Costs of Multiculturalism

Christopher Donovan: Ricci Decision Hurts Whom, Again?

Christopher Donovan: It’s amazing the tidbits you find while crumpling up old newspaper for kindling for a Christmas fire. “Employers Hurt By Bias Decision” was the odd headline I spied in a July edition of LawyersUSA, a trade rag for the legal profession, while trying to get the logs to ignite.

My first thought was: Imagine a Supreme Court decision on a “civil rights” case benefitting blacks being described by the media as anything but divine wisdom revealed. “Decision long overdue”, “Blacks commend decision” or “Decision hailed, but more work needed” is more like it.

But as I read the story, the point was fair enough — in the wake of the Ricci decision, employers are put into yet another “sued if you do, sued if you don’t” situation. If an employment test keeps out too many non-Whites, tossing it out could get you into “Ricci” trouble. But keeping it in could get you into “disparate impact” trouble.

Of course, this is just the sort of impossible situation you’ll find yourself in when you try to reconcile the irreconcileable: a Black and Hispanic population that is inherently less intelligent than the white population, and a policy that requires equal outcomes for members of all racial groups.

Better headline: Whites Hurt By Multiracial Society. Watch for it soon.

Christopher Donovan: More Costs of Diversity

Christopher Donovan: I once had an e-mail exchange with a prominent pro-white thinker on the (actual dollar figure) costs of racial diversity. I was nudging his publication to hire an economist to tally it up. From welfare to crime to affirmative action, the cost to American whites must be staggering, I wrote. I was thinking in particular of the amount lost by American business owing to black and Hispanic incompetence, criminality and lack of motivation. He responded that the project would simply be too large — it would take 1000 economists, not one. The idea drifted away.

But we can continue to take note of the very strong anecdotal evidence. The latest bit comes from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has decided to go after businesses that “unfairly” make use of criminal records and credit checks when hiring. Naturally, blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately affected.

Of course, I would make the argument that racial discrimination laws should be thrown out entirely — employers, landlords or anyone else should be able to choose their employees or tenants as they please, and if they don’t want black employees, so be it.

Equally of course, the EEOC under Obama (or Bush, or anyone else) would not go for such an argument. By applying the “disparate impact” test to criminal background tests, it would indeed boost black and Hispanic employment. It will also dramatically increase the cost of doing business by allowing pilferers and incompetents onto the payroll.

If the EEOC prevails in this, whites will once again pay the costs of forced racial association, multiracialism and unwanted “diversity.”

Bookmark and Share

Charles Dodgson: Swiss vote against new minarets

Charles Dodgson: 57.5% of Swiss voters have approved banning the construction of further minarets in a referendum held on November 29. The will of the Swiss people has been condemned by spokesmen for Islamic groups, the United Nations, and the European Union. In addition large Swiss multinational corporations have expressed concern that the vote could endanger markets for their products. However, patriotic parties in Italy, the Netherlands, and Denmark are calling for similar measures to be passed by national parliaments.

Bookmark and Share

Britain’s Elites Consider the BBC "Hideously White"

The Sunday Telegraph reports that the BBC is trying to broaden the appeal of the highbrow Radio 4 network to attract more “ethnic” listeners (“Radio 4 to get in tune with ethnic listeners”, 29 Nov. 2009, p. 13; and see the Daily Mail report.)

Critics claim that only 2% of listeners are Asian or black. The BBC has commissioned research to discover the diversity of Radio 4 listerners. Research included focus groups with Muslims and Hindus in which they were asked for advice on programming. The review followed criticism in 2001 from Greg Dyke, the former director general of the BBC, that the corporation was “hideously white”. Despite there being many minority presenters on Radio 4 the present controller of the network, Mark Damazer, apparently agrees that the BBC is “too white” because he met with minority activists to seek guidance on how to meet their wishes. One such meeting was held with Ashok Viswanathan, a founder of Operation Black Vote, who remarked: “Radio 4 is still too white and has a tweetness to it, but their response to the criticism has been positive and what we’re hearing is encouraging.” One result of the new approach will be a programme starting in January to be hosted by Nenjamin Zephaniah, a poet belonging to the black consciousness Rastafarian movement. Some listeners have expressed concern that the changes will cause some existing shows to be axed.

Comment: The news signals a step-up in multiculturalism by the BBC and a retreat from assimilationism, in which immigrants are expected to adopt the folkways of the indigenous society. Yet multicutluralism was officially dumped by the Labour government following the 2006 terror bombings in the London transport system. Notice that Anglo ethnic sensibilities are given practically no voice, while open minority self-interest is taken seriously. English and British ethnicity is not even named, as if only minorities have ethnicity. The changes are intended to provide Radio 4 with a “distinctly ethnic angle”, as if its content has not always consisted of English and British culture. According to this view the only identity the English have is their whiteness and that is illegitimate. The irony! It seems that when the purpose suits the liberal establishment and minority activists are happy to adopt the racial categories employed by the neo-Nazi right. The denial of Europeans’ ethnic identity is one of the most poisonous lies spread by our liberal elites. The language of this report, relayed without revision by the conservative Telegraph, reflects a root cause of Britain’s surrender to Third World immigration. It illustrates the wisdom of the BNP’s defence of “indigenous” British peoples.

Bookmark and Share