Title VII and Title IX as well.
See the definitions of these “titles” here at this link.
I have previously written about, and advocated for, Salter’s idea of “Democratic Multiculturalism” – that White majorities should demand a seat at the multicultural table and use the System’s mechanisms of multiculturalism to advocate for White interests. Multiculturalism is defined (as Salter reminded us) as a system in which minorities are empowered and are encouraged to mobilize for their interests, while majorities are disempowered and demobilized. If that is so, then forcing the multicultural system to allow for majority mobilization will, by definition, make that system untenable, destabilize it, and heighten the contradictions, and lead, eventually, to its demise. There is a saying – “if everyone is my brother, then I have no brother.” Likewise, if every group tales advantage of multiculturalism, then there is no multiculturalism.
Always remember Suvorov’s Law of history – revolutions do not typically occur during the time of greatest repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed. That is why it is imperative to put pressure on the System, at its weakest points, to force concessions and force relaxation of the repression. Exploiting the “titles”- VI, VII, and IX – is an excellent place to start.
I will concentrate on Title VI here, but what is written applies equally well to the others. All are ripe for exploitation by a properly leveraged attack of Democratic Multiculturalism.
Read this. That is open anti-White hatred and discrimination at an academic institution that no doubt falls under Title VI (as well as VII and IX).
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. All federal agencies that provide grants of assistance are required to enforce Title VI. The U.S. Department of Education gives grants of financial assistance to schools and colleges and to certain other entities, including vocational rehabilitation programs.
Examples of discrimination covered by Title VI include racial harassment, school segregation, and denial of language services to English learners. A fuller list of Title VI issues OCR addresses appears here. The U.S. Department of Education Title VI regulation (Code of Federal Regulations at 34 CFR 100) is enforced by the Department’s Office for Civil Rights.
The Title VI regulation prohibits retaliation for filing an OCR complaint or for advocacy for a right protected by Title VI. Title VI also prohibits employment discrimination, but the protection against employment discrimination under Title VI is limited. As a result, most complaints OCR receives raising race, color, or national-origin discrimination in employment are referred to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
A fair and just reading of Title VI clearly shows that White students are being targeted for repression at Western Connecticut State, and a legal case can and should be made that that institution is in violation of Title VI and should have all federal funding and assistance cut.
If an institution attacks Whites to such an extent that they would attempt to expel a student for saying “it is OK to be White” then this can be construed as a Title VI violation against Whites. One can think of a myriad of other anti-White academic activities that constitute a hostile environment for White students, and for which the institution should be sued under Title VI. There are lawyers and legal foundations who have in the past taken on academia from a rightist legal standpoint, we need more such persons and foundations, ones even more “vanguard” in their outlook, willing to begin and sustain an unrelenting legal assault on academia on this issue. It doesn’t matter if, in the short term, such legal actions will meet with defeat. The actions, and the resulting publicity, will put pressure on the System at a weak point. It will mobilize Whites. It will heighten the contradictions. It should be supplemented with political, social, and economic activism targeting the academic institutions in question. There should be a multi-pronged assault on the issue, continuous and unrelenting. Why should these institutions get federal aid if they are so openly violating Title VI for Whites? No more assistance! No more financial aid for the students of such a racist institution! The very act of filing these Title VI suits – regardless of the initial outcome – will be a step in the right direction, a step toward majority mobilization as part of Democratic Multiculturalism. The time to start is now.
Again, remember Suvorov’s Law – revolutions do not occur at the time of greatest repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed.
Worse is not always better.
There are of course mighty obstacles. The System with its legal apparatus has already tried to define anti-White discrimination as “non-discrimination” and thus acceptable. Let us look at this, returning at the end to discuss how all of it can be leveraged against the System.
Thus, let’s consider what Whites are up against, how “non-discrimination” is utilized to viciously discriminate against Whites, particularly White men – a tactic successful mostly because feckless, cowardly Whites refuse to fight back, refuse to sue, refuse to protest, and refuse to utilize whatever social, political, and economic power they do have to exert force for change.
Principle 4: Financial Aid To Create Diversity
America is unique because it has forged one Nation from many people of a remarkable number of different backgrounds.
America is certainly unique. It is also in terminal decline – and for the reason stated.
Many colleges seek to create on campus an intellectual environment that reflects that diversity.
Now, how does “different backgrounds” affect the “intellectual environment?’’ Only if that “diversity” leads to diversity of thought and ideas. But the exact opposite occurs. As schools become more demographically diverse, intellectual diversity dwindles to nothing – it is in fact actively suppressed – to reach the real goal of a demographically diverse student body who share exactly the same social and political beliefs.
A college should have substantial discretion to weigh many factors – including race and national origin – in its efforts to attract and retain a student population of many different experiences, opinions, backgrounds, and cultures – provided that the use of race or national origin is consistent with the constitutional standards reflected in Title VI, i.e. , that it is a narrowly tailored means to achieve the goal of a diverse student body.
Who defines “narrowly tailored?” Why is a “diverse student body” desirable? What about political diversity?
There are several possible options for a college to promote its First Amendment interest in diversity. First a college may, of course, use its financial aid program to promote diversity by considering factors other than race or national origin, such as geographic origin, diverse experiences, or socioeconomic background. Second, a college may consider race or national origin with other factors in awarding financial aid if the aid is necessary to further the college’s interest in diversity. Third, a college may use race or national origin as a condition of eligibility in awarding financial aid if this use is narrowly tailored, or, in other words, if it is necessary to further its interest in diversity and does not unduly restrict access to financial aid for students who do not meet the race based eligibility criteria.
Laugh – “does not unduly restrict access to financial aid for students who do not meet the race-based eligibility criteria.” They can’t get the aid, but, hey, they are not unduly restricted by that. The argument will then be that schools have unlimited financial resources, so there is no zero sum game, which is an outright lie.
Among the considerations that affect a determination of whether awarding race-targeted financial aid is narrowly tailored…
Again, “narrowly tailored” is never defined.
…to the goal of diversity…
Why is that a goal? What kinds of diversity?
…are (1) whether race-neutral means of achieving that goal have been or would be ineffective…
Of course they are ineffective, because some groups are less intelligent and less competent than are others.
….(2) whether a less extensive or intrusive use of race or national origin in awarding financial aid as a means of achieving that goal has been or would be ineffective; (3) whether the use of race or national origin is of limited extent and duration and is applied in a flexible manner; (4) whether the institution regularly reexamines its use of race or national origin in awarding financial aid to determine whether it is still necessary to achieve its goal; and (5) whether the effect of the use of race or national origin on students who are not beneficiaries of that use is sufficiently small and diffuse so as not to create an undue burden on their opportunity to receive financial aid.
If any of those criteria were fairly considered from the perspective of Whites having legitimate interests as do all other peoples, then such programs would not pass the Title VI test.
If the use of race or national origin in awarding financial aid is justified under this principle, the college may use funds from any source.
Sure! Not for you, Whitey!
Principle 5: Private Gifts Restricted by Race or National Origin
Title VI does not prohibit an individual or an organization that is not a recipient of Federal financial assistance from directly giving scholarships or other forms of financial aid to students based on their race or national origin. Title VI simply does not apply.
The provisions of Principles 3 and 4 apply to the use of race-targeted privately donated funds by a college and may justify awarding these funds on the basis of race or national origin if the college is remedying its past discrimination…
Who decides whether there was past discrimination? Answer – those getting the money and those eager to give out the money.
…pursuant to Principle 3 or attempting to achieve a diverse student body pursuant to Principle 4. In addition, a college may use privately donated funds that are not restricted by their donor on the basis of race or national origin to make awards to disadvantaged students as described in Principle 1.
The students who get aid, and who are also given preferences in admission, are “disadvantaged.” Those being actively discriminated against are “advantaged” and “privileged.” Got it!
Finally, the burden on those who are excluded from the benefit conferred by the classification based on race or national origin (i.e., non-minority students) must be considered.
Laughable. In reality, the only consideration made is that if Whites suffer, that is good. White suffering is an essential feature of the system in play here.
Id., at 171. A use of race or national origin may impose such a severe burden on particular individuals – for example, eliminating scholarships currently received by non-minority students in order to start a scholarship program for minority students – that it is too intrusive to be considered narrowly tailored. See Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. at 283 (use of race in imposing layoffs involves severe disruption to lives of identifiable individuals). Generally, the less severe and more diffuse the impact on non-minority students, the more likely a classification based on race or national origin will address this factor satisfactorily. However, it is not necessary to show that no student’s opportunity to receive financial aid has been in any way diminished by the use of the race-targeted aid. Rather, the use of race-targeted financial aid must not place an undue burden on students who are not eligible for that aid.
Who defines “undue burden?” That’s right – those in favor of handouts to Coloreds.
A number of commenters argued that race-targeted financial aid is a minimally intrusive method to attain a diverse student body, far more limited in its impact on non-minority students, for example, than race-targeted admissions policies. Under this view, and unlike the admissions plan at issue in Bakke, a race-targeted financial aid award could be a narrowly tailored means of achieving the compelling interest in diversity.
“Compelling interest.” Laughable. How come there is no similar “compelling interest” for intellectual and political diversity?” Why is the “compelling interest” only to have a demographically diverse group of students all of who have – or pretend to have – exactly the same sociopolitical views as each other?
The Department agrees that there are important differences between admissions and financial aid. The affirmative action admissions program struck down in Bakke had the effect of excluding applicants from the university on the basis of their race. The use of race-targeted financial aid, on the other hand, does not, in and of itself, dictate that a student would be foreclosed from attending a college solely on the basis of race.
Sure! After all, if a poor White cannot afford college but is not eligible for race-based financial aid, that doesn’t preclude them from college! Take out ruinous loans, Whitey! Rob a bank! That’s the ticket! And if a wealthy Negro gets race-based financial aid, why that’s too bad on you, Whitey! It’s “narrowly tailored” and all!
Moreover, in contrast to the number of admissions slots, the amount of financial aid available to students is not necessarily fixed.
Sure! Schools have unlimited funds! Or perhaps they would, if they didn’t pay (anti-White) administrators bloated salaries that far surpass that given to the President of the United States.
For example, a college’s receipt of privately donated monies restricted to an underrepresented group might increase the total pool of funds for student aid in a situation in which, absent the ability to impose such a limitation, the donor might not provide any aid at all.
Certainly! If the money can’t be given to Coloreds, don’t give it at all! Let Whitey pump gas for a living! If a wealthy Negro can’t get financial aid, then no one can!
Even in the case of a college’s own funds, a decision to bar the award of race-targeted financial aid will not necessarily translate into increased resources for students from non-targeted groups. Funds for financial aid restricted by race or national origin that are viewed as a recruitment device might be rechanneled into other methods of recruitment if restricted financial aid is barred. In other words, unlike admission to a class with a fixed number of places, the amount of financial aid may increase or decrease based on the functions it is perceived to promote.
Please read the above paragraph very carefully. What it is saying is this: Even if you were to strike down as unconstitutional giving race-based financial aid, the schools – in their hate-filled animus toward Whites – would not rechannel that money into race-blind financial aid. They would simply invent new programs to skirt the law so as to enable Coloreds, rechanneling the money to Colored pockets, anything to avoid giving Whites a fair chance for a college degree. It’s the same with admissions. “Holistic review” is just a fundamentally dishonest way of enabling racial (and sex) quotas in admissions in an indirect fashion, to comply with the law in a strictly legal manner, but not in spirit. Anything to screw The White Man is acceptable!
In summary, a college can use its financial aid program to promote diversity by considering factors other than race or national origin, such as geographic origin, diverse experiences, or socioeconomic background.
Right! So if you come from a predominantly Black city, come from a high school that is 100% Black, are a member of your high school’s Black Student Union, etc., then, by golly, that’s race-blind admissions! Holistic review!
In addition, a college may take race or national origin into account as one factor, with other factors, in awarding financial aid if necessary to promote diversity. Finally, a college may use race or national origin as a condition of eligibility in awarding financial aid if it is narrowly tailored to promote diversity.
Again: Who defines “narrowly tailored?” Answer: The school administering the program. As well as the leftist judges who rule in favor of viciously racist outright discrimination against Whites.
All of that may be disheartening, but let is take a “glass half full” approach. All those negatives mean that there is much to criticize, much to attack, much “low hanging fruit” for concerted legal, social, and, above all, political methods to be employed to leverage these anti-White policies against the System. Vulnerabilities for the System abound, if only there was a crafty and strategic opponent willing to exploit those vulnerabilities. Consider Title Vi and academia – coupled to the whole affirmative action scam about admissions – all tailor-made to infuriate White students and their families. It is no coincidence that a major focus of “reverse racism” lawsuits have centered on the educational system. In addition to what Title VI can do, Title VII can bring the focus of anti-White discrimination and hypocrisy to the broader arena, and Title IX can focus on anti-male discrimination and hypocrisy. The three “titles” together constitute a weak point for the System, a chink (sorry, Derbyshire) in the System’s armor.
Salter stated that – from the standpoint of a majority being displaced and replaced – the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is one that does, thus ensuring the relatively painless race replacement of the majority. However, as stated above, Democratic Multiculturalism is not stable for the System in the long run, as the whole idea of multiculturalism is empowering minorities and disempowering the majority. A concerted effort of the majority to demand fair treatment under multiculturalism, according to its own standards, would destabilize the entire multicultural system and heighten the contradictions. If the System tries to deny Whites relief under the multiculturalist ethos, the contradictions can be heightened to a point of complete System illegitimacy – and although the System can attempt to maintain the repression, there may be a breaking point at which they’ll have to give in. If they attempt to relieve the pressure by giving in to some White demands, in the hope of appeasing White demands, then Suvorov’s Law comes into play, particularly if there are legitimate White leaders (and not System ringers – always a concern, something we must avoid) who will never be satisfied and will continue upping the demands. Once concessions are made, the floodgates will be opened, and the legitimacy of White interests confirmed.
Getting back to the idea of the System trying to maintain repression – the reason why Suvorov’s Law has been actualized so many times in history is that repression is difficult to maintain at a high level for long periods of time, particularly when the repressed group is the majority – or at least a plurality – of the population. That’s why it is important to get started with Democratic Multiculturalism now, with Whites still a majority, and the “titles” are a good place to start. And remember, I am not saying Title VI legal actions alone, but a concerted effort, including Title VII and IX, as well as all other aspects of anti-White discrimination in society, also using political, social, economic, and other forms of protest. The struggle must be on a wide front, but it needs to start somewhere.