San Francisco: “You’ve Done An Exemplary Job, John, And You’re Out, Because You’re A White Male…” [Corrected]

You have to hand it to the San Francisco Elections Commission. It was open, transparent and honest, and presented its compensatory racism without shame or obfuscation. This is, however, because in the Bizarro culture of San Francisco, “good” discrimination because of race and gender is nothing to be ashamed of. From the moment that “diversity-equity-inclusion became the latest woke buzz term, this episode was inevitable. The question, after the heads of all rational Americans stop exploding like Krakatoa, is “Now what?”

San Francisco Department of Elections director John Arntz has run the elections for the county and the city for 20 years. The San Francisco Elections Commission praised Arntz for his “incredible leadership,” but voted 4-2 not to renew his contract. Though all twelve election directors signed a letter requesting that Arntz be reappointed, he is now out of a job. Election commissioners were clear that their decision to dismiss him had nothing to do with inadequacies in his effectiveness in performing his duties, but, it was explained, there are more important things than being good at your job.

“Our decision wasn’t about your performance, but after twenty years we wanted to take action on the City’s racial equity plan and give people an opportunity to compete for a leadership position,” said commission president Chris Jerdonek to Arntz in an email. He was told that he could re-apply for his job. That’s nice, considering that in 2021, the Elections Commission wrote to the mayor that “San Francisco runs one of the best elections in the country and we believe this transparent process has allowed us to continue to improve our elections.” The year before, it commended Arntz “for his incredible leadership … The Department successfully ran two elections this year while facing significant challenges, including national threats to election security, mandatory vote-by-mail operations to all registered voters, anticipated increase in voter participation, budget cuts, and the COVID-19 pandemic.”

So it’s only fair that he gets the chance to compete for the job he has already done impeccably. It’s really too bad that he’s white. Oh well.

Now it’s up to Arntz whether he’s going to be a good American and an Ethics Hero and make an appropriate stink in the media, or be an Ethics Dunce, a weenie, and complicit in the establishment of anti-white racial discrimination as a cultural norm.

[Notice of Correction: Ugh. In the original post, I stupidly stated that Arnstz’s fate was illegal. It would be if he were fired, but he wasn’t: he just was told that his contract wouldn’t be renewed. Ethically, there’s no distinction: it’s still discrimination. Legally, however, it is very different. This racial prejudice is entirely legal. He may have a ground for a suit if he applies for his old job and can show he wasn’t hired because of his race. Thanks to Paul Compton for pointing out my carelessness.]

San Francisco has long been Patient Zero in a national outbreak of ethics and democracy rot. Victims and those who understand the meaning of equality under the law must stop being intimidated by accusations of “white supremacy” and meet this threat head on.

Bonus question: How long will it take the mainstream media to report this story?

[Added: Legal Insurrection has an excellent post on this story here.]

11 thoughts on “San Francisco: “You’ve Done An Exemplary Job, John, And You’re Out, Because You’re A White Male…” [Corrected]

  1. They could always give him a lump sum payment in addition to his pension to walk away, which is a fairly common practice when you are trying to bring in new blood or at least bring in your own people.

  2. Oh, come now! In the Bizarro World that is wokeism, “nobody has the right to the job of choice”, right? Just like no one has the right to go to the college of his or her own choosing and no one has the right to be a Supreme Court judge.

    The fact that they are so transparent means that either A) they expect him to be a good team player and bow out gracefully and/or B) they think the population is intimidated/re-educated/idiotic (take your pick) enough to think this is acceptable.

  3. I find it hard to believe that there weren’t any pale male humans in leadership positions doing a less than “incredible” job who could have been replaced by promising applicants from a variety of ethnicities to get their communities more connected to structures of government. Therefore, my paranoia is bidding me ask the question, of all people they could have replaced to meet diversity goals, why would they prioritize replacing a skilled director of the Department of Elections?

    (I don’t make a habit of rhetorical questions, because they’re just invitations for people to make assumptions about the answers. I take questions seriously, and believe this question is worth investigating.)

  4. Well, he is supposedly a Republican (on top of being white straight male). So I am only surprised it took this long to show him the door

  5. It seems that the dozen people who worked under Arntz sent a letter endorsing renewing his contract, as did the people who would be deciding upon that renewal. The PERS in California actually pays its retirees nearly 100% of their wages & maintains its benefits, too.
    After 20 years, Arntz may welcome this decision and not want to bother with litigation, but there are very many lawyers in San Francisco that are probably salivating over this obvious unlawful race-based termination.
    That his staff wants Arntz to continue bodes well for the likelihood of a lawsuit; having staff write an unsolicited letter asking for Arntz’s contract to be renewed leads me to think that he was a great boss who might feel he owes it to his staff to fight this.
    Of course, there may be some financial perks on offer if Arntz doesn’t sue, but that’s speculative and Arntz prizes transparency; I’d expect him to say something to explain why he isn’t pursuing litigation. Or he could be Woke.
    Bonus Q, I expect any news coverage of this to disparage Arntz as a White Supremacist for not bowing out.

  6. Given that he is(was) on a contract which I gather had expired; does he have a legal leg to stand on in court?

    There is the ‘ we want diversity” thing of course, but …… end of contract, there isn’t a requirement to extend?

    Hopefully some other commission snaps him up and San Francisco just continues to swirl down the drain!

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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.