What’s wrong with affirmative action?

Affirmative action openly favors women and certain visible minorities (Blacks, hispanics, First Nations); it discriminates against white men and even more so against high achieving minorities such as Asians and Jews.  In academics, throw out the CV’s of the majority and look only at the diverse candidates.   That is a recipe for a disastrous decline in standards and a glaring qualitative discrepancy not only between men and women in the field but between the different races.  I don’t see how that can create better education; if you want good education, you have to choose the best and brightest in the field; if that leads to having 100% of the professors in your faculty being Jewish or Asian men, then so be it.  Affirmative action is social engineering that breeds contempt and animosity, as do all forms of favoritism.  I  stopped looking for a job in academics for this reason.  It is an Atlas shrug.  Why bother sending in a CV if you know it will be thrown in the trash because it is not from a woman or a desired minority?  It is a waste of a postal stamp.  And given this experience, don’t expect me to celebrate “diversity” in higher learning.

This is why I like DIY investing.  It’s “welcome to the real world” time (the red pill), not some virtual academic experience (the blue pill) where all that really matters is diversity.  I don’t get special treatment or discrimination because I am a minority.  It’s just me and the market.  Imagine if some one said to you, “Oh because you are woman, we’re going to lower your commission rate”, or “We will give you $0.50 per share more for your stock sales.”

Affirmative action is the tacit admission that you can’t make it without some special help.  It is a confession that you are too dumb to make it without our help.  It is the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Half-Korean basketball players for social justice and egalitarianism!

I got into this discussion at Prof. Stackhouse’s blog about affirmative action.  I contended that it has watered down academics by filling empty academic posts first from the handful of women candidates instead of also taking into consideration the much larger pool of white angry males.  When Wayne Park called this point into question, I wrote:

I for one do not believe that the sacrifice of quality at the altar of diversity has been beneficial to academic standards in higher learning. Before I started job hunting, one of the colleagues in my field, explained to me how they did a job search at his California University (this was in circa 1994). He testified that they would receive maybe 100 applications. They would take the 95 or so from men and file them in the trash. Then they would choose three from the five women applicants and interview them, and then choose the best candidate from those three.

This means then that a woman can find a job in academics quite easily and men have a much harder time. This scenario is confirmed even by Prof. Stackhouse own confession above. Faculties will go out of their way to “recruit” women; but to hire a man, they just have to post the position and the applications come in.

The same holds true for racial minorities of the correct sort–forget it if you are either Jewish or Asian; that won’t help, because these are over-represented minorities–in fact only the best Chinese or Jewish kids can even get into some schools.

Now imagine if they did this with the NBA. Ok. We are going to give half-Korean men (they are underrepresented in the NBA, quelle horreur!) and females the preference for hiring. How long would it be before people would stop even watching the NBA and just start watching European league basketball instead? But in academics they’ve been selecting the team not to win championships (based strictly on the people with the best talent and the strongest dossier) but to create diversity–then telling the entire world that the team is better because of it. Well perhaps the faculty page on the website looks less monolithic, but I would rather watch European league academics where the concept of diversity has been much slower in catching on.

Wayne Park then proceeded to insinuate that I believed that white Europeans are more intellectual than other races, not to mention that he found my comments demeaning to women.  Also, he did not like that I used “sarcasm”.  My comment about half-Korean men in the NBA was the point of contention and he did not find the analogy helpful.  I guess I made the mistake of forgetting that I guy named “Dunn” should not assume that guy name “Park” would immediately understand such a line to be self-deprecating humor but would perhaps consider it instead an attack on Koreans in general. But maybe it is a good question:  why aren’t there more half Koreans in the NBA?

Where am I supposed to go after all?  Studies have shown that half Koreans excel in the academy, and so we find no special treatment there.  If anything, we are lumped with other over-acheiving Asians and discriminated against.  Full Koreans in Korea generally appreciate purity– have you ever played the Asian game Mah Jong? My Korean grandparents taught me when I was eleven; the game rewards every conceivable form of purity and eschews mixture: a game with a mixture of pung and chow is called a “chicken hand” and is considered worthless.  I am a person of Korean and white race (mostly Scottish) and am therefore a “chicken” person.  So I won’t get any special favors if I went to Korea.  The special word for half-breed in Korea is togee or something like that.  I learned the word years ago from an article about a poor, starved half-Korean girl who was adopted by American parents.

So even though I have a degree from the University of Cambridge, and very high g.p.a. from both Regent College and my undergraduate studies, nobody has ever offered me a full-time job in academics.  So I feel free to express bigoted comments about the academy, though I have many friends who are academics.  When you hear about how people bend over backwards to hire blacks African-Americans, Hispanics, white et al. women, and First Nations, it’s maddening.  I mean I’ve often considered changing my last name to Muktuk and saying that I grew up in Bethel, Alaska, of a Yupik father and a white mother–I know just enough of the language to be able to fake it in the interview, arigato very much.  My brother’s best friend in high school was half Yupik, half white, and looked a lot like him, and their teachers mixed them up. So I could do it, and then I’d be on the short list for every job I applied for.

So why not the NBA?  Why shouldn’t social justice and egalitarianism for half Koreans start with the NBA?  My high school basketball coach did a short stint with the LA Lakers, but I don’t think he really liked me, and he certainly gave me no playing time; he seemed to prefer the high-flying African Americans to me and my steady set shot.  Ok, so I’m 5 ft, 9 8 in. with 26.5 inch inseam.  My standing vertical jump is about six inches.  But I can shoot a mean three-point shot; the NBA player that I try to emulate is Steve Kerr.  My high scoring game was 44 points; it was circa 1984 at Northwest College, an intramural game–ok, I admit that the other team only had four players.  So I think in order to give half Koreans a step up, they should get preferential treatment in the NBA.  Every single NBA team should be required by law and social pressure to hire at least one half Korean.  I volunteer to play on the Raptors.  I would be at the same time the first half-Korean and the oldest player in NBA history.

The one great thing about DIY trading is that nobody asks you your race when you trade, unlike the US census.  It’s anonymous.  And as a half Korean, a member of a despised group both in Korea and in the other half of the world, I find great solace and refuge in that anonymity.

C. Edmond Wright, shrugging entrepreneur

C. Edmond Wright has become one of my favorite writers at the American Thinker.  He is an entrepreneur who closed his business on the day that President Obama was elected.  He explains today why he considers that to have been the right choice.  In his article today, “Dear Mr. President: Why We Are Not Hiring” he trys to explain to Mr. Obama about risk [italics his]:

And since you clearly do not understand business at all, let me give you a short primer:

Any business idea, from the first day it is hatched, is nothing more than a series of cost-benefit analyses that the idea-holder either acts on or passes on. Sometimes the first decision is to forget the idea. Sometimes the first decision is to move ahead and invest some cash.

Perhaps a few million cost-benefit analyses later, you might have Microsoft or Home Depot or ESPN. Or you might have Bill’s Plumbing or Johnson’s Quality Homes or a café or an electrical wholesaler, and so on. And those businesses still operate on a constant stream of risk-reward decisions. In the business world, there is no neutral gear.

(There: Now you have more useful information than Jamie Gorelick or Franklin Raines got from Harvard.)

Thus, each time a risk factor is changed, the small business man has to determine whether he is going to hire, retain or layoff employees.  One huge risk factor in the US is the promise to raise tax on people making over 250K (or was it 100K? the number keeps changing).  Many limited partnerships and sole proprietorships are thus exposed to the full brunt of such taxes. Thus, the risk response will be to lower the number of employees and make less than that threshold where the extraordinary taxes kick in.  It is a promise based upon class envy and populism, and it is a real job killer.  The small business owner will not risk great amounts of capital unless the reward is also great.  Therefore, most will simply downsize their businesses to the point where they have few or no employees, or they will just simply shut their business down completely.  Now, the Bush tax cuts are expiring and there will be across the board tax increases on everyone.  This will obviously not help the employment situation in the US either.

Mr. Wright also mentioned how the environmental movement has sabotaged energy production in the USA and has increased the risk to business by raising the cost of energy.  Yet much of the current environmental pressure is focused on AGW (anthropogenic global warming), which is a hoax and based on counterfeit science.

Well, Mr. Wright, I for one have greatly benefited from this energy crisis because I’ve invested in Canada’s mid-cap (e.g., cpg, erf, nae.un) and junior oil and gas companies (mel, cta, psx, mox).  Now that Obama has announced further plans to remove tax cuts from oil drilling in the US, we can expect the whole Canadian oil industry to take off, as long as nothing stupid is done on the levels of our provincial or federal governments here in Canada, such as cap and trade or carbon tax.  (Perhaps the Luddites of the environmental movement want us to live as poor primitive peoples–but I’ve been to place where people live like that and I don’t know a single sane person who would ever choose to live like that.)

This is my comment on Mr. Wrights article at American Thinker:

Posted by: pwdunn Feb 12, 06:52 AM


Mr Wright: I found your article riveting; I too have decided to shrug for 12 years now for two reasons: (1) Taxes in Canada are so high that my wife already works for all levels of government until June 11th  or something like that [**actually June 17], and so why would I want to work for 6 months of the year for government as well? (2) I could teach at University level but I am neither black nor a woman, nor any other under-represented minority (actually I belong to an over-represented minority)–thought about changing my name to something Yupik, and I’d get a job in minute–but then who wants to be involved in higher education when the profs are hired on the basis of their gender or skin color. Not me.

More articles like this from business people would be greatly appreciate. Thank you American Thinker!