Whining for Juan Crow

Roberto Lovato’s new Ode to Juan Crow is a must-read simply because it’s Americans’ responsibility to know what the people who are actively seeking to undermine our country are doing.  Unfortunately equating the racial discrimination faced by Black Americans under Jim Crow to current anti-illegal immigration laws fails on one simple point:  the illegals are, well, here illegally.

What say you?

Fight Harassment Claims

Rob Lowe is fighting back against what he calls an attempt to damage and humiliate his family by a former employee  who is threatening to file a sexual harassment suit.  Can’t say as I’m a huge fan, but I do appreciate Lowe’s contribution to cinema, mainly because, 20+ years ago, my wife and I went to see Youngblood on our second date.

Lowe says:

when people make false claims of harassment particularly for financial gain, it must be defended vigorously and openly, for it weakens the claims of legitimate victims.

I also know of many people in everyday life who are paying the price of a climate where anyone can accuse anybody of anything, anytime, and hope for a big cash pay-off at the end. “Hush money” to just go away. Well I won’t go away. No one intimidates my family. My wife and I have many former and long term employees, all of whom know this woman, who can and will refute any claims of anything inappropriate in our home, or anywhere else. We will defend ourselves with vigor and without fear. We live in a time where businesses build glass-walled offices to prevent this exact kind of “his-word-against-mine” extortion. But you can’t build a world of glass. You shouldn’t have to live in fear of being alone in a room with a co-worker or having to tip-toe through your own home.

This may yet prove to be just another sordid Hollywood affair when and if all the facts come out.

Even if that proves to be the case, there’s something that rings true about Lowe’s words.  It’s all well and good to strive for a gender-neutral workplace.   When ability, effort, and productivity are equivalent, so should the rewards for employees, regardless of race, gender, etc.

But it’s a sure sign that we have gone too far when the mere accusation of impropriety is akin to a conviction and employers are unable to correct or eliminate poor performers for fear of legal repercussions, situations that happen with disturbing regularity in the American workplace.

Roommates.com: Another Bad Judicial Decision

Evidently we needed another inept ruling from the west coast circuit to remind us that justice is a three-ring circus out that-a-way.  The LA Times says:

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided Thursday that … a site called Roommates.com may be brought to trial for possibly violating anti-discrimination laws because it requires users to provide information about gender, sexual orientation and whether they have children, and then uses the information to screen people for matches.

Get back, honky cats!  I mean really, what other criteria that one might want to apply to a roommate search might be "discriminatory"?  Suppose I only want to live with a Hispanic person?  Illegal, probably, in California.  Does he snore?  Too bad, you can’t ask that either.

Who exactly do these clowns, er, judges, think they are?  Like, gods, with a small "g"?  It’s pathetic, their neurotic need to force people to boil down their existences into a soupy, gray muddle of mediocrity.  Judgment need not apply, to say nothing about applying any sort of personal preference to the way we live our lives.


"A real estate broker may not inquire as to the race of a prospective buyer, and an employer may not inquire as to the religion of a prospective employee," Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote for the majority. "If such questions are unlawful when posed face-to-face by telephone, they don’t magically become lawful when asked electronically online."

Site users are required to select from drop-down menus whether they want to live with "straight or gay" males, only with "straight" males, only with "gay" males or with "no males," the court said.

That’s good news!  For one thing it means that Roommates.com has made the investment in their business and found out what criteria its customers think are important when choosing a person to live with.  Presumedly we’re primarily talking about multi-month or longer leases in which one would be contractually stuck with the other person(s).  Doesn’t it make sense for people to be able to choose who they want to live with?

Not to this court.

Dating websites that require users to answer similar questions are not liable, the ruling said, because discrimination in choosing a partner is not illegal.

"It is perfectly legal to discriminate along those lines in dating, and thus there can be no claim based solely on the content of these questions," the majority opinion said.

Really?  How long until the 9th Circus Court reverses that inalienable right as well?

Boy Scouts Lose Philly Home

From the NY Times:

For three years the Philadelphia council of the Boy Scouts of America held its ground. It resisted the city’s request to change its discriminatory policy toward gay people despite threats that if it did not do so, the city would evict the group from a municipal building where the Scouts have resided practically rent free since 1928.

Municipal officials said the clash stemmed from a duty to defend civil rights and an obligation to abide by a local law that bars taxpayer support for any group that discriminates. Boy Scout officials said it was about preserving their culture, protecting the right of private organizations to remain exclusive and defending traditions like requiring members to swear an oath of duty to God and prohibiting membership by anyone who is openly homosexual.

This violates a fundamental principle on which the Scouts were founded and the organization refused to compromise in order to maintain a financial arrangement favorable to the group.

“Since we were founded, we believe that open homosexuality would be inconsistent with the values that we want to communicate with our leaders,” said Gregg Shields, national spokesman for the Boy Scouts. “A belief in God is also mentioned in the Scout oath. We believe that those values are important. Tradition is important. Our mission is to instill those values in scouts and help them make good choices over their lifetimes.

The Boy Scouts refused to compromise their values and for that I applaud them.  As in most stands we take on principle, there will be a price that the Boy Scouts have to pay:

This week the Boy Scouts made their last stand and lost.

“At the end of the day, you can not be in a city-owned facility being subsidized by the taxpayers and not have language in your lease that talks about nondiscrimination,” said City Councilman Darrell L. Clarke, who represents the district where the building is located. “Negotiations are over.”

Stacey Sobel, executive director of Equality Advocates Pennsylvania, a gay-rights advocacy group based in Philadelphia, said: “Allowing the Boy Scouts to use this building rent free sends a message that the city approves of their policy. We are not looking to kick the Boy Scouts out. We just want them to play by the same rules as everyone else in the city.”

In my opinion, this last sentence is untrue.  What Sobel and other gay advocates really want is for the Boy Scouts to be forced to give in to financial pressure and surrender unconditionally in the form of accepting gay troop leaders and members.  Hopefully this will never happen. 

Ironically, and not surprisingly, it’s the children, the Scouts themselves, who will be the ultimate loser in this fight:

The Boy Scouts erected the ornate building and since 1928 have leased the land from the city for a token sum of $1 a year. City officials said the market value for renting the building was about $200,000 a year, and they invited the Boy Scouts to remain as full-paying tenants.

Jeff Jubelirer, a spokesman for the local chapter, said it could not afford $200,000 a year in rent, and that such a price would require it to cut summer-camp funds for 800 needy children.

“With an epidemic of gun violence taking the lives of children almost daily in this city, it’s ironic that this administration chose to destroy programming that services thousands of children in the city,” Mr. Jubelirer said. He added that the organization serves more than 69,000 young people, mostly from the inner city, and that its programming focuses on mentoring and after-school programs instead of camping trips.

Such is the price of  trying to please everyone.

Hate Crime Anyone?

A while back in NYC there was a nasty crime.  A group of white young men wanted money for drugs and decided to lure a gay black man out and rob him.  They lured him using on-line chat and beat and then ran him in front of a car killing him.

So, the prosecution went after them in addition to the murder charge with a hate crime.

The curve ball was that one of the perps revealed that he was gay himself.  So, he argued…how can he be charged with a hate crime when he attacked a gay man being gay himself?

The prosecution disagreed (and the judge concurred with them noting that:

Under New York law, they [the prosecution] said, defendants can be convicted of a hate crime even if they bear no actual hatred for their victim.

“This is a case where the defendants deliberately set out to commit a violent crime against a man whom they intentionally selected because of his sexual orientation,” wrote state Supreme Court Justice Jill Konviser.

This bothers me.  Then again all hate crimes legislation bothers me.  A crime against a person is a crime.  Hate crimes go to the thoughts and intents of a person and set some crimes as worse simply because of some status of a person.  Does it really matter that Michael Sandy was black, or gay?  He was lured out, robbed, beaten, and then killed.  There is no doubt of that.  Prosecute these cretins for their crimes and put them in jail.  To tack on hate crimes even when (at least one of them) did not “hate” the victim is a travesty (as are all hate crimes).

Reasonable Accommodation

Does it help America to be accommodating to the physically and mentally impaired?  Political correctness demands that this question and others like it not be asked.  Why?  Because the answer is so clearly “Yes” that no further examination is needed?   That anyone who would dare question the rights of the disabled is of such low intelligence that their queries are inherently invalid.  Neither is true.

The American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted to force employers to do something they did not want to do, namely to ignore their desire to hire the best possible applicants based solely on their own criteria. 

As Marta Russell puts it:

Since passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, for example, business has fought, tooth and nail, integrating disability in the workplace by providing a reasonable accommodation as required by the ADA. In the first decade of the law, the disabled employment rate has not budged from its pre-civil rights figure of 70 percent unemployed. Capitalist business accounting practices can be held accountable.

Prejudice-based disability discrimination, resting on employer assumptions that the disabled person cannot do the job or on employer-resistance to hiring a blind, deaf, mobility or otherwise impaired person just as they might not want to hire blacks or women, undoubtedly contributes significantly to the high unemployment rate of disabled people. Disabled workers also face inherent economic discrimination within the capitalist system, stemming from employers’ expectations of encountering additional nonstandard production costs when hiring a disabled worker as opposed to hiring a worker with no need for special accommodation, environmental modifications, liability insurance, maximum health care coverage or even health care coverage at all.

Using this analysis, the prevailing rate of exploitation determines who is “disabled” and who is not.

The prevailing rate of exploitation.  How droll!  On one hand Marxist/Leninist tripe went out of style with the utter collapse of communism.  On the other, it’s a pleasant change to see an enemy one can recognize, secure in the knowledge that their brand of “I hate America” can be dismissed by the simple means of telling the truth.

Therefore, my reply to Russell is a hearty, “So what?”

Imagine there is a bit of land with nothing whatever on it, just some grasses and the odd tree here and there.  Imagine you buy the land, work it into shape, and begin to grow corn there.  Is it not your corn to do with as you please?  Obviously it is.  You sell the corn, are pleased to learn you have more than what you started with, and buy more seed in preparation for the next year.

In planting in the spring you realize that you could use some help as your intent is farm more acres.  Out of a crowd walking by you pick a trustworthy-looking man and ask him if he will help you in exchange for X dollars.  He agrees, the work is done, and you pay him.  Where is the exploitation?  Was he forced to accept your bargain?  Of course not.  Both of you benefitted.

Socialist drivel.  If a woman in a wheelchair had rolled by and said that she would work at the same rate as the man, are you obligated to give her a job even though you know that she cannot perform the work?  Clearly not.

Yet some disagree.  In its wisdom, Congress decided that employers could not consider handicaps as an integral criteria during the hiring process and that they must make “reasonable accommodation” to physically and mentally handicapped workers unless doing so would be an “undue hardship”.

(At this point, let’s take a moment to recall what Mark Twain said about Congress for a brief moment, shall we?)

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management defines the terms “reasonable accommodation” and “undue hardship” as follows:

What is reasonable accommodation?

The term “reasonable accommodation” is a term of art that Congress defined only through examples of changes or modifications to be made, or items to be provided, to a qualified individual with a disability. A reasonable accommodation is adapting the job site or job functions for a qualified person with a disability to enable an individual with a disability to enjoy equal employment opportunities. This does not mean that the employer must lower the standards of work for the position or change the job requirements. There are three categories of reasonable accommodations:

  • Modifications or adjustments to a job application process to permit an individual with a disability to be considered for a job (such as providing application forms in alternative formats like large print or Braille);
  • Modifications or adjustments necessary to enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the job (such as providing sign language interpreters); and
  • Modifications or adjustments that enable employees with disabilities to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment (such as removing physical barriers in an office cafeteria).

What is an undue hardship?

An agency is not required to make an accommodation if it can demonstrate that providing the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on its everyday operations. An undue hardship is an action that requires “significant difficulty or expense” in relation to:

  • overall size of the agency’s program with respect to the number of employees, number and type of facilities and size of budget;
  • type of operation, including the composition and structure of the agency’s workforce; and
  • nature and cost of the accommodation

In other words, if an organization has made enough money to be able to afford the extra costs of hiring a disabled worker then it must, all else being equal.

“But the law doesn’t say that businesses must hire the disabled person!”

Perhaps not.  But the potential cost of legal action – being far higher than the salaries paid to most workers – dictates that businesses take precautions against incurring those costs by hiring disabled workers in cases where they otherwise would not.

Is that wrong?  It’s proper to help people less fortunate than oneself, isn’t it?  Isn’t that what being a Christian is all about?

The answer to all three questions is “Yes”.  We should help the disabled to live decent lives just as we should help our grandparents and care for children without parents.  But it is wrong for a government to force moral obligations on its citizens. 

Indeed, actions such as providing for widows and the inform should be done out of charity by those who value them, not by the bureaucrats in Washington who use the IRS to confiscate our tax dollars.

The sense of entitlement is everywhere now.  One need not look far to see the corruption.  Earlier this year, for example, the National Federation of the Blind filed a lawsuit against Oracle Corp. and the state of Texas seeking to ensure that all applications used by the state government are accessible to blind state employees.

Tommy Craig, president of the Texas chapter of the National Federation of the Blind, said that Texas law requires that “all software and computer systems purchased by the state be accessible for blind employees. That law has been in effect for 10 years.” He noted blind supervisors cannot now access the records of workers who report to them, while blind employees can’t access their own records without assistance, which raises privacy and confidentiality issues.

Craig suggested that various remedies are available to the state to make applications accessible to blind employees. For instance, a Braille enabled device could be attached to a computer serial port, or applications could be voice-enabled, he said. “It doesn’t take a lot to do it. Just put a little a planning into it,” Craig said.

Edwin Kunz, who directs a rehabilitation center for the blind within the Health and Human Services Commission’s Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services and a plaintiff in the case, said he has been hurt by the lack of access to the HR applications. “Because I must have sighted assistance for all of these personnel functions, both my privacy and the privacy of my employees are routinely violated,” he said in a statement. “I’ve complained about the problems with the software, but nothing has been done to fix them. I hope this lawsuit will spur Oracle to move quickly to correct this problem; otherwise the state will have to purchase human resources software from someone else.”

Kunz epitomizes entitlement syndrome; he evidently believes that he is entitled to dictate terms to his employer, the state of Texas. 

Craig may very well be right – a Braille keyboard could possibly solve Kunz’s problem.  However, consider the complications of using computer software without being able to see a monitor.  The blind navigate such systems by means of feats of memorization that most of us would find impossible to duplicate.  Does this then mean that upgrades to the Oracle software must remain constant in terms of its user interface so as not to inconvenience the blind?  Must the software read all error messages aloud to users unable to see a break in the normal pattern of interacting with the machine?  What other costs would this lawsuit, if successful, force onto Oracle?

As economist Richard Epstein said, “successful enforcement under the guise of ‘reasonable accommodation’ necessarily impedes the operation and efficiency of firms.”

That said, it’s important to note that these most costs will not stay on Larry Ellison’s balance sheet for long.  They will be passed on to his customers and on to the end of the capitalist food chain, the consumer.  That’s you and me, meaning that Kunz’s accommodation is acts as a form of second-hand taxation.

Craig went on to say: 

“The state Legislature of Texas recognized the need for equal access for the blind by passing a law requiring it, and it is unconscionable that a state agency is violating that law.”

Untrue.  While it would be mean and uncharitable for a wealthly person to refuse the request for alms made by a crippled person, it does not automatically follow that it is acceptable for the government to tax them in order to provide for those unable to care for themselves. 

No, what is truly unconscionable is the notion that one’s disadvantages automatically act as a key to unlock the cash boxes of every person able to afford the transfer of wealth to those with friends in the government. 

We should help others because we want to, not because we have to.  Charity is an act of compassion, of love, freely given.  Wealth redistribution is theft by those with the votes, performed legally, because the rules say they are entitled to do it.

Entitlement fever does not stop at forced charity (consider what happens to those who don’t pay).  No, it carries over into every aspect of life, including high school marching bands.

The Texas Education Agency has launched an investigation into a complaint filed against Bryan High School’s Special Education Department.

Trevor Goehl, who uses a wheelchair, played the trumpet in the Bryan High marching band during the 2005-06 school year. But the 16-year-old wasn’t allowed to play on the field and participate in the halftime show to the same extent as other students.

Instead, he played from the sidelines in the front ensemble, which is made up of percussionists whose bulky instruments don’t allow them to march with the rest of the band, BHS Band Director Robert Towell said.

Jeff Goehl, Trevor’s father, said he filed the complaint against the district because his son was not allowed to participate as a normal student.

“To separate disabled students from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their disability generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in school and community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone,” Jeff Goehl wrote in his TEA complaint.

Towell said that a student in a wheelchair could not maneuver on the field without endangering himself or other students due to the fast-paced, intricate nature of the band’s halftime performances.

“We have accommodated in the best possible way, I think, for this student, as we do with any student,” the band director said.

I would admire Jeff Groehl’s efforts to fight for his son, if that was what he was doing.  But his son no longer attends the school in question.  Instead, Groehl is pursuing a social agenda:

“What we really wanted was for Bryan ISD to develop some sort of plan that would allow a wheelchair student to be in the band and receive meaningful benefit from the program,” he said. “We need to have something on the shelf so when the next kid comes along, we’re not back in this same position.”

Does Groehl envision a student volunteer wheeling a disabled trumpet player around the football field in cadence with the other band members?  Has he even heard the term “reasonable accommodation”, flawed as it is?  Has he considered the “undue hardship” that would be placed on other band members when their programs would – inevitably – be simplified to make a place for such a participant and make them unable to compete with other bands at the highest level possible?

It’s great that his son wanted to play – did in fact play – in the school band.  But the boy’s desire does not automatically entitle him to a place in the marching band’s on-field activities any more than my desire to play basketball entitled me to a place on my high school team’s roster.  To think desire equates to entitlement is to be a fool.

I’ll repeat the question:  Is it helping America to bend over backwards for the disabled?  I think it is a fair question to ask.  The answer is not as clear as some would have us believe.

Don "Who?" Imus, Duke, and the Race Card

Maybe I’m just a right-wing Christian square, but I’d never even heard of Don Imus before he made an ass of himself by called in the Rutgers women’s basketball team nappy-headed hos.

Whoever the heck he is I wish he wasn’t white and I wish he hadn’t said that. Why? Lots of reasons. Why a grown man, a multi-millionaire by all accounts, feels the need to attack a group of essentially defenseless college students is beyond me. What a man.

More importantly it gives liberal know-it-alls something else to blame on American corporations. “It’s all about the money,” they cry in their most piteous, angst-filled voices. Of course it is. That’s the purpose of corporations. Rather than blaming CBS for airing a legal but profanity-laced program they – and all of us – should be asking why the FCC started allowing this garbage to grace our airwaves. Furthermore, it’s the individuals who choose to listen the jerks like Imus who make sure there are plenty of them to hear. How about a little old-fashioned personal accountability? Turn him off and he’ll go away, I promise.

More important still is that the damn fool gave Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton the opportunity to crawl out from under their respective racist rocks and recite their ridiculous rhetoric of hate. Says recently turned-on Tom DeLay:

The message of the ongoing Imus scandal is simple: Verbal offenses against anyone, other than conservatives or Christians or Jews, will be treated as crimes, and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are the judge and jury. Remember Trent Lott’s ill-fated tribute to Sen. Strom Thurmond or Rush Limbaugh’s criticism of Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb? This is the political strategy of the Left—unite to destroy.

One more word from the left, this time from the Rev. Dr. DeForest Soaries:

“If Don Imus had called the wife of a CBS executive an ugly whore he’d have been fired.”

Maybe. But if Imus was black and the insults were thrown at white players none of this would be happening.

Or should I say “has happened”? CBS fired Imus this afternoon.

The firing I don’t have a problem with. I do object, however, to doing it because of pressure from black activists demanding special treatment.

Here’s a brain-teaser: If the Duke Lacrosse players accused of raping a black stripper had received this kind of high-powered support from white power brokers, could the power of the resulting liberal shit storm be measured? Or would it have blown away the scale?

Happily an abbreviated form of justice was done in this case yesterday. Abbreviated in that an either corrupt or incompetent District Attorney still has his job pending a hearing before the State Bar association. Abbreviated in that the 88 Duke University professors who publicly lynched the three young men falsely accused in this case have never apologized and probably will never admit that they were wrong. Abbreviated in that these so-called educators continue to hold their jobs despite the fact that their racially and politically motivated actions publicly embarrassed their employer.

In fact, earlier this year one such Duke professor resigned after two of the players were re-admitted to school (the third having already graduated). Karla Holloway said then:

“The decision by the university to readmit the students, especially just before a critical judicial decision on the case, is a clear use of corporate power, and a breach, I think, of ethical citizenship.”


“The public support [the administration] has extended to these students has been absent in regard to faculty who have been under constant and often vicious attack.”

Perhaps, Ms. Holloway, the university refused to pander to you because the facts of the case dictated otherwise. For my money, the breach of ethical citizenship was committed by ex-Professor Holloway when she pre-judged the case in a public forum.

Reputations, sadly, can never be fully repaired once sullied, even when the accusers and their accusations are both proven false.

I wish these three young men the best of luck. I’d recommend them to my own alma mater if North Carolina wasn’t so far away from Texas. Then again, perhaps that’s what the two who remain undergraduates have in mind.

Personally I hope that they will re-enroll at Duke University and finish their education there in such a manner that proves their superiority to the petty, mean-spirited jackals who used a woman’s false accusation as an opportunity to promote their own misguided agendas.

Don Imus won’t have a chance to redeem himself at CBS; frankly I don’t think he deserves one. But the Duke boys do and I pray they make the most of it.

So what’s the point of all this? There’s a double-standard in this country that favors social groups that liberals champion. Justice, economic, criminal, and otherwise, is increasingly hard to find for people who happen to be part of the wrong demographic. This is another reason why I believe that American liberalism has lost its way and rather badly at that.

What ever happened to the idea that truth and justice were the American way?

It’s important that we re-establish this principle. One way to do that is to cry foul whenever injustices are done. Another is to not perpetrate them ourselves.

(Hat tips to the Texas Rainmaker and Sister Toldjah)


Read Debbie Schlussel’s take on the difference between black and white “comedians” and you’ll understand what I was saying earlier this week about free speech being dependent on the speaker’s color.

I don’t quite buy the example Debbie gives but there are plenty of other examples out there, particularly in the black music biz.

I happened to download a Missy Elliot MP3 a few years back in which the theme of her song was that she was a crack whore who’d do anything for whichever guy was the most vicious gang banger. Nice.

This sort of “artist” – and Elliot’s by no means the worst of them – is a disgrace to America. Yes, their “speech” is protected but that doesn’t mean their trash should have been put on wax in the first place.

Michael Grant, to whom I linked above, says that corporations should have been the target of Imus’ detractors. But where is the outrage over black rappers who advocate killing cops and whites in their music? Clearly we should put economic pressure on record companies to convince them to drop racist, degrading acts, right?

No. As Ms. Schlussel says, whites aren’t entitled to protection from minority racism or to hold opinions about the subject. Only Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are entitled to discuss the issue of race because they are so knowledgeable, open-minded, and even-handed, or so they say.

I don’t think that race can ever be discussed openly so long as these relics from the past continue to have the influence they possess today. If I were optimistic I would say that all it would take for them to lose that power is for the media to report on what these gentlemen actually say, do, and believe. Surely the white liberals who sponsor Sharpton’s hate speech would run screaming when they realize what he really stands for, wouldn’t they?

Sadly, I’m not that optimistic. Democrats – all politicians, true, but particularly the Dems – are more interested in getting re-elected than doing what’s right for America, even if that means bowing and scraping at Jesse Jackson’s feet for the right to buy “his people’s” votes.

Sigh. It’s discouraging, but all one can do is keep trying to move the pile in the right direction.

With regard to race, the right thing is for all Americans to stop being so obsessed by it. It’s natural and right that we prefer the company of those who look like us. There’s no point in pretending otherwise or that it’s wrong.

It is, however, unhealthy and untrue to believe that one’s own kind are inherently better than another race or creed.

It’s the impact we have on the lives of others that determines our worth, not how much money we make or what color are skin is. That’s a lesson that all of us could stand to re-learn, the all-too-common race and religious haters most of all.

Turnabout is Fair Play

Prairie View A&M, a Texas college primarily attended by black students, is feeling the pain of integration.

I have to laugh at this section:

As more white and Hispanic students are attending Prairie View A&M, reflecting a trend at the nation’s 120 historically black colleges and universities, there is a sense that the land-grant institution is changing its identity.

“Basically, we’ve lost our soul,” said Hendrik Maison, who served as student body president for two years before graduating last December. “It’s not a black institution anymore. It’s an institution with a lot of black people.”

Cry me a river, pal, and welcome to the world of equality. Like it? I thought not…

What exactly is wrong with the idea of different groups of people having their own institutions? Socialistic concerns aside, we are all different, with unique interests. Homogenization sterilizes, sometimes more than it should.

Culture Shock

Morning Edition on NPR had an interesting story regarding the town of Fremont, CA today. Unfortunately, NPR doesn’t offer free links to their material. So read the original story in the Mercury News for background.

Indian immigrants were upset because the city council denied them a permit to hold a festival drawing attendance twice the size of the town. Last year’s festival involved near riot conditions and left a disaster area of trash and debris, hence the denied permit.

Seems like a clear cut case of a city council trying to do its job to serve the whole community. Where’s the discrimination in that? The attitude of entitlement in this country is amazing. Even a recession cannot seem to cure it.