The Civil Rights Act of 1964 vs. Critical Race Theory – Which one is Racist?

Bobblehead DollWhen a government, teacher, business, etc., focus on race as the only issue, racial tensions will increase, and racial problems will abound.  Sort of like focusing on chronic pain makes the pain worse; focusing upon race produces racial issues.  Worse, imagined racial issues will create a reality where those issues are alive and well, for race is the only topic.

Of a truth, often spoken of in these articles, every race man can create to segregate humans into sub-categories, have experienced periods of ostracization, enslavement, racial hatred, and racial segregation.  As a person who identifies his race as AMERICAN and not a color, like a box of Crayolas, I have witnessed man’s inhumanity to man too often to care what race you choose to be.  I have met blonde hair/blue-eyed individuals who report their race as black, blacks saying they are white, adding any other color or racial denomination they desired. The same examples become apparent to others who care to look and listen, for the United Nations affirms that race is a choice and not a biological component of heritage.  When you have met your first Vietnamese-African-Anglo-American Indian, who practices Zen-Buddhism-Catholicism/Judaism, come find me, and we can talk about the racial, ethnic, and religious designations people choose!Andragogy - LEARN

Civil Rights Act of 1964

In 1964, Congress passed Public Law 88-352 (78 Stat. 241).  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.  Provisions of the civil rights act forbade discrimination based on sex and race in hiring, promoting, and firing.  The Act prohibited discrimination in public accommodations and federally funded programs.  It also strengthened the enforcement of voting rights and the desegregation of schools.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 continues to resonate in America. Passage of the Act ended the application of “Jim Crow” laws, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1896 case Plessy v. Ferguson.  The Court held that racial segregation purported to be “separate but equal” was constitutional.  Congress eventually expanded the Civil Rights Act to strengthen the enforcement of fundamental civil rights.Finest Hour

Effectively ending racial discrimination in America, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was approved by a more significant percentage of Republicans than Democrats.  Yet, the Democrats continue to claim they are the banner under which all voices are equal.  While I do not want this article to take on any partisan political banter, the facts are essential to the history of how America adopted the Civil Rights Acts into law.  As always, if you desire more information, feel free to check the links embedded.

Critical Race Theory (CRT)

QuestionHungarian philosopher Georg Lukacs, the neo-Marxist progenitor of critical race theory, once described Critical Theory as being “on the edge of an abyss, of nothingness, of absurdity.”  Critical theory is an approach to social philosophy that focuses on reflective assessment and critique of society and culture to reveal and challenge power structures—with origins in sociology and literary criticism, arguing that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors.  Critical race theory is a philosophy that views everything in public and private life—from the government to business to art and anything in between—through the prism of racial identities.

The worldview is based on critical theory, which originated in Germany after World War I and combined the Marxist belief of an oppressed working class with an opaque description of relative truth.  The philosophy swept through universities in the US in the 20th century.  In the 1960s, theorists claimed American law was systemically oppressive, creating critical legal theory.  By the 1980s, theorists added race, giving us critical race theory.  One of the originators of critical race theory, Derrick Bell, wrote: “We use a number of different voices, but all recognize that the American social order is maintained and perpetuated by racial subordination.”quote-mans-inhumanity

According to Derrick Bell, this means that General George Washington was not a great leader; he was a privileged white boy.  That would make Frederick Douglass only capable because he was black. Turning Rosa Parks’ courageous stand for racial justice and equality into nothing but a gender card play.  When everything is subjugated to race, nothing else matters but race.

Racism, Racist, and Racial – The Story of Three Adjectives

Racism is a noun defined as “The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.”  “Discrimination or prejudice based on race.”  “The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.”  Racist is a proper adjective and is defined as “having, reflecting, or fostering the belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”  Racial is also an adjective and is described as something “existing or occurring between races,” or “relating to or based upon race.”Content of their Character

Interestingly, racism is a noun, not an adjective, even though many desire racism to be an adjective.  The difference being that an adjective describes a noun, and a noun does not, and cannot, describe an action by a person, place, or thing.  Thus, you can have racist individuals, but racism is a noun; it cannot be expressed enough; every race in history has experienced periods of being the aggressor and the oppressed through race.  Worse, when discussing race, racial history, and racial descriptions, plasticity has evolved to continue to allow those desiring an excuse to use racial prejudice as a reason for their actions.

For example, when a store was robbed, the robber claimed that he only robbed the store because the owner was racist.  Intimating that if the owner had not been racist, the store would not have been robbed; not a very flattering or valid excuse for robbing a store, perpetuating violence, or acting in a manner behooving a terrorist.  Yet, this pattern of thinking is prevalent in many places in the world today.

quote-mans-inhumanity-2Digging a little deeper, how does anyone know the store owner was racist or not racist?  Just because an accusation is made does not a reality and truth reveal.  Having been slandered many times by people accusing me of being racist, I know the veracity of this question.  For example, in the US Navy, I was accused of being racist for not showing due consideration to a second-class petty officer speaking ebonics.  At the time, I had no idea what ebonics was, and since this petty officer only spoke ebonics on the ship, I had no idea what I was supposed to do differently.  But, the petty officer complained to the chief, the chief tore me a new one, and I was left confused and angry.

How can a person tell if something is racist?

Believe it or not, there is an easy test to check for racism.  Where is the focus?  Using the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Critical Race Theory, we can quickly tell which is racist by the focus or intent of the work.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was designed to end a focus upon race; CRT is designed to exploit race and focus solely upon race as the preeminent separating force in human relations.  Thus, CRT is racist, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not.  Don’t believe me; look closer at the purpose; CRT has race proudly mentioned in the name, whereas the Civil Rights Act of 1964 focuses on equality under the law of all people.

Knowledge Check!The Civil Rights Act of 1964 aims to place all people on equal legal footings.  CRT aims to rip equality under the law to shreds and put people on unequal footing based solely upon race.  Worse, since the UN has claimed that race is a choice and not a sub-human categorization mechanism, people can choose to adopt the race that is favored to their advantage when placed upon unequal footing under the law.  Thus, how does CRT purpose to halt people from choosing different races to suit their desires for more equal treatment?

© 2021 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved
The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.

Morality, the Vaccine to Envy

Angry Wet ChickenIn reading the news today, under the heading of “equity,” we find masturbation taught to first graders, hardcore porn taught to high schoolers, and San Francisco, CA., sliding into lawlessness and chaos.  Honestly, I felt my mind trying to explode; yet, life must go on.  In several previous posts, I have described how equity is a mask for envy.  For example, sexual grooming of the innocent comes from people envious of the innocent.  The district attorney in San Francisco is envious and uses his envy to gain power and lord that power over those who elected him.

The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints, in their book of scripture The Doctrine and Covenants, Section 121, verse 39, has an applicable declaration.

We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion” [emphasis mine].

Detective 2For those interested, “unrighteous dominion” is considered to be oppression, pride, vain ambitions, and a host of other contention-increasing actions designed to stay in “power” where the exercise of authority can be abused.  For example, the district attorney and staff in San Francisco were informed by those who elected the DA to power that the crime and the lawlessness in the city were hurting them. The DA and staff are reported to have claimed those raising concerns were racist.  The governmental leaders in San Francisco consider themselves as having authority. Yet, they refuse to acknowledge that their “authority” comes from the governed and was granted through the electoral process and can be taken back.  Hence the verse quoted is an excellent description of what is being witnessed today at every level of government.

Various sources define morality; in fact, morality has been considered a philosophical debate, and much is written on this topic.  For this reason, the definition of morality is as follows:

Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper. Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.”

I am not here to dictate what is and is not moral between you, your conscience, and your supreme being worshiped.  However, I will emphasize that America was founded upon the morals of Judeo-Christian theology, and these morals have been a solid anchor in the chaotic push and pull of beliefs and morals across time.  I mention this because that definition of morality opens the doors for people to insist that sexually grooming young children is morally acceptable because they believe that sexual grooming should be universal.  Planned Parenthood, GLAAD, and several other groups believe that sexual grooming and stealing the innocence of youth is required because they personally envy children their innocence.

ModestyBelieve it or not, sex is NEVER free; there will always be consequences.  The 1960s sexual revolution has done more harm globally than any other revolution or clash of arms in history, bringing us back to the topic rather forcefully; morality is the only vaccine to envy.  But, who decides the morality of a nation, a state, a country, or a city?  The electorate as a collective voice selects the morality of that area.  The electorate decides the laws through the ballot box in a representative government.  In a non-representative government, the king, monarch, dictator, etc., dictate the morality of the population, which is one reason why old countries have histories where immorality was rampant as the people followed the examples of the leaders, not the leader’s words.  Want a history lesson in morality and how people copy a leader’s morality, look no further than King Henry VIII of England.

Social Justice Warrior 3Circling back again to how morality is the vaccine for envy, provided the morals involved in supporting morality are selected carefully and exemplified by leaders.  In the discussion on morality, philosophers question if there are absolutes?  Absolute right and absolute wrong, or are morals a gray area where time and social pressure keep everything gray?  Depending upon your appetite and your ability to control your appetites tends to set your moral convictions.

5 Illegal Drugs That Doctors Once Prescribed As Miracle CuresFor example, Playboy and Hustler have made billions of dollars selling sexually explicit content to the masses.  Some participate in pornography; others refuse pornography.  Those who choose to imbibe in pornography live a fantasy life where no woman will ever be good enough to meet the pictures witnessed and the lurid content from the magazines selling appetite suppression.  Both sides of the morality issue will complain they deserve attention and should be free to express their rights.  Both are using the same tool, envy, to make their moral stand become a legal standard.

Who wins and who loses?  Why?  These questions get to the heart of the problem and identify why morality is a vaccine for envy.  Morality, where all men (including women) are equal, would see the chains of pornography and set a moral standard to limit the content to adult audiences.  But, every 10-year old knows a friend whose dad has a subscription and has seen a Playboy or Hustler magazine.  Is this a failure of the law or moral codes; no, it is a failure of parents and parenting.  Yet, society will consider this a social problem. The K-12 educators will become involved in peddling worse to your children, all because of curiosity, failed parenting, envy, all of which stem from moral problems and morality breakdowns in social systems.

Exclamation MarkAs a kid, I remember the fierce debates over convenience stores being allowed to sell adult content, video stores carrying adult movies, and the continued fight over how much is too much in an R-rated, PG-13 rated, and G-rated movies.  Why were these fights and debates occurring; the lude and loose morality of the 1960s perverted sex into being “free,” and morality took a back seat to legal freedoms without accountability and responsibility.  Consider the gargantuan awards against cigarette manufacturers; why were these awards so high, poor moral choices, envy, and a refusal to accept that the daily choice of smoking 5-45 cigarettes is going to cost you your health as a consequence.

Sure, medical professionals peddled smoking as a curative; but they also peddled mercury, heroin, cocaine, and a ton of other chemicals and poisons, and those companies never got in trouble.  So why were cigarette manufacturers singled out; envy and a lack of morality where consequences are accepted for personal behaviors.  Nobody twisted arms and forced anyone to smoke.  Yet, the cigarette manufacturers have been forced to pay for advertising to prevent smoking, smoking cessation classes, and a host of other programs by legal mandate, for the moral failures of people in society.Are You Sure Grandpa Never Took Heroin? You May Be Surprised | BoredomBash

Is the connection clear?  Envy breeds bad case law, which enables poor moral choices without consequences.  Except, the consequences for personal choices cannot ever be escaped!  Therein lay the issue and the answer.  I do not care what moral code you choose to follow, provided that moral code does not infringe upon another person’s rights and liberties; believe who, what, and where you will.  Just understand that your moral code comes with consequences that others should never have to pay for.

Knowledge Check!Equality in the world, since the 1960s, has been a mask for envy.  Through the power of envy, people have become discontent, disabled, and disconnected from morality and the consequences of immoral behaviors.  America stands on a tipping point where envy is concerned, and if we, the citizens who can understand, cannot persuade, educate, and correct this trend line, disaster looms large!  We must recognize that the path of envy, in all its nicer sounding, feel-good imitations, is part of the problem we face!  Yes, I believe in liberty, freedom, the inalienable rights of man.  But freedom, liberty, and the rights of man are not government benefits to be doled out at the whims of bureaucrats.  It is not more government we need when morality is threatened by envy, but less!

© 2021 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved
The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.

Employee Practices – Or ‘More Top Down Government Control’

Over the course of time, the Federal government has exerted control over employment.  Each time control has been exerted, freedoms, money, and precious resources have been squandered, wasted, and lost forever.  The following is a high level overview of the legislation and the costs involved.  There are no political leanings contained herein, simply facts about the costs and the freedoms lost.  Tied to each of these pieces of legislation is the utopian ‘Kool-Aid’ goal of full employment previously discussed.

In brief review, modern employment, as we know it, began with a small change.   Soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen coming home after being drafted to go to war, wanted and needed jobs.  Thus, the Federal Government changed some rules, wrote the legislation, and veteran preference in hiring began.  Sounds good, right?  Everyone loves veterans, so this is going to be a good thing all around; not quite.  By carving out exclusions for veterans, other people wanted to possess special treatment.  These people found lawyers to argue their cause, and special classes emerged for all types of people.  Entire industries have been built to identify, find, and pressure for special classes in the law.

This is not to say some of those people desiring special treatment did not need to have awareness of their particular plight become more known.  For example, people with physical disabilities needed awareness raised to advance hiring practices and level the playing field, but this should not have been a matter for federal legislation.  Each state in the Republic of America was considering laws for physically disabled people.  By forcing federal legislation, states lost the power to dictate, employers lost the freedom to act independently, and those with physical disabilities became second-class employees.  Instead of pride in accomplishment, which was desired while raising awareness, serf-like attitudes and complacency have become the order of the day.

Let us review three federal laws that emerged from these circumstances described above and which influenced employer/employee relations.

Americans with Disabilities Act  – 1990

  • Has its seminal beginning in 1973 Section 504 making it illegal to discriminate against those with disabilities if the organization receives Federal Government subsidies.
    • “No otherwise qualified individual with handicaps in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance….”  (ED.gov, 1995)
    • Classifies disabilities by disease.  Includes “Hidden Disease[s],” is changed constantly to update diseases covered, and dictates the only requirement for the disease is that the disease have a material effect on one’s ability to perform a major life activity.”  (Ed.gov, 1995)
    • Costs to business mostly occur in ‘soft’ costs, i.e., changing procedures, reasonable accommodations, etc.  Something to keep in mind though, “… noncompliance can cost an employer. In fiscal year 2006, for example, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) resolved 15,045 disability discrimination charges and recovered $48.8 million in monetary benefits for workers who did not receive accommodations to which they are entitled under the ADA…”  (Woog, 2008)  Thus, monetarily speaking, noncompliance costs more than compliance.

Monetary issues are not the only costs involved, and the ‘soft’ discrimination of people with disabilities is reported to remain an ongoing problem.  Regardless of size in the organization, employers report a general consensus:  if the costs of compliance are under $500, it “makes sense” to comply.  If more than $500, the employer and disabled person will be at loggerheads.  The reason so many people have problems with compliance is that disability compliance is difficult to prove in the current employee/employer environment.  Shifting the paradigm and hiring by skill set allows the individual to set the work site accommodations, own the solution, and drive relationship.  Pride in accomplishment is lost when government mandates compliance, forming yet another cost.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

  • Begun with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
    • Foundations are discovered in Executive Order 8802, signed by President F. D. Roosevelt, demanding no discrimination based upon Race, Color, or National Origin.  This is the same president with war camps rounding up Japanese descendants and forcing those of German and Italian descent underground, but I digress.
    • Civil Rights Movement forces onto the worldwide stage the disparity between those of color and national descent.
      • Funded by the USSR and other communist and Islamist nations
      • Feeds into the current mindset that those of color should be coddled
      • Strips pride of accomplishment, desire to improve, and need to become better from people of all color, race, and national origin
      • Age discrimination has been added to protected classes against discrimination and the following statistics are known:

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) Charge Statistics for 2008. Private sector discrimination filings with the EEOC for 2008 (95,402) surpassed 2007 (82,792) by a staggering 15% – the biggest jump in the federal agency’s entire 44-year history.

  • Legal fees for lawyers, litigation costs pre-trial, and costs for compliance monitoring and training are substantial outlays for all business organizations regardless of size.  Compliance costs do not include ‘soft’ expenses and, as shown above, compliance costs are never about money alone, but many companies place total costs for compliance in monetary figures between $100,000 to $500,000 depending upon business organization size per claim.

Societal costs are staggering and unsustainable.  The need to both protect against litigation and meet the hiring quotas has, instead of bringing together a unified melting pot, broken the nation along more racial and national lines, pitted the experienced against the inexperienced, slandered age, and destroyed knowledge attainment for political connections.  The death of merit, honor, and dignity has been pronounced if changes to employment cannot occur soon.

Affirmative Action

  • This disaster has lead to such ambiguous terms as “Reverse Discrimination,” “White Guilt,” etc.  Affirmative Action was expected to be a temporary measure, but like all governments everywhere nothing is more permanent than a temporary measure.
  • Empowering judges to litigate from the bench to “correct wrongs.”  While the courts straddle the line about applying affirmative action and EEO, specific mathematical formulas detailing compliance are frowned upon, making compliance costs soar.
  • Closely tied to the utopian use of money to sway society.  Local, state, and federal government call this “investing in minorities and women” by spending prescribed amounts of money solely on business organizations owned by minorities and located in minority areas, all based upon quotas and political leadership.

Affirmative action, more than any other piece of legislation, accrues higher compliance costs.  Most of the legal problems will end in the Supreme Court where the basic price tag is $1 million.  Again, the entire cost of this legislation is not found in dollars and cents, but in mindsets, attitudes, and societal shifting.  The government costs for abiding by their rules is staggering; yet, the costs for businesses, schools, non-profits, etc., is worse.  Disney produced the movie, “Remember the Titans;” in this movie, the head coach and his assistant coach are having a conversation with direct merit to Affirmative Action.  The head coach tells the assistant that he “… [I]s crippling the young black kids… by coddling them.”  Society, since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has crippled black society into being what they are currently, crippled white society, and forged iron chains of captivity around the hands and feet of all Americans in and out of the workforce.

These are but three of the many pieces of legislation stemming from the idealistic desire of the ‘Employment Act of 1946’ and the 1976 revision ‘Full Employment and Balanced Growth Bill.’  Top down government mandates only work in the US Military, and then only rarely work well.  America must re-embrace free enterprise, recognize that knowledge builds value, and exercise the freedom to choose including the inherent responsibility and accountability for consequences.  Until then, employers will continue to be forced into compliance, employees will lose, and politicians at the federal and state levels of government will award winners and losers unequally.

We, the citizens of America, must force the issue of change and reign in government spending, both of which can be accomplished through shifting the employment paradigm from employer/employee relations to an employer/independent contractor model.

© 2012 M. Dave Salisbury

All Rights Reserved

References

Ed.gov. (1995, January 01). The civil rights of students with hidden disabilities under section 504 of the rehabilitation act of 1973. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/hq5269.html

Woog, D. (2008, August 22). What is the real cost of ada compliance?. Retrieved from http://hrpeople.monster.com/news/articles/1073-what-is-the-real-cost-of-ada-compliance