candidates in 1993.” — not only is this a tiny sample size, but it uses a field which is not known for rewarding actual competence, but popularity.
  2. There was no effect on the competence of women. In other words, we are not displacing the incompetent with the competent, but people who are the same level of competence, because the quality of female candidates did not rise.
  3. They measure competence by income alone. Check this out:

    Competence was measured by comparing the private incomes across people with the same education, occupation, age, and residence in the same geographical region. Those with higher incomes were deemed more competent.

    Those with higher incomes — adjusted for education and other factors — were seen as more competent, despite there being no measurement of their actual abilities or the effects of their policies.

What we are more likely seeing with this study is that when you squeeze out men in order to hire women and minorities, the only men who remain are those who are strongly self-serving, which probably indicates a willingness to go along with the quota policy as a means of preemptively covering their tracks, then engaging in behaviors that enrich them. In other words, we get more of an oligarchy by applying the policies designed to create equality.

And hilariously of all, they chose politicians to demonstrate this.

Affirmative Action Is Ready To Fall

Sunday, August 6th, 2017

As predicted by Samuel Huntington, with the fall of the Soviet Union all restraints on Leftism also fell, and it assumed its final form: a controlling, manipulative, lower-caste revolt designed to remove all sense, sanity, goodness, decency and normalcy from the West. As a result of that, a cultural wave has arisen which rejects not just Leftism but ideology in general.

People are turning back to the time-honored and functional traditions. These have two aspects: first, they work, and second, they point toward something that is morally good, or virtuous. Traditions aim toward a union of man, God and nature on the same parallels of understanding, with the idea of suppressing natural human hubris and raising our consciousness of the world beyond us.

Although it was not clear at the time, the election of Barack Obama was the “Berlin 1945 moment” for liberal democracy, Leftism and ideology, all of which converge on the same end result. As was apparent to anyone with an IQ over 120 and a sense of history, Barack Obama trashed the USA at the same time Left-leaning politicians in Europe like “ex”-Communist Angela Merkel trashed Europe.

Not surprisingly it was those higher echelon voters who drove Trump into the presidency, not so much from financial concerns, but because they realized that their society was being destroyed. They realized that people make bad decisions in groups, and so liberal democracy always moves Leftward, and that any Leftism is a toxic path to a Soviet-style ultra-modernist society.

Last week, Donald Trump broadened the Overton Window by attacking the sacred cow of the Left and their means of replacing us, affirmative action. This has prompted much response, blunted by the supposed replacement of Jeff Sessions, who initiated the attack on affirmative action in academia.

Over the weekend, a viral memo from Google began circulating which criticized affirmative action:

Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber

Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.

This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.

Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression

Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression

Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

Background [1]

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.

Google’s biases

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.

Left Biases

  • Compassion for the weak
  • Disparities are due to injustices
  • Humans are inherently cooperative
  • Change is good (unstable)
  • Open
  • Idealist

Right Biases

  • Respect for the strong/authority
  • Disparities are natural and just
  • Humans are inherently competitive
  • Change is dangerous (stable)
  • Closed
  • Pragmatic

Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3]

At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:

  • They’re universal across human cultures
  • They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
  • Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
  • The underlying traits are highly heritable
  • They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective

Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

Personality differences

Women, on average, have more:

  • Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
  • These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
  • Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
  • This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
  • Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.” Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.

Men’s higher drive for status

We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.

Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap

Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:

  • Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
  • We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).
  • Women on average are more cooperative
  • Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do. This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
  • Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average
  • Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.
  • The male gender role is currently inflexible
  • Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.

Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

The Harm of Google’s biases

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:

  • Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
  • A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
  • Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
  • Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
  • Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]

These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.

Why we’re blind

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner[10]. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.

The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.

Suggestions

I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

My concrete suggestions are to:

De-moralize diversity.

As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”

Stop alienating conservatives.

Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.

In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.

Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.

Confront Google’s biases.

I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.

I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.

Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.

These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.

Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.

Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.

There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.

These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.

I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.

Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.

We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.

We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity

Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.

De-emphasize empathy.

I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

Prioritize intention.

Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.

Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.

Be open about the science of human nature.

Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.

Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.

We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.

Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.

Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

[1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.

[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

[3] Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.

[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.

[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.

[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.

[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”

[8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.

[9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.

[10] “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”

[11] Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.

There is quite a bit to like in this mini-manifesto, which tackles the essential problem with diversity and political correctness: they originate from the Leftist ideology of equality, and aim to achieve it by “inverting” society or making it so that the lower echelons are ranked highest, which makes everyone else a beggar for the approval of these castes.

In its place, the manifesto proposes a different form of equality commonly known as meritocracy, or the idea of making people jump through hoops to gain approval, instead of merely doing it by mob rule. While this is a good start, any institution will inevitably be corrupted and shift the goal posts to reward those who are rote memorization fans or otherwise obedience and successful within a narrow scope, but not necessarily effective at life.

Google learned that meritocracy by academia and “brainteasers” did not work in the past [2013]:

Google has admitted that the headscratching questions it once used to quiz job applicants (How many piano tuners are there in the entire world? Why are manhole covers round?) were utterly useless as a predictor of who will be a good employee.

“We found that brainteasers are a complete waste of time,” Laszlo Bock, senior vice president of people operations at Google, told the New York Times. “They don’t predict anything. They serve primarily to make the interviewer feel smart.”

In addition, the article is confused about the nature of conservatism, which is that which emphasizes those things which are both time-proven and oriented toward virtue. It is a classic American confusion to see conservatism as that which resists change and wants to revisit the past; conservatism recognizes the continuity of the past, and the need for reality-based (not test-based, academic, or money-based) standards which affirm both competence and moral character.

The core of it however is a rejection of ideology, which consists of philosophies based on how reality “should” be versus how it is, in particular the patterns of nature. That core can be seen here:

De-moralize diversity.

As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”

In other words, this is a shift to the Right: the writer wants a reality-based standard that emphasizes best results, or qualitative improvement of the way the world works, instead of trying to make the world work a different way.

Quite a bit of thought went into this memo, and it may be that Google itself leaked it. The company has faced increased criticism for the failure of its diversity programs and other accusations of discrimination, and since it cannot seem to hire women and minorities fast enough, and make them succeed enough, to defend against these, it is clear that in the future it will get beaten around the head with more legal and possibly regulatory action. Having a revolt in the ranks allows Google to gracefully back down from these commitments. If someone from the Trump administration reached out to them before this memo and proposed it as a solution, that would not exactly be surprising either.

In the meantime, affirmative action and similar programs (civil rights, anti-discrimination, disparate impact, unofficial quotas) are increasingly being revealed as exploitative:

British A-level students are being “discriminated” against by many of the UK’s top universities as they recruit more lucrative overseas applicants instead, often with poorer qualifications, a Sunday Times investigation discloses.

The former education minister Lord Adonis said the findings were “seriously alarming”, attacking elite universities for “crowding out British students” and “betraying their mission” to widen access. Some pupils with top A-level grades were being turned away.

Half the top-flight Russell Group, including Oxford and Cambridge, and 23 of The Sunday Times’s top 50 universities have cut British undergraduate numbers, often substantially, since 2008. Across all universities British undergraduate numbers have also fallen since 2008, even though UK applications for university rose by 17% in that time. Numbers of non-EU students, who pay as much as four times the fees charged to British and EU ones, have increased by 39%.

This comes on the heels of news that American industries may also have overplayed diversity to the point of nearly excluding the founding group of the nation in preference for the new foreign Leftist voters, as exemplified by the ideological success story that is Harvard’s diversity program:

Of the freshmen students admitted to Harvard this year, 50.8 percent are from minority groups, including African-Americans, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, Native Americans, and Native Hawaiians. That’s up from 47.3 percent last year, according to the university.

…Last year, the US Supreme Court, in a 4-to-3 vote, decided that college admissions officers could continue to use race as one of several factors in deciding who gets into a school. The decision surprised university officials and disappointed those who had hoped to end race-based admissions.

But the ruling does require universities, if they are challenged, to show that they had no choice but to use race to create diversity on campus and that other factors alone, such as family income or an advantage to first-generation college students, couldn’t create a similar mix of students, said Vinay Harpalani, a law professor at the Savannah Law School, who specializes in affirmative action.

As the cultural wave turns against ideology, the viral knowledge spreads that diversity, affirmative action, civil rights, and anti-discrimination laws are part of a systematic campaign to transform America into a majority-minority society and replace its founding Western European group. This empowers government and ideologues, but has also wrecked America.

In the future, people will speak out about how diversity also causes people, because the majority of them marry and reproduce based on who is nearby, to outbreed and thus is a type of “soft genocide” which hopes to replace an ethnic population with a mixed-race, cultureless group dependent on ideology.

This cultural wave is now appearing in many places at once, readying the fall of not just affirmative action, but all policies based on “creating equality,” since those invariably end up taking from the thriving to give to the flailing, and in doing so invert society, creating a bias in favor of incompetence and political obedience as if in emulation of the Soviet state.

Trump Building That Wall By Removing Affirmative Action

Wednesday, August 2nd, 2017

The attitude most Caucasians take toward diversity these days is something like this: “The idea was that they could come here and live the good life, so long as there were not problems. That obviously has not been the case, so we need to think about rolling this back so that it gently fades away, instead of doubling down on it.”

If there is one reason for the failure of the Left, it is that they have made themselves the Civil Rights™ party and their primary goal is to disenfranchise the natural populations of America and Europe by replacing them with third world permaLeftist voters. People wanted that when it seemed like it would end the race guilt and riots, but under Obama, things got worse. So obviously “more” of the same will not help.

There are a number of ways of rolling back diversity, but most people are conservative at a procedural level if nothing else, so prefer for this to be as low-impact as possible. It will almost certainly be a variation on the Pincer Strategy: raise lowers, lower benefits. This encourages and end to newcomers, and suggests to those who are not happy living in Chinatowns that they should go home.

It does this without abusing them or even acting against them; all we need to do is remove the laws, created by Leftists, that give preference and incentives to diversity. There are several roots to this tree — HUD, anti-discrimination law, civil rights law — but the prototype of these policies is the type of quota preference that became affirmative action.

Luckily, the Trump administration is taking aim at affirmative action in academia:

In particular, Kennedy’s affirmative-action opinion embraced the theory that admissions officers at public universities may use diversity as their rationale to give several advantages to applicants of color. The idea goes all the way back to a solo concurring opinion by Justice Lewis Powell in a 1978 case called Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, which embraced Harvard University’s description of its admission practices at the time.

…But diversity does permit admissions officers to make “holistic” judgments about applicants and curate a class that includes people from many different backgrounds. In practice, at the institutions that use the technique — which is almost all major universities, whether state or private — the racial balance ends up looking remarkably similar from year to year.

…According to an internal Justice Department document leaked to Charlie Savage of the New York Times, the department is looking for internal volunteers to work on an investigation and litigation of “intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions.” The investigation would be run out of the political part of the civil rights division, where Sessions’s policy team can keep an eye on it.

If affirmative action falls, it means that schools will no longer be able to use racial quotas in choosing who they admit. This will change the face of American universities by dropping the lowest performing minorities. More importantly, however, this will be a stone thrown in a pond with ripples spreading outward that will affect all other parts of American law and politics.

Without affirmative action as a basis in education, its status in the workplace may also be in doubt, in that a legal decision against it will have weight in other areas of law as well. This will in turn affect all of the civil rights law based on affirmative action and disparate intent, or “equality in outcomes” rather than “equality of opportunity,” and possibly reach deeply into all government programs that violate choice of association by forcing people to hire, rent to, sell to, work with, and live near other groups.

Were that to come to pass, a “soft balkanization” would occur, where minorities would withdraw to communities for them and policed by them, known as Chinatowns, and white people would have their own spaces, divided internally in the usual myriad of ways that white people separate themselves. This in turn will give momentum to ethnic self-interest among all groups, and weaken the idea of the proposition nation, or nation-state where political allegiance, not membership in the founding ethnic group, determines citizenship.

Some have pointed out the immediate problem of Trump’s action: American universities, if they make admissions choices purely by test scores and grades, will become mostly Asian. However, without the legal pressure to extend admission to minorities, universities may find themselves choosing to be white. Either way, this outcome is better than the current pro-minority regime.

Long ago an admissions officer admitted in candor that for California schools, the primary problem was Asians: “They all have great test scores and grades, but for them, this is just a step toward a profession. They kill campus life and study all the time. And they are more intent on personal benefit than idealism. You can’t build a nation on that.”

He was in favor of admitting well-rounded students of every type, but was leery of Asian study-buddies just like he was skeptical of their overly-nerdly white and Jewish counterparts. Nerds follow instructions, do very well in school, and then become back office fixtures in repetitive tasks. They are not the people who change history, and those are the ones that every school desires.

The point of repealing affirmative action is not to simply remove quotas, but to remove oversight entirely, returning education to the healthier state it was in years ago. Different schools will make different choices, but many will opt for where the arc of history is bending, which is toward innate group identity like tribalism. In America, that means not just white people but WASPs.

Trump is being savvy here. The fall of affirmative action in academia will not only open the door to removing anti-Caucasian laws elsewhere, but will also savage the special snowflakes we see in education today. Having large numbers of minorities created a need for easy degrees for people to get through, like African-American Studies and Gender Studies, and those in turn brought the real lunatics onboard as faculty.

Without the need for those programs, these schools will have upward pressure from a more white and less politicized entering student body, and so those faculty are going to find themselves going elsewhere. “Tenured” does not mean you cannot be downsized when your department attracts four students. The indirect purge of Leftists from academia has begun.

As for those of us on the Alt Right, it makes sense to keep the pressure high. Affirmative action must fall, and so should all other Civil Rights laws, which were written predicated on the assumption that the wealth of white America was an infinite blank check for government to use as it wishes. The “populism” on the Right is rejection of government and return to culture, heritage, and people instead.

Humor vs. Hopelessness: OJ Joke Edition

Thursday, July 27th, 2017

In the middle of the 1990s, when the lifestyle septic tank of popular culture had discovered there was such a thing as email and message boards, OJ Simpson crept back in the news for his blunt force method of wife disposal.

One message traveled around the world more times than the influenza virus. It had about a dozen OJ Simpson jokes that everyone just had to open and read immediately. Certainly the trial was a farce. Certainly OJ did it. Most of us would go to jail instantly and permanently if we had made matrimonial mulch the way the former football star did.

But OJ was special — politically special. Would a mob be primed to riot on our behalf if the verdict went the wrong way? Nope. It was obvious that a cheesy, has-been celebrity was getting away with murder on the basis of his wealth and race. But this was not what led the average, rational person to laugh at bad humor and forward it to their fifty bestest buddies at least fifty times.

The OJ Jokes were defeatist humor. People feel they are constrained and deliberately held back when they have to interact and compete with minorities. And what galls many people the most is that there are whole classes of people who can’t be criticized. So when OJ went for a ride in the Bronco, he went from a protected minority to a brutal man who hacked up women. Here was a minority who was now fair game.

So all the jokes about OJ became a steam valve. Those denied Freedom of Association by EEO rules or Affirmative Action policies now had a way to vent their rage. This worked around political correctness and ideological scene-policing. OJ jokes were euphemisms for what people really wanted to talk about: how diversity really sucks, and we cannot criticize it, so we are a beaten, frustrated population.

History may not repeat itself, but it can certainly rhyme. OJ Simpson was caught involved in a shady sports memorabilia deal in Vegas and got sent to the aforementioned can. Now, after several years of uneventful incarceration, The Juice is back. He’s 70 and on way too many no-fly lists to sprint through the airport, but he did ace the parole hearing.

Simpson appeared as inmate No. 1027820, dressed in blue jeans and a blue button-down shirt, in a stark hearing room. Displaying contrition, Simpson told the hearing: “I’ve done it as well and as respectfully as anybody can. I think if you talk to the wardens they’ll tell you. “I’ve not complained for nine years. All I’ve done is try to be helpful… and that’s the life I’ve tried to live because I want to get back to my kids and family.” Simpson’s daughter, Arnelle, 48, pleaded with the board to release him. “We just want him home”.

Now the (((Goldmans))) have won a huge civil judgement against him for the wrongful death of their son Jody,* oops, I mean Ronald, so at least we won’t see him spending his golden years strutting too much. Which is a blessed relief. It will spare us a 50-joke email featuring OJ Simpson’s misconceptions about Viagra and Rogaine.


* — Jody was the generic name given by soldiers to the guy attempting to nail their wives while they were away on deployment. You know, Joe the Guy… Joe D. Guy… Jody.

Affirmative Action Reveals Its High Costs in Somali Cop Shooting

Wednesday, July 19th, 2017

I remember being in history class at school and thinking, “I wonder what it was like to experience the Fall of Rome, or the last days of Nazi Germany.” My only conclusion was that it must have felt terrible, mediated only by the confusion as to what was going on.

We live in those days now. Our institutions are failing like organs in a diseased body. Our leadership, like someone with a mental health problem, pursues non-solutions pathologically while systematically denying even the existence of actual problems. Our people are withdrawn, suspicious and retributive, if not following their leadership into insanity.

And no one will talk about civilization decline. They will talk about just about anything else, but when you mention it, people get nervous and play the “kill the messenger” game.

Today’s example of ongoing crumbling decay is the shooting of Justine Ruszczyk by a decorated Somali police officer:

Noor, 31, has offered his ‘condolences’ but demanded everyone respect his privacy after opening fire on the 40-year-old yoga instructor. He has hired an attorney.

…Noor, who joined the Minneapolis Police in March 2015, has reportedly had three complaints made against him in two years – including a lawsuit.

…He also holds a degree in administration and economics.

Human beings are a collection of characteristics. Some are inborn, some are acquired. Many are internal, such as moral character and degree of perceptiveness. But they are multiple.

Affirmative action, and the related need to virtue signal by displaying minority “pets” in any department, rewards only one trait: membership in a minority group. Because that is what it selects for, all other traits are ignored.

In their rush to get shining black faces on the streets, Minneapolis officials promoted a man with clear problems, just as his professors gave him the affirmative action grade inflation that allows them to defend their careers — and the feeding of their families — against the accusations of racism which seem to hit every white professor but few non-whites.

Now we see the results of this disaster. It will be resolved semi-amicably. The city will be sued, and will pay out Monopoly money for having by negligence destroyed a life, then get more free money from higher taxes to pay their insurance, which will have gone up in price. The officer will be retired with full pension. Five or ten million dollars, everyone is happy, especially the lawyers and politicians.

At the same time the real damage here, in addition to the loss of the life of this young woman, is the lack of faith people can have in their community. Would you bother to call the police after this to report a rape, as Justine Ruszczyk did? Heck, no. The affirmative action cops might shoot you and, while your family will get millions, you will still be dead. So let that rape happen in the alley behind your house.

Watch this spread like cancer through the population. People will avoid interaction with the police. The police will be reduced to policing ghettos and issuing speeding tickets, making them entirely parasitic. Everyone else is going to hire private security to prevent crimes before they happen, since they now have zero reason to have faith in this police department.

As always, the greatest damage is to civilization, which always occurs when people are allowed to be individualistic — “me first,” like the “Me Generation” — instead of thinking with a tribal or transcendental mentality. Affirmative action is just one facet of this colossus of failure.

Pushback Against “Disparate Impact” Style Thinking Begins On College Campuses

Friday, June 9th, 2017

Our government enforces Civil Rights law through the “disparate impact” doctrine: if in a large group, one smaller group is doing poorly while the rest are doing well, it is assumed that the larger group caused the lack of success of the smaller.

This occurs because we are reasoning backward. We start with the precept that all people are equal, which means that they should all have the same result. Therefore, “something else” must have caused the disparate impact.

That idea extends from egalitarianism itself. If the impoverished masses are poor, it must be the fault of those in charge, even if the masses bred themselves into starvation. Therefore, blame the leaders and remove them, putting the masses in their place.

While this logic is fundamentally backward, it appeals to the human psyche because we use a similar logic. We assume that we are right, and when our actions do not work out as we had planned, we blame the world. It is the order of reality that is broken, we think, instead of us. We are equal to the world, at least in how we perceive things in our big brains.

Disparate impact forms the basis of affirmative action, civil rights and anti-discrimination law but also human social thinking. If someone is failing, and they are part of our social group, we reverse our thinking and make the assumption that something bad was done to them.

On college campuses, it forms an integral part of the logic. According to our dubious statistics, women are much more likely to get raped than the presumed but not actual majority of men, and therefore if a rape accusation is lodged, it is likely true.

Unfortunately for most of these accusations, they are impossible to litigate. Two drunk people in a dark room does not provide any firm ground for potentially destroying a life, so the legal professionals fled these cases and transferred them instead to colleges through Title IX pseudo-courts on campus.

Part of the reason for this was the change in US rape law. Originally, rape was viewed as a violent crime which would leave defensive wounds on the body of the violated. When that was changed, rape became a question of consent and the he-said she-said cases proliferated.

Since the transfer to on-campus courts, which have none of the protections of legal courts, the balance has shifted against the accused to the point of absurd injustice. And now, the pendulum swings back:

In the past two years alone, according to the publication Inside Higher Ed, colleges have lost at least a dozen lawsuits filed by men accused of sexual misconduct who say they were treated unfairly by their schools.

“In over 20 years of reviewing higher education law cases, I’ve never seen such a string of legal setbacks for universities,” Gary Pavela, an expert on student conduct issues, told the publication. “Something is going seriously wrong.”

In the broader cultural sense, this means that relying on someone having membership in a victim group can no longer serve as a presumption of innocence. This will have ripples that will affect all levels of civil rights, affirmative action and anti-discrimination law.

Egalitarianism can only be implemented in one way: taking from the successful and giving to the unsuccessful. Every method suggested for it ultimately amounts to a transfer of wealth to a subsidy, including Title IX courts which transfer power to accusers.

As this presumption falls apart, the idea of a necessary attachment between more successful groups and the rest will fragment as well. When the less successful groups do not have a blind legal shield, the wealth transfer will stop.

Workplace Diversity (Including Women)

Thursday, June 8th, 2017

Operation Mockingbird tackles the ugly question of Affirmative Action in the workplace, specifically looking at the mixing of men and women in the workplace at dot-com 3.0 company Uber.

Host Joe Arrigo raises some good points, including that: having men and women in the workplace leads to inevitable infidelities, forced de facto quota hiring based on civil rights law leads to resentment, and that in male-dominated workplaces, an inevitable quid pro quo will emerge which leads to abuse.

Here is the episode:

To what he has already raised, it makes sense to add a few other observations. By hiring women, we double the workforce and effectively halve salaries; this can be somewhat hidden by adding new job titles and then passing on the cost as higher prices to the consumer. We have then compounded that error with immigration, which ensures that workers are seeing the value of their labor decrease.

In addition, we should think hard about the different natures of men and women. Even outside of considerations of the intelligence differential between the sexes, men and women think differently, and these modes of thought lead to some roles fitting each sex — for the most part; exceptions exist and prove the rule — but forcing a mixed workplace ensures people in the wrong roles.

Americans seemed fascinated by the 1960s world of Mad Men where the office was still very much segregated by sex roles, and how this not only seemed to work better, but be more fun and allow women and men to appreciate being what they are. The power of women comes from femininity, not emulating masculinity, and forcing men into feminine roles ensures resentment and absurd behavior.

“Broken Windows” And Affirmative Action

Saturday, June 3rd, 2017

The Left is based in a single idea, egalitarianism, or defense of the individual against social standards. Equality is compulsory social inclusion, which means that people are not held accountable to values and principles according to which they are ranked in social status; instead, everyone is included, and they are ranked by wealth, power, novelty, and social popularity.

Not an improvement.

As part of its jihad crusade for equality, the Left hates any form of strong authority that can impose standards on people. Individualists hate being forced to conform, even when it is for obvious reasons, because they hope to express their individuality through external methods instead of developing internal ones, because developing internal ones requires yoking the personality to reality. You do not grow, develop, refine, mature, and become wiser by sealing the inner self away from the world, but it is what individualists desire, and the Left is the party of individualism.

For years the Left has been chafing at the success of broken windows policing in New York, and now they are trotting out what they view as a smoking gun against the “broken windows” theory:

“Crime was starting to go down in New York prior to the Giuliani election and prior to the implementation of broken windows policing,” says Harcourt, the Columbia law professor. “And of course what we witnessed from that period, basically from about 1991, was that the crime in the country starts going down, and it’s a remarkable drop in violent crime in this country. Now, what’s so remarkable about it is how widespread it was.”

Harcourt points out that crime dropped not only in New York, but in many other cities where nothing like broken windows policing was in place. In fact, crime even fell in parts of the country where police departments were mired in corruption scandals and largely viewed as dysfunctional, such as Los Angeles.

He seems to have forgotten about the violent riots the following year. But even more, he has made the fundamental error of assuming that a lessening in crime across the nation would lessen it as much as broken windows policing did, and forgets to mention that in some areas, crime did not immediately go down. We should also consider that crime as a whole has increased in New York:

National Public Radio’s Justice Correspondent Carrie Johnson simply wrote, “Homicides in New York remain low relative to the 1980s and 1990s, according to FBI data and the Brennan Center for Justice.”

In truth, this is actually a mixed bag. If you look at the 2015 numbers, homicides, rape and robbery did spike (via WSJ):

…while crime in the city continued its historic downward trend, led largely by a drop in burglaries and stolen vehicles, three of the most serious crimes rose in 2015: homicides were up 5.1%, rapes 6.3% and robberies 2.1%. Also, crime increased in two of the city’s five boroughs: Manhattan and the Bronx.

Politico had a post about the 2015 and 2016 homicide numbers so far, showing just 252 murders through September 25, a 5.3 percent decline from the same time last year. Yet, in August, it appeared to be a 23 jump in violent crime within the city’s parks over a nine-month period (via NBC NY):

The comparison, which covered more than 1,100 city parks, showed cases of rape increased 40 percent, felony assaults jumped 34 percent and robberies spiked 15 percent. Murders were up 200 percent, from two to six. In total, 417 people reported being the victims of violent crimes compared to 340 in the prior nine months.

“It’s pretty shocking,” says Geoffrey Croft, president of New York Parks Advocates. “A 23-percent rise in violent crime is very serious and the fact that more than one person a day is reporting being a victim of violent crime is very serious.”

In other words, when broken windows policing went away, crime began its upward climb, as it has done so nationwide. This coincides with a drop in “broken windows” policing under Obama, in addition to other policies.

So, maybe Trump should’ve cited the NYPD data, or maybe he should stay focused on his national narrative, which is that violent crime, including homicides, has risen, which was confirmed by the FBI last night (via WaPo):

Homicides in the United States went up by more than 10 percent in 2015 over the year before, while violent crime increased by nearly 4 percent in the same period, according to new statistics released Monday by the FBI.

All told, the country reported its highest estimated violent crime rate in three years, and while these numbers are far below those seen one or two decades earlier, they mark a sharp increase following two years of declines, the FBI’s summary of crime figures showed.

That’s a huge rise in violent crime. Since Barack Obama took office seven years before, it makes sense to view this as the start of the effects of his policies and the national shift from hard-on-crime rhetoric to a softer, more rehabilitation-oriented attitude.

In addition, this shows us another important detail. Let us borrow a concept from economists here: when one thing gets too difficult, people move on to alternatives that are less expensive and less risky instead. When policing goes up, criminals go elsewhere, or turn to other types of crimes.

However, under the “broken windows” policy, all types of crimes drop. Somehow the good professor does not mention that.

The nationwide drop in crime during the 1990s — except for those huge race riots — may spur us to draw other comparisons though. What events went on that could explain this drop? For starters, the United States doubled down on Affirmative Action with the Civil Rights Act of 1991, possibly designed as a way to enfranchise black voters and make them vote democratic. That worked, certainly.

Affirmative action however remains troublesome. According to one study, affirmative action raises costs substantially:

This paper uses California’s Proposition 209, which prohibited the consideration of race or gender in state-funded contracts, to investigate the effect of disadvantaged business enterprise subcontractor participation goals on the winning bids for highway construction contracts.

After Proposition 209, the prices on state funded contracts fell by 5.6 percent relative to federally funded projects, for which preferences still applied. While the subcontractor requirements are found to distort the contractor’s make-versus-buy decision, most of the decline in costs after Proposition 209 results from the productivity of subcontractors employed.

This seems to arise not from productivity differences between minority and non-minority firms in the same location, but from the higher costs of firms located in high-minority areas.

Higher costs of firms located in high minority areas? It stands to reason that if someone gets a contract for some factor other than competition on price/performance, they have a type of mini-monopoly and through that, no reason to lower their costs. When you have only one grocery store for a hundred miles, they can charge whatever they want for breakfast cereal.

We also should ask what we get for those higher costs, and it turns out that affirmative action did not achieve its stated goals:

And affirmative action “worked.” The most immediate and measurable impact was in government hiring. Blacks had always enjoyed relatively better employment prospects in the public sector, and affirmative action greatly enhanced that. By the early 1970s, 57 percent of black male college graduates and 72 percent of black female college graduates were employed in government positions. The private sector also went on a hiring binge. Impelled by the fear of more urban riots, the Fortune 500 launched a flotilla of affirmative action programs aimed at getting as many black hires in the door as quickly as possible. After decades of economic stagnation, between 1969 and 1972, total black income rose from $38.7 billion to $51.1 billion, a 32 percent jump in just three years.

…Today, the statistics on black and white inequality are so unchanging that they can be recited by rote: The black unemployment rate holds steady at double the white unemployment rate; the median net worth for black households is about 7 percent of white households; annual per capita income for blacks is 62 cents for every dollar of per capita income for whites.

In other words, it was a bribe, and it continued the government policy of hiring black people in order to pacify them and reduce the number of riots. If we use the standards that the Leftists in the NPR article use, we might as well claim that crime dropped because of the renewal of Affirmative Action after it was pared down during the Reagan 80s, resulting in greater function for American business and government.

The basic problem with Affirmative Action is that it creates a mini-monopoly in which workers are hired for their race, sex or orientation instead of abilities alone. This is a problem because the law does not distinguish between competent and incompetent members of protected groups, causing permanent hires of incompetents who can never be fired.

They can never be fired because if they sue, they may win, and they will win big. Affirmative Action creates a monopoly that in turn creates a mechanism for extortion. This creates a norming of incompetence, at which point organizations become unstable but cannot remove the privileged monopoly of the protected groups. That in turn acts out the usual Leftist pattern of wealth transfer, bleeding the taxpayers for money that goes to both government bureaucrats and a vast permanent underclass.

When viewed as a strategy, affirmative action is designed to displace whites by taking money away from them and making them wait at the back of the line for jobs, housing and transactions. This in turn has caused the prerequisite conditions for civil war because affirmative action is a cornerstone of ethnic replacement of the founding majority, which will give Leftists a new beige group who will tend more toward the Left than those tedious old white people did.

In the meantime, costs go up for every citizen. Not just for the taxes required for Affirmative Action programs, but the salaries in private industry since now every company must hire token protected groups on every level. Not just in the wave of incompetence, but in the high number of lawsuits that occur and the lawyers who are hired as a preventative measure. Not just in the mountain of paperwork and regulations, but in the distrust of fellow employees because they may well be Affirmative Action babies rather than real people. Like unions, Affirmative Action raises costs and paranoia across the board by forcing protection of a group that otherwise is not working out.

Let us then consider the obvious and terrifying: if crime went down after Affirmative Action, that means that those formerly engaged in illegal activity found another and easier source of income. All of those diversity administrators, sensitivity consultants, tolerance trainers, and columnists writing about diversity cost something, but even more, every company is now hiring such people in addition to its other token hires, and passing the cost on to you. Many of them work in government as well. Affirmative Action effectively shifts millions of criminals into positions of authority, especially in government.

The rise in corruption and incompetence in the American government is no longer surprising. This is not to say that there are not qualified candidates from protected groups, only that Affirmative Action does not make such fine distinctions, and so the bad get hired along with the good. And since bad outnumbers good throughout all of humanity, that means that we are enriching people by giving them Affirmative Action jobs. Look at the figures on diversity lawsuits:

*Civil rights cases in U.S. district courts declined from a high of 17% of all federal civil cases in 1998 to 13% in 2006.

*From 1990 through 2006, about 9 out of 10 civil rights filings involved disputes between private parties. Jury trials became more common than bench trials during the 17-year period covered in this report (figure 1).

*The percent of plaintiffs who won at trial between 1990 and 2006 remained steady at about a third.

*From 2000 through 2006, the median damage award for plaintiffs who won in civil rights trials ranged from $114,000 to $154,500.

*The combined 2000 through 2006 median jury award was $146,125; the median bench award was $71,500.

A median indicates that half of the awards were above that number. It is not an average. This means that half of the awards for diversity related lawsuits were above $154k, and they may have always received a jury award, of which half were above $146k. Keep in mind that a finding of deliberate and knowing infringement will result in that award being tripled in many jurisdictions.

Affirmative Action is in short a complete disaster, introduced by Republicans to minimize racial tensions, but then used by Democrats as a weapon against the white majority in concert with the plan to import many third world people, all of whom qualify for Affirmative Action and thus displace whites from homes, jobs and businesses.

Government gives preference to contractors owned by members of protected groups; the FCC offers easier licensing for protected group owned radio stations. Local governments undergo a bidding process which favors contractors owned by protected groups. All of this adds up over time.

But the main problem with Affirmative Action is that it is itself a broken window. Signaling that we accept defective and unrealistic policies tells all of the scam artists out there that they have found a willing sucker, and that the West is in the process of waging war on its founding groups. This means the West is weak and ready for takeover. It is no surprise that the subtler kinds of criminal behavior have risen thanks to this advertisement of dysfunction and acceptance of parasitism.

Recommended Reading