Over 60 American Companies Want To Ignore The Constitution For “The Greater Good”

You’re on, Geena!

Indeed, be very, very afraid.

Next term, the Supreme Court will hear two high-profile cases challenging affirmative action policies at the University of North Carolina and Harvard College. The court just barely upheld affirmative action in 2016, but it seems likely that the current Court’s composition is unlikely to allow it to continue. This is a good thing, though those who benefit from racial discrimination not surprisingly are horrified by the prospect. John Roberts mysteriously shocking quote the last time around— “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race”—is pretty much indisputable. As in a growing number of areas, the American Left simply does not like the U.S. Constitution. In the area of colleges and grad school admissions, this is because the document requires that all races be treated equally under the law.Apple, GE, Google, and Intel are among the more than 60 major American businesses urging the Supreme Court to keep allowing colleges and universities, and, they realize, the companies themselves, to discriminate against whites and Asians. “Amici — some of the largest companies in America — now reiterate to this Court that the government’s interest in promoting student-body diversity on university campuses remains compelling from a business perspective,” the companies argued in a joint brief filed at the court on Monday. “Attaining a student body that is both highly qualified and broadly diverse remains a compelling constitutional interest,” the brief goes on to state. “An essential aspect of that diversity is racial and ethnic diversity. That interest has not faded since this Court decided Grutter in 2003. If anything, it has grown stronger, as Amici know from first-hand experience…Prohibiting universities nationwide from considering race among other factors in composing student bodies would undermine businesses’ efforts to build diverse workforces,”

The argument is, to be kind, disingenuous. There is no reliable evidence that diversity in work forces for its own sake confers any benefits to productivity, creativity or success, though a lot of dubious studies make that claim. Indeed, since Barack Obama started the process of breaking down the nation’s progress in race relations, diversity, now greatly accelerated by the George Floyd Freakout and the curse of “diversity/equity/inclusion” cant by ideologues whose response to dissent is to cray “Racism!”, racially diverse work forces are increasingly adversarial and stressful. What the companies are really expressing in their amicus brief is the woke culture that has infected management.

No doubt about it: persistent imbalance in the relative achievements, success and financial security of the races is a serious problem in a democracy. The current mindset among progressives, unfortunately, is to demand equality of outcomes–the cover-word is “equity”— rather than finding solutions to some groups’ failure to succeed even after every conceivable bias has been removed or substantially reduced. Affirmative action, which is a nice way of saying “racial and ethnic quotas,” has always been a zero sum game: deserving and qualified individuals are punished because of their race and ethnicity while other individuals reap advantages by virtue of their race and diversity. As I have mentioned here before, my entire career path was altered because I was deemed the wrong color to fill an open Assistant US Attorney slot. I don’t regret it: I knew I would be OK. I even supported the discrimination at the time as defensible as a utilitarian policy.  It was, however,  reverse discrimination. The strategy of affirmative action advocates, disturbingly successful, has been to convince as many individuals in the groups discriminated against by these policies as possible that they deserve to be disadvantaged by their color alone, that this is “social justice.”

If some groups persistently fail to be competitive enough in a competitive society–those mean, old capitalism and democracy systems!—then society and the groups themselves are obligated to do the hard work of addressing the reasons for that persistent failure. The remedy embraced by wokism is intellectually bankrupt and ethically intolerable: just impose standards that favor races and ethnic groups that keep lagging behind, and voila! Problem solved!

But of course the problem is not solved, and aspects of the problem will be exacerbated. Human beings resent double standards, and in a democracy, they must. Eventually, the current effort to declare such standards fair and consistent, and race-blind standards unfair will be rejected, and the ideological indoctrination and intimidation currently motivating these lock-step companies will fail, leaving more division and rancor in its wake.

Affirmative action is going down, at last. I am willing to accept–I guess— that this obviously anti-Equal Protection policy could be justified as a short-term course correction, but it is now clear that those who benefit from the “good” racial discrimination will never voluntarily say, “It’s time to start following the Constitution and the civil rights laws. It’s been more than  half a century.” Affirmative action has become a crutch, a way to avoid tough realities and difficult measures. This Court will finally kill it.


And, of course, progressives and Democrats will scream, march and riot, while condemning the Supreme Court for doing what the Supreme Court is supposed to do: follow the Constitution. Those 60 plus companies are now run by individuals who do not like the Constitution, They do not like the Bill of Rights. The same people chanting “equity, diversity, inclusion” want to ban “hurtful and dangerous speech,” meaning speech their favorite activists find upsetting.

A just-released Gallup poll indicates that while public approval of the Supreme Court rose 3% after the recent spate of controversial decisions to 43%, only 13% of Democrats approve of the Court, an all time low for any party affiliation. What offended the Left so grievously was that the Court properly upheld the Second Amendment and finally, after almost 50 years of avoiding it, declared that courts shouldn’t make up rights that aren’t in the Constitution just because vocal or powerful groups wish that they were.

The greater problem that will not be solved by the end of affirmative action is that the nation is losing a consensus regarding the centrality of liberty and individual responsibility to American values. This is occurring because of anti-Constitution indoctrination in our educational institutions, relentless propaganda by unethical journalists, and the decline in civic literacy. The Supreme Court cannot fix these serious and destructive developments. That task is the responsibility of the rest of us.

One place to start is to persuade corporations that opposing the Constitution will be bad for business.



18 thoughts on “Over 60 American Companies Want To Ignore The Constitution For “The Greater Good”

  1. If the benefits of affirmative action are so apparent to business then there is no need for protected status. The entire point of affirmative action was to allow minorities to demonstrate competitiveness that would allow them to progress up the corporate ladder.
    The corporate logic holds no water.

    • The benefit to companies of affirmative action is that someone from Slate or HuffPo — or worse, WashPo or NYT — doesn’t write a bad PR article: “Inside This Company’s White Supremacist Patriarchal Culture of Bigotry”

      Dumb as it is, this is an actual benefit these days, and especially in business and tech degrees they need colleges minting some non-male, non-white or asian people for them to hire for their own protection.

      • That’s exactly right. It protects companies from the ravages of public opinion, and allows them to be as unfair as necessary to keep the race-grievance industry off their back.

        If affirmative action is disallowed and hiring must be done on the basis of merit, they will be vulnerable to lawsuits from the race-hucksters and be forced to settle some of them. Either that, or forced to properly vet and defend their hiring practices rather than just allowing Jesse Jackson’s organization and others like them to ghost-write them.

        As Jack might say: Good.

  2. I largely agree with your thesis. I’d like to offer a suggestion that could help address the problem.

    It seems to me that major corporations itching to meet diversity quotas are currently sucking upon the public teat to help them reach their numbers. They don’t want to develop their own minority talent at the stage it could be; instead, they want quota systems and taxpayer and endowment funding to do it for them.

    Perhaps they could take a page from the National Hockey League. Professional hockey, Jack, is a sport you’d like even less than football; you get the same types of collisions, only they happen at more than twice the speed, and everyone carries a club and has knives on their feet. It’s an incredibly fast and challenging game at the highest levels. And exciting to watch. So physically taxing is the game that a player’s shift on the ice typically lasts between 45 and 60 seconds, although play can be uninterrupted for as long as 10 minutes between whistles and teams have to change out players on the fly.

    I note this because the NHL identifies prospects before they reach puberty. Kids who continue to develop well are drafted at around 18 years old. That draft doesn’t guarantee them a career; it means that the drafting team has the RIGHT to sign them to a career; most draftees continue to play at junior or college levels, or in European leagues, until the team deems them sufficiently skilled to offer them a three-year entry level contract. Even under those contracts, they’re likely to spend much – if not all – of their time at minor-league levels (the American Hockey League is the equivalent of AAA baseball; there are other leagues that serve as AA or A level).

    Now, here’s where this gets relevant. The NHL isn’t just betting on the come with these kids. The kids are developed – through training camps run by the league, where they get coached by superb coaches and get regular contact with pros and retired pros who’ve made it. It’s not just the development before they get drafted – They’re further developed at the minor league levels. From a player development standpoint, what’s happened in the game in the last generation or two is pretty remarkable; NHL players used to be almost exclusively white Canadians. Today, one sees Canadians and Americans of different ethnic backgrounds; one sees Scandinavians and Eastern Europeans. A significant and growing number of NHL players are black; there are players of Asian descent, and one of the most feared players in the League – Nazem Kadri – is currently in the midst of a bidding war for his contract and is probably the first practicing Muslim to play the game (he was born in Canada, but his grandparents emigrated from Lebanon).

    Couldn’t corporations develop a similar model – working with school systems to identify minority kids with talent that can be developed? The NHL doesn’t spend a whole lot of money developing the kids they spot young – but they do invest in the program and it pays off. Corporations could, it seems, sponsor academic development camps for minority kids, develop them over the years, help them with college placement and further skills development. And some will inevitably rise to the top, worthy of hire by these corporations based on merit alone – courtesy of a helping hand along the way.

    • “It seems to me that major corporations itching to meet diversity quotas are currently sucking upon the public teat to help them reach their numbers. They don’t want to develop their own minority talent at the stage it could be; instead, they want quota systems and taxpayer and endowment funding to do it for them.”
      Bingo! This applies to the public sector as well.

    • AIM,

      There’s something similar going on in Mathematics, where retired Wall Street Trader signed on to teach math at Buchholz HS in Gainesville FL. By the time they won their first Mu Alpha Theta (Mathematics Honor Society) national competition, he was recruiting kids as young as middle school. There’s a fuller article about the who, what, & when in a July WSJ feature, but the link below will take you to an article in the local paper. As an Engineer with a grad school math degree, I was fascinated. I think you will be, too, and the development is there, as it is in your NHL description, above.



      • More Bill: Thanks! As it turns out, I am familiar with this man and his marvelous achievement (think I found out about this via Marginal Revolution – a superb blog that centers on economics, but goes far afield. You should follow if you don’t). Now: imagine if companies like Apple or Alphabet got involved…

  3. I’m confused by the term reverse discrimination.

    It’s discrimination, isn’t it?

    Whether it’s white on black, black on Asian, Asian on white, it’s just discrimination.

    • A.M. Golden wrote, “I’m confused by the term reverse discrimination. It’s discrimination, isn’t it? Whether it’s white on black, black on Asian, Asian on white, it’s just discrimination.”

      Yes, discrimination is discrimination regardless of the race(s) involved.

  4. “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race” John Roberts

    Yes, YES, YES!!!

    All affirmative action policies across the USA need to be deemed unconstitutional and therefore illegal. It should also be culturally and socially reprehensible, and maybe even illegal, to ask the race of any individual on any kind of application for anything.

    Jack wrote, “…finding solutions to some groups’ failure to succeed even after every conceivable bias has been removed or substantially reduced”

    To find solutions to a problem, the root problem must first be identified and clearly defined.

    It seems to me that we as a society are assuming that we don’t know why “some groups’ [fail] to succeed even after every conceivable bias has been removed or substantially reduced”. The truth is that we do know what the root problem is but it would be considered racist to publicly state it. I have no fear of being labeled a racist because I’m not a racist and no one can prove otherwise; therefore, I will step up and write the truth as I see it.

    Here is the core of the problem as I see it; a high percentage of blacks (not all blacks) have been indoctrinated to see the world around them through anti-white anti-cultural racist glasses and they perceive themselves to be the victims of white people in all aspects of their life regardless of the fact that there is no real fact-based evidence to support their claims, it’s all just emotional hysteria. To make things worse these ignorant people act like immature children and rebel against facts, logic, common sense and the status quo. This rather large segment of the black community is culturally suppressing themselves in all aspects of their life as a form of racist childish rebellion and most of their community actually promote this kind of immature behavior.

    The following graphic is a uniquely perfect example of what I’m saying. The very creation of the graphic shows us that it has been and still is “acceptable” that a huge segment of the black community is culturally anti-white and they intentionally separate themselves culturally from the very core things that will help them rise out of their self imposed victimhood. They refuse to help themselves achieve the American dream and what they want is their twisted version of an American dream to be handed to them.

    Am I being hard on these immature black people, yes I am but this actually cuts much deeper into our society than what’s happening in just the black community. If you read that graphic carefully you should notice that there’s a fair amount of outspoken white people in our society that have very similar anti-cultural and anti-status quo tendencies. This IS a sociopolitical movement towards totalitarianism and if it’s left unchecked it will lead the United States of America directly into a cultural revolution similar to what’s happened in other countries all over the globe. Don’t be naive and think it could never happen in the United States.

    These rebellious immature black and white people that believe this totalitarian crap have been fully indoctrinated into being anti-white racists, anti-cultural activists, and anti status quo adolescent morons by anti-American activists in their communities seeking unlimited political and social power.

    • My comment feeds nicely into my July 18, 2022 blog posts about the absurdity of the anti status quo cult.

      Episode VII: Absurdity In The 21st Century Has Somehow Become “Normal”? e.g. Unwarranted & Unproductive Hate Of The Status Quo

      Our society and culture are constantly under “attack” from immature progressivism activists. It’s crystal clear to me that progressivism activists are out to destroy anything and everything that they consider the status quo all in the name of change, which seems to be their Holy doctrine. Progressivism is literally anti status quo in the 21st century, if something exists as a current “status quo” then it’s anti-progressive (see their Holy doctrine above) and evil and therefore must be destroyed. Progressives consider their Holy doctrine of ideological changes to be an improvement to society and culture and anyone that opposes their Holy doctrine is obviously evil and must be destroyed.

      Irrational progressivism activists have four tenants of “truth”…

      1. Progressives are right.
      2. Everyone else is wrong.
      3. Wrong is evil.
      4. Evil must be destroyed.

      …that’s the dead end of the 21st century irrational progressivism activists’ ability to think critically and they are trying to infect the rest of the population with their nonsense bigotry.

      I think the dictionary should add a new definition…

      Politically Progressive: anti status quo regardless of common sense, critical thinking or logic.

  5. You have missed the biggest problems of Affirmative Action policies; lowered standards. It is horrifying to see what is acceptable performance and knowledge in today’s companies, Universities, and government institutions. The biggest drivers of lowering standards is ‘diversity’ and the racism of the left. The racism of the left means that they don’t believe that minorities will ever be able to compete with whites and Asians on a level playing field. This is why Virginia and California didn’t try to find out why black students were doing poorly in math, they banned higher math classes from being taught in public schools (but not the private schools THEIR children go to). I remember a few years ago when my state’s Dental School had a class where NO ONE met the minimum standards to pass the first semester. Rather than throw all those students out and bring in the alternates, they just lowered the standards. Many of the medical schools have caved to the students and no longer require them to attend class. They just cram video lectures at double speed a few weeks before a test block and the med schools accept whatever the result is as ‘acceptable’. I can recount at least 3 times in recent years where I instantly recognized the obvious reason a historical fact being presented by a Ph.D. historian was wrong. Why am I noticing things that these ‘history experts’ don’t realize? When COVID came out, it was appalling to see how the medical and even the immunological society got behind a narrative that made no sense and endorsed ‘facts’ the CDC couldn’t possibly know.

    For an extreme example, let’s look at the bridge collapse at Florida International University. This bridge was designed by an alum of the University, who gave and interview for the alumni magazine before the bridge was installed. She explained how she and her team of female engineers used ‘female engineering’ to make the bridge lighter. They realized that ‘male engineers’ made bridges heavier than they needed to be by introducing a ‘safety factor’ and redundancy, so the bridge could withstand higher than anticipated loads and a bridge would still stand despite the failure of even cruicial parts. By removing the safety factor and redundancy, she had made the bridge light enough to be lifted into place. The fact that no one reading the alumni magazine sounded the alarm at that is telling (or no one reads alumni magazines). She then used concrete structural members with tensioned steel rods inside them to make them strong…in Florida (the corrosion from Florida’s climate would have destroyed them in a few years). Then, when installing the bridge, they didn’t get the cranes positioned right because there was a curb in the way and no one thought to just…remove the curb. When lifted at the wrong lift points, some of the steel rods were stretched beyond their elastic yield and had gone into plastic yield and ‘necked’ This is known because when they tried to tighten the rods to the proper tension, the torque on the nut DECREASED as they tuned it. They continued to turn the nut anyway, although it was obvious they were just elongating and weakening the rod. Since there was NO safety factor, the failure of any 1 part would cause the brigde to collapse. You can read the details below. It is actually much worse than I have made it out to be, with incompetence universally found at every step of the way and not one competent person in any of the contractors, subccontractors, or inspectors involved in this case.

    Click to access SPC2002.pdf

    • As someone who studied engineering, I am aghast. This person does other members of her gender a disservice by claiming she does “female engineering”, never mind that she did it badly. Engineering does not have genders. Engineering has “effective” or “stupid”, based on how well the product fulfills its purpose in the environment it was created for. Perhaps she is attempting to claim some biological advantage in connecting emotionally with stakeholders and their needs, which is a good thing to do, but that’s not going to work on the laws of physics or on nature. Empathy mindset is not a substitute for semantics mindset (to run the calculations of the physics) or strategy mindset (to fortify the plan against contingencies).

      I don’t bother labeling mindsets based on gender; that lumps together far too many distinct concepts. I just use foundational concepts like empathy mindset, semantics mindset, strategy mindset, et cetera. That way we know exactly what thought patterns are involved and we don’t make assumptions about how good someone will be at using it. If you’re effective with a mindset, then that’s all we need to know.

  6. “The argument is, to be kind, disingenuous. There is no reliable evidence that diversity in work forces for its own sake confers any benefits to productivity, creativity or success, though a lot of dubious studies make that claim.”

    It depends what we’re talking about. And it depends.

    If we’re talking about a football team, there’s really no argument that the team would be made stronger by a disabled transgender midget…. But it would certainly increase their diversity. So there are obviously situations where “diversity is our strength” is not actually true.

    But are there situations where diversity is *a* strength. If, for example, you’re on the board of a community foundation, at there are only straight white men (or black lesbians, or or or) on the board and in operations, you are almost definitionally missing out on engagement with constituent communities. You do a better job by including more people from different walks of life, different specialties and different experiences.

    But there’s a limit to that. That same board is probably not made better by including a practicing alcoholic. The board is probably not improved by having an imbecile on it. And there’s a question of culture… A board might be improved by having a fundamentalist Muslim or a Hasidic Jewish woman on it, but having both might just be setting the stage for a hate crime.

    As with so many things in life, reality is more complicated than the bumper sticker. While a group *might* be improved by having a diversity of experience, and that diversity of experience *could* be represented by having people with diverse characteristics… The point is to find that sweet spot where you get enough diversity of experience in the same room without causing friction. And as with so many things, progressives miss the point: The reason you’re trying to be diverse is to get a diversity of thought, because some people might have ideas other people wouldn’t. You attempt to get the diversity of thought by getting a diversity of experiences, and you try to get the diversity of experiences by getting a diversity of people. The entire exercise is fundamentally a failure if you get a room full of people who think exactly alike, even if they look different.

    Unless you only look skin deep…. At which point: Great success!

    • Why is diversity only a ‘strength’ in majority Caucasian countries? It isn’t in Mexico, China, Japan, or anywhere in Africa. In fact, in South Africa, diversity (whites present) is considered a problem. Nobody is demanding that China import a large number of Africans or hispanics to diversify the country. No one even asks China to take in African of Middle Eastern refugees, but they do demand it of Sweden.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.