crimeand motivethe media ignored.
by Stephen Webster
September 9, Reginald Carr and his brother Jonathan go on
trial for what has become known as the Wichita Massacre. The
two black men are accused of a weeklong crime spree that culminated
in the quadruple homicide of four young whites in a snowy
soccer field in Wichita, Kansas. In all, the Carr brothers
robbed, raped or murdered seven people. They face 58 counts
each, ranging from first-degree murder, rape, and robbery
to animal cruelty. Prosecutors will seek the death penalty.
The only survivor of the massacre
is a woman whose identity has been protected, and who is known
as H.G. In statements to police and in testimony at an April
2001 preliminary hearing, the 25-year-old school teacher offered
horrible details of what happened on the night of Dec. 14,
2000. That evening, a Thursday, H.G. went to spend the night
at the home of her boyfriend, Jason Befort. Mr. Befort, 26,
a science teacher and coach at Augusta High School, lived
in a triplex condo with two college friends: Bradley Heyka,
27, a financial analyst, and Aaron Sander, 29, who had recently
decided to study for the priesthood.
and Reginald Carr.
When H.G. arrived with her
pet schnauzer Nikki around 8:30 p.m., her boyfriend Mr. Befort
was not there, but the two roommates were. A short time later,
Mr. Sanders former girlfriend, Heather Muller, a 25-year-old
graduate student at Wichita State University who worked as
a church preschool teacher, joined them. At about 9 p.m.,
H.G. went to her boyfriends ground-floor bedroom to
grade papers and watch television. Mr. Befort came home from
coaching a basketball practice around 9:15, and at 10:00,
H.G. decided to go to bed. Before joining H.G in bed, Mr.
Befort made sure all the lights in the house were turned off
and all the doors were locked. Mr. Sander was sleeping on
a couch in the living room while his former girlfriend slept
in the second ground-floor bedroom. Mr. Heyka slept in a room
in the basement.
Shortly after 11 p.m., the
porch light came back on, to the surprise of Mr. Befort, who
was still awake. H.G. says that seconds later she heard voices,
then shouting. Her boyfriend cried out in surprise as someone
forced open the door to the bedroom. H.G saw a tall
black male standing in the doorway. She didnt
know how the man got into the house, and police investigators
have not said how they think the Carrs got in. She says the
man, whom she later identified as Jonathan Carr, ripped the
covers off the bed. Soon, another black man brought Aaron
Sander in from the living room at gunpoint and threw him onto
the bed. H.G. saw that both men were armed. She said they
wanted to know who else was in house, and the terrified whites
told them about Mr. Heyka in the basement and Miss Muller
in the other ground-floor bedroom. The intruders brought them
into Mr. Beforts bedroom.
We were told to take
off all of our clothes, says H.G. in her testimony.
They asked if we had any money. We said: Take
our money . . . Take whatever you want. We didnt
have any (money).
The Carrs, however, were not
at that point interested in money. They made the victims get
into a bedroom closet, and for the next hour brought them
out to a hall by a wet bar, singly or in pairs for sex. In
the closet-perhaps 12 feet away from the wet-bar area-the
victims were under orders not to talk. H.G. says that when
the Carrs heard whispering they would wave their guns and
shout Shut the fuck up.
The Carrs first brought out
the two women, H.G and Heather Muller, and made them have
oral sex and penetrate each other digitally. They then forced
Mr. Heyka to have intercourse with H.G. Then they made Mr.
Befort have intercourse with H.G, but ordered him to stop
when they realized he was her boyfriend. Next, they ordered
Mr. Sander to have intercourse with H.G. When the divinity
student refused, they hit him on the back of the head with
a pistol butt. They sent H.G. back to the bedroom closet and
brought out Miss Muller, Mr. Sanders old girlfriend.
H.G. testified she could hear what was going on out by the
wet bar, and when Mr. Sander was unable to get an erection
one of the Carrs beat him with a golf club. Then, she says,
the Carr brothers told [Aaron] that he had until 11:54
to get hard and they counted down from 11:52 to 11:53 to 11:54.
The deadline appears to have brought no further punishment,
and Mr. Sanders was returned to the closet. The Carrs then
forced Mr. Befort to have intercourse with Heather Muller,
and then ordered Mr. Heyka to have sex with her. H.G. says
she could hear Miss Muller moaning with pain.
Four of their victims.
top left: Jason Befort, Heather Miller, Aaron Sandler,
The Carrs asked if the victims
had ATM cards. Reginald Carr then took the victims one at
a time to ATM machines in Mr. Beforts pickup truck,
starting with Mr. Heyka. While Reginald Carr was away with
Mr. Heyka, Jonathan Carr brought H.G. out of the closet to
the wet bar, raped her, and sent her back to the closet. Reginald
Carr returned with Mr. Heyka, and ordered Mr. Befort to go
with him. Mr. Heyka was put back in the closet but said nothing
about his trip to the ATM machine. Mr. Sander asked Mr. Heyka
if they should try to resist, assuming they would be killed
anyway, but Mr. Heyka did not reply. While Reginald Carr was
away with Mr. Befort at the cash machine, Jonathan Carr ordered
Heather Muller out of the closet and raped her.
When Reginald Carr returned
with Mr. Befort, H.G. volunteered to go next. Mr. Carr let
her put on a sweater, but nothing else, and said he liked
seeing her with no underwear. He ordered her to drive the
truck to a bank, and told her not to look at him as he crouched
in the back seat. I asked him if he was going to hurt
us and he said, No, she says. I said,
Do you promise youre not going to kill us?
and he said, Yes.
H.G. got money from the cash
machine and adds, On the way back, he said he wished
we couldve met under different circumstances. He said
I was cute, and we probably wouldve hit it off.
When the two got back to the house, Reginald Carr raped H.G.
and ejaculated in her mouth. Jonathan Carr raped Miss Muller
again, and then he raped H.G. one more time. Afterwards, the
intruders ransacked the house looking for money. They found
a coffee can containing an engagement ring Jason Befort had
bought for his girlfriend. Thats for you,
he told H.G., I was going to ask you to marry me.
That is how H.G. learned her boyfriend planned to propose
to her the following Friday, Dec. 22.
At one point, says H.G., Reginald
Carr said something that scared me. He said Relax.
Im not going to kill you yet.
The Final Ride
The Carrs led the victims
outside into the freezing night. At midnight it had been 17.6
degrees, and there was snow on the ground. The Carrs let the
women wear a sweater or sweatshirt, but they were barefoot,
and naked from the waist down. The men were marched into the
snow completely naked. The Carrs tried to force all the victims
into the trunk of Aaron Sanders Honda Accord, but realized
five people would not fit, and made only the men get into
the trunk. Reginald Carr ordered H.G. to join him in Mr. Beforts
truck, and Jonathan Carr drove the Accord with the three men
in the trunk and Miss Muller inside. As Mr. Carr drove her
off, H.G. noted the time: It was 2:07 a.m., three hours since
the ordeal began.
After a short drive, both
vehicles stopped in an empty field. Reginald Carr ordered
H.G. to go sit with Miss Muller in Mr. Sanders car.
A moment later, she saw the men line up in front of the Honda.
In her testimony H.G. said, I turned to Heather and
said, Theyre going to shoot us.
The Carr brothers ordered
H.G. and Miss Muller out of the car. Miss Muller stood next
to Mr. Sander, her former boyfriend, while H.G. stood beside
her boyfriend, Mr. Befort. The Carrs ordered them to turn
away and kneel in the snow. As I was kneeling, a gun
shot went off, says H.G. [Then] I heard Aaron
[Sander]. . . . I could distinguish Aarons voice. He
said, Please, no sir, please. The gun went off.
H.G. heard three shots before
she was hit: I felt the bullet hit the back of my head.
It went kind of gray with white like stars. I wasnt
knocked unconscious. I didnt fall forward. Then someone
kicked me, and I had fallen forward. I was playing dead. I
didnt move. I didnt want them to shoot me again.
As H.G. lay in the snow, the
Carrs drove off in Jason Beforts pickup, running over
the victims as they left. H.G. says she felt the truck hit
her body, too.
I waited until I couldnt
hear any more, she says. Then I turned my head
and saw lights going. I looked at everyone. Everyone was face
down. Jason [Befort] was next to me. I rolled him over. There
was blood squirting everywhere, so I took my sweater off and
tied it around his head to try and stop it. He had blood coming
out of his eyes.
In the distance, H.G. saw
Christmas lights. Barefoot and naked, with a bullet wound
in the head, she managed to walk more than a mile in the freezing
cold, through snow, across a field and construction site,
around a pond, and through the brush, until she reached the
house with the lights. She pounded frantically on the door
and rang the doorbell until the young married couple who lived
there woke up. Help me, help me, help me, she
pleaded. Weve all been shot. Three of my friends
are dead. (At the time, H.G. thought her boyfriend was
I rolled him over.
There was blood squirting everywhere. He had blood
coming out of his eyes.
The couple wrapped H.G. in
blankets, and reached for the phone to dial 911, but she would
not let them call. She was afraid she would die, and wanted
to tell what had happened. She described the attackers and
what they did, as the couple listened in amazement at her
courage and determination. Only when she was sure they knew
her story did she let them call the police. Still thinking
she would die, she asked them to call her mother-Tell
her I love her-and her boyfriends parents. She
was worried about the children she teaches, and kept wondering
Whos going to take care of the kids in school?
When the police arrived they
questioned H.G. briefly before paramedics took her to the
hospital. From her description of Mr. Beforts truck,
they were able to get the license plate number from the vehicles
registration records, and put out an alert. As dawn broke,
radio and television stations were broadcasting the plate
H.G. did not know that after
the Carrs shot her friends they drove back to the triplex
and loaded Mr. Beforts truck with everything of value
they could find. They also committed their final killing.
The police found H.G.s pet schnauzer Nikki lying in
a pool of blood on a bed, probably shot.
By 7:30 a.m., police had a
report that the missing truck was outside a downtown apartment
building, and that a black man had been carrying a television
set up to one of the apartments. The police moved in to seal
off the area. Two officers knocked on the door of the apartment,
and after several minutes a white woman named Stephanie Donly
opened the door. She was Reginald Carrs girlfriend,
and shared her apartment with him. Police caught Mr. Carr
as he tried to slip out a window.
The police learned from Miss
Donly that Reginalds brother Jonathan was driving a
late model Plymouth Fury. Shortly after 12:00 p.m. they found
the car parked outside a house in a black part of town. Jonathan
Carr was there with his girlfriend of a few days, Tronda Green.
He bolted when he saw the police, but was caught after a short
chase. Fewer than 12 hours after the murders, Reginald and
Jonathan Carr were both in custody.
That nights quadruple
murder was only the most gruesome of a series of Carr brother
attacks. Late on the night of Dec. 7, 2000-just one week earlier-Andrew
Schreiber, a 23-year-old white man, stopped at a Kum and Go
convenience store in East Wichita. Reginald and Jonathan Carr
forced themselves into his car at gunpoint and made Mr. Schreiber
drive to various ATM machines and withdraw money. I
was just hoping if I did what they said, theyd let me
live, he says. The two split up, and one followed in
another car as they made him drive to a field northeast of
town. There they pistol-whipped him, dumped him out of the
car, and fled in the other vehicle after shooting out Mr.
Four days later, the Carrs
tried to hijack 55-year-old Linda Walentas SUV while
she sat in it in the driveway of her suburban East Wichita
home. The Carrs were looking for an SUV in which to drive
people at gunpoint to ATMs. They thought they could keep their
victims out of sight in a large vehicle as they drove through
town. One of the brothers approached Mrs. Walenta, apparently
asking for help of some kind. She was suspicious because she
thought a car had been following her, and rolled her window
down just a little to hear what he was saying. He stuck a
gun sideways into the opening, and shot her several times
as she tried to drive away. Mrs. Walenta, a cellist in the
Wichita Symphony Orchestra, survived the shooting but was
paralyzed from the waist down. She was able to help police
in their investigation, but died of her wounds three weeks
later, on January 2, 2001.
The fifth murder
victim: Linda Walenta.
Wichita police confirmed the
Carr link to all the crimes when a highway worker found a
black .380 caliber Lorcin semi-automatic handgun along Route
96, a highway near the soccer field where the massacre took
place. The Kansas state crime lab confirmed that it was the
weapon used to kill Mrs. Walenta and H.G.s friends,
and to shoot out the tires of Andrew Schreibers car.
No one knows what other crimes the brothers may have committed,
but they certainly appeared guilty of these.
The Carr trial is scheduled
to start on Sept. 9, but has been delayed by defense maneuvering.
On June 13, Judge Paul Clark denied a motion to move the trial
out of Sedgwick County. The defense cited a poll showing 74
percent of Sedgwick County residents thought the Carrs were
either definitely guilty or probably guilty,
and argued the brothers could not get a fair trial in Wichita.
However, no trial has been moved from Sedgwick County in more
than 40 years, and this one will stay.
The defense wanted separate
trials because the lawyers for each brother will try to blame
the crimes on the other. The lawyers argued they will both
be trying to help convict the other brother, so it will be
like having two prosecutors for each defendant. Prosecutor
Nola Foulston pointed out that many people accused of committing
crimes together are tried together, and since the trial is
expected to last a month and involve 70 witnesses, two trials
would be too much expense and inconvenience.
Jonathan Carrs lawyers
also tried to get him declared unfit to stand trial, but on
April 8, 2002, Judge Clark reviewed the reports of two mental
health experts, and ruled him competent. The reports are under
seal, so the grounds for the motion are not known.
If the Carr brothers
lawyers do try to blame each others client, the jury
will learn that both have long criminal records. Jonathan
Carrs appears to be under seal but at least parts of
his brothers are public. In 1995, Reginald Carr was
sentenced to 13 months in prison for theft. He was also ordered
to serve six months each for aggravated assault and subverting
the legal process. In 1996, he was sentenced to 28 months
on a drug charge. He was paroled on March 28, 2000, but that
November was booked for drunk driving. A few days later he
was back before a judge, charged with forgery and parole violation.
Police mistakenly let him out six months early on Dec. 5,
2000, just two days before he robbed and beat Andrew
Schreiber, and started his week of crime. Had police followed
correct procedures Jason Befort, Bradley Heyka, Aaron Sander,
Heather Muller and Ann Walenta would probably still be alive.
Has No Bearing
Although the perpetrators
are black and all their victims white, the Wichita police
have dismissed race as a motive. Prosecutor Foulston says
the Carr brothers chose their victims at random, not because
they were white, and that the motive was robbery. It
reasonably appears that these were isolated incidents where
individuals . . .were chosen at random . . . a random act
of violence, she says. The fact that the defendants
and victims happen to be of different races has no bearing.
Lets just look at the underlying crimes. The Wichita
media consistently downplayed the racial angle.
However, as news of the crimes
spread across the Internet, many people began to wonder if
the Carrs would be charged with hate crimes. In fact, it does
not appear that Mrs. Foulston or police investigators even
looked for a possible racial motive. According to the testimony
of the April 2001 preliminary hearing, in which prosecutors
determined whether they had enough evidence to support charges,
Mrs. Foulston never asked H.G. or Andrew Schreiber if the
brothers used racial slurs, or expressed hatred of whites.
It is true that Reginald Carr
had a white girlfriend, and it may be that the race of the
victims was unimportant to him. At the same time, Jonathan
Carr wore a FUBU sweatshirt, a brand popular with black rappers
that is said to stand for For Us, By Us. Some
blacks wear FUBU clothing as a statement of black solidarity
if not outright rejection of whites.
Why did five young whites
kneel obediently in the snow, to be shot one by
Louis Calabro of the European
American Issues Forum (EAIF) and a former San Francisco police
lieutenant, has written to Mrs. Foulston describing the FBIs
guidelines for suspecting a hate crime when perpetrator and
victim are of different races. Among them are excessive violence,
a pattern of similar attacks, and the cold-bloodedness of
an execution-style killing. Combined with the torture of forcing
people naked into a freezing night, and the degradation the
Carrs put their victims through, there is ample reason at
least to suspect a racial motivation.
Of one thing we can be certain:
If whites had done something this horrible to blacks, it would
be universally assumed the crime was motivated by racial hatred.
From the outset, police and prosecutors would have investigated
the friends, habits, reading matter, and life history of each
defendant. If either had ever uttered the word nigger,
had a drink with a Klansman, or owned a copy of American
Renaissance, this would be discovered and brandished as
proof of racial hatred. In the Carr case, there appears to
have been no investigation at all. Instead of searching for
possible racial animus, the authorities have simply declared
there was none.
Mrs. Foulston dodges the racial
question by pointing out that Kansas does not have a hate
crime statute, but the state does specify harsher penalties
for bias crimes. Given that the Carr brothers face the death
penalty, this is a moot point, but Mrs. Foulston has made
no attempt to apply these provisions.
Mrs. Foulston knows some whites
are pushing for a hate crimes investigation, and wants to
keep the proceedings secret. She moved to close the court
for the preliminary hearings, saying wed have
to let the Aryan Nations come in here if they decided they
had an interest. At one hearing, reporters heard one
of Mrs. Foulstons aides tell the judge that the press
are interlopers, and the public has no substantial
interest in the case. Fortunately, Judge Clark recognizes
the publics right to observe the proceedings, and opened
them to the public. He did, however, agree to Mrs. Foulstons
motion for a gag order on all lawyers, investigators and witnesses.
The order also prevents release of many records that normally
would be public, including the EMS records, the reports on
Jonathan Carrs mental competence, and records of police
interviews. Mrs. Foulston says secrecy is necessary to ensure
the Carrs get a fair trial, but what is in notes of police
interviews, for example, that is so inflammatory it could
prejudice the public? Evidence of racial hatred, perhaps?
Mrs. Foulston did not ask
for a gag order in the case of another quadruple homicide
in Wichita just eight days before the Carr brothers
massacre. The DAs office says that case, in which murderers
and victims were black, did not generate nearly as many requests
for public records, but in an open society, the more interest
the public shows in information the more available it should
be. Mrs. Foulstons secrecy has led critics to accuse
her of covering up evidence of racial animus. EAIFs
Mr. Calabro believes the assaults and murders were racially
motivated crimes that the DA and city of Wichita have no interest
in pursuing. Del Riley, a white Wichita resident who
has followed the case, says of his reaction to the DAs
secrecy, I wouldnt call it outrage, but Id
call it suspicion. This gag order upsets me.
Where the three
Once again, we can be certain
that if the racial cast of characters were reversed, there
would be no attempt to close the court, and the media coverage-virtually
absent in this case-would be deafening. A white-on-black crime
of this kind would be front-page news for days, and would
probably prompt official condemnation from the President and
Attorney General on down. As we know from the reaction to
the murder of James Byrd, dragged to death behind a truck,
a crime of this sort committed by whites against blacks would
put the nation into an official state of near hysteria.
What if the cast had been
all-white? It would still have been national news. In 1959,
drifters Dick Hickock and Perry Smith murdered the Clutter
family in Holcomb, Kansas. Like the Wichita case, it was a
home invasion, apparently motivated by robbery. Even without
spectacular sexual cruelty, the Clutter killings were front-page
news and the story was immortalized in Truman Capotes
novel, In Cold Blood. Had the Wichita case involved
whites only, the heroics of H.G. alone would have ensured
wide coverage. She would have become a national hero, part
of the folklore of strong womanhood.
What if perpetrators and victims
had all been black? Some in the media would have promoted
the heroism of the woman who lived to tell of the crime, but
others would have stayed away from the story because such
savagery reflects badly on blacks.
When blacks commit outrages
against whites, media executives not only downplay black misbehavior
but believe they must protect whites from negative stereotypes
about blacks. If they must report such crimes, they are likely
to link them to editorials calling for tolerance, and pointing
out that the criminals were individuals, not a race. When
whites commit outrages against blacks there are no such cautions;
white society at large is to blame.
The Carr brothers crimes
were treated to a virtual media blackout. The Chicago
Tribune and the Washington Times appear to be
the only major non-Kansas dailies ever to mention the story.
Their articles briefly described the facts of the case, and
then focused on Internet discussions among whites who thought
the Carr brothers were hate criminals. The Associated Press
ran stories on the crimes, but they do not appear to have
been picked up outside of Kansas. Within the state, the media
dutifully promoted Mrs. Foulstons categorization of
the crimes as random. The networks, of course,
Were it not for the Internet,
the Wichita story would have disappeared. It was only in chat-rooms
and on web pages that the crimes had a national audience.
Several sites, such as www. NewNation.org and www.JeffsArchive.
com, have posted newspaper articles about the crimes. The
main paper that covered the case, the Wichita Eagle,
stores older articles in a fee-charging archive, so these
sites are virtually the only way the public can learn about
It will be surprising if the
trial itself gets national coverage. Kansas permits television
in courtrooms, but so far, the Court TV cable channel shows
little interest in the case despite e-mail requests to its
website at www.CourtTV.com. The Wichita Eagle will
probably offer restrained coverage.
Where the bodies
The police and media reactions
to these crimes-a refusal to think about race, draw larger
conclusions, or even express outrage-are typical of todays
whites, and in stark contrast to the sustained fury we could
expect from blacks if the races were reversed.
Not even the acknowledged
error that resulted in Reginald Carrs early release
seems to upset many people. Bradley Heykas father is
angry, saying he is appalled a mistake like this could
lead to such severe consequences for so many people,
but Aaron Sanders father is passive. It is unfortunate
this happened, but we have to learn to get past that and let
those things go and get on with our life, he says. We
cant deal with how things should have been or could
have been, we can only deal with today.
There were even more cloying
sentiments at the funerals of the young victims. At Jason
Beforts service on Dec. 21, 2000, Rev. James Diecker
told the congregation their attitude towards the killers should
be that of Jesus on the cross, when he said Forgive
them, Father, for they know not what they do. He went
on to call for a victory of love over hate . . . a victory
of mercy over justice.
At Heather Mullers funeral,
Rev. Matthew McGinness struck the same note, saying, We
must be like Christ, who forgave his enemies. He told
the congregation Heathers mother felt the same way,
and had told him, Heather would want us to pray for
her murderers, and Heather was probably praying for them at
the moment of her death.
To what extent does this turn-the-other-cheek
mentality explain why five whites failed to fight back against
two attackers? Three of the whites were young men, surely
capable of serious resistance, and there must have been several
opportunities for it. When one of the Carrs was out at an
ATM machine with a woman, it meant there were three white
men in the house with a lone assailant. While the man was
busy raping a woman, how difficult would it have been to overpower
At some point is must have
become obvious the Carrs intended to kill all witnesses. They
could have had nothing else in mind when they marched the
group into the snow, and tried to stuff all five into the
trunk of a car. There was no more money to be had from ATM
machines. All that was left was to make sure no one could
testify against them.
Why, therefore, did five young
whites-men or women-kneel obediently in the snow to be shot
one by one? Were their spirits completely broken from hours
of humiliation? Were they so stiff from cold they could hardly
move? Or had they simply been denatured by the anti-white
zeitgeist of guilt that implies whites deserve whatever they
get? One does not wish to think ill of the dead, but these
three men showed little manliness.
It is worth noting that in
the home of three young Kansas men there does not appear to
have been a single firearm. No doubt these men believed what
they have been told: that guns are nasty things, best left
in the hands of the police, who will always be there to protect
us. H.G., who is clearly a woman of great determination, testified
that at one point, when she was on her hands and knees and
one of the Carr brothers was unzipping his pants, he laid
a silver automatic pistol on the floor two feet away from
her. She thought about making a grab for it but realized she
had no idea how to operate a gun, and instead submitted to
rape and attempted murder. Had she known how to use a weapon,
her four friends might be alive today.
As for the question of hate
crimes, racially conscious whites would see bias charges as
at least some level of official outrage at the shocking crimes
committed by these two blacks against a series of exclusively
white victims. It is natural for whites to assume that behavior
so vicious and odious must have been driven by consuming hatred.
Most whites cannot imagine treating another human being the
way the Carrs treated their victims unless there were some
terrible underlying animus. Moreover, it is probably safe
to assume that if the races were reversed it could only have
been a crime of racial hatred, and this is probably why so
many whites are furious at authorities who have been so quick
to rule out bias.
She was on her
hands and knees, and one of the Carr brothers
was unzipping his pants. He laid a silver automatic
pistol on the floor two feet away from her. She
thought about making a grab for it but realized
she had no idea how to operate a gun, and instead
submitted to rape.
However, it may be a mistake
to project white sensibilities onto blacks. It may be that
trial testimony or unsealed documents will show a clear racial
motive, but it is also possible no evidence of racial hatred
will ever come to light. It may also be that the Carr brothers
are incapable of analyzing and describing their own motives
with enough intelligence to make it possible for others to
The angry whites do not seem
to realize that what happened on the night of Dec. 14 may
be only a particularly brutal expression of the savagery that
finds daily expression in American crime statistics and African
tribal wars. It may very well be that the Carr brothers are
so depraved they can commit on a whim brutalities that whites
can imagine only as the culmination of the most profound and
sustained hatred. This view, along with whatever it may say
about blacks as a group, is the one the Wichita authorities
have tacitly endorsed-and they may be correct. It is a far
darker view of the Carr brothers to assume that this is simply
the way they are, that they can commit unspeakable acts without
any special motivation, that the Wichita Massacre was nothing
more than two black men on a tear that went wrong.
• • • BACK TO TOP • •
Chronicle of Capitulation
we let in millions of non-whitesand
then gave them preferences.
reviewed by John Harrison Sims
Hugh Davis Graham
Course: The Strange Convergence of Affirmative
Action and Immigration Policy in America
2002, $30.00, 227 pp.
Future historians will wonder
why a country that was democratic and overwhelmingly white
voluntarily opened itself to massive non-white immigration.
They will wonder even more why whites then offered immigrants
racial preferences. Why, in other words, did a predominantly
European nation commit suicide?
Hugh Davis Grahams
Collision Course is an excellent place to begin a
study of this question. The book clearly describes how non-European
immigration and affirmative action became policy despite
overwhelming opposition. What interests Professor Graham
is the legal and political process by which all this happened,
and three questions are central to his narrative: How did
the immigration reforms of 1965 lead to a revival of mass
immigration when this was apparently not the intent of the
reformers? Why did the policy of affirmative action emerge
so soon after the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Why did the federal
government grant affirmative action-intended to redress
the effects of decades of discrimination against blacks-to
newly arrived immigrants?
Prof. Graham, who teaches
history and political science at Vanderbilt University,
does not write from a racial perspective. He does not oppose
the dispossession of whites by non-whites, since he believes
Third-World immigration has helped compensate for
falling birthrates after 1965. He does not understand
the significance of the changes he describes, but his description
of the political processes that brought them about is detailed
The Disaster of 1965
The Immigration and Naturalization
Act of 1965 replaced the national origins quota system,
enacted during the 1920s, with a system of visa preferences
based on occupation and family connections. The 1921 and
1924 laws were surely among the most patriotic and truly
conservative legislation ever enacted by Congress.
Their object was to reduce immigration and to preserve the
existing ethnic and racial composition of the United States.
Not only would America remain a white country, it would
remain predominantly Northern and Western European. The
1924 law capped total immigration at 164,000 and limited
annual arrivals from particular countries to three percent
of the population of that nationality resident in the US
in 1890. Thus, if Italian Americans made up two percent
of the US population in 1890, immigration from Italy could
be no more than two percent of the total. The law also banned
all Asian immigration. In 1952, Congress lifted the Asian
exclusion by passing the McCarran-Walter Act-a prelude to
what was to follow. The justification was that abolishing
the Asian barred zone would help win the Cold
War, since the Soviets were making propaganda in the Third
World about the exclusion.
The legislators who pushed
the 1965 law assured the public that although they were
dismantling the national origins system, the reform would
produce neither a significant increase in immigration nor
any alteration in the racial composition of the country.
Such assurances were necessary because polls revealed that
the public opposed such changes. Prof. Graham assures us
that the reformers were sincere, and that the Third-World
tsunami soon to roll over the country was unintended and
unexpected. Political/cultural elites simply thought the
old quotas were racist, and had to go. Legislators
were more concerned with demonstrating fashionable progressive
values than in tracing out the logical consequences of what
they were doing.
Some groups, however, must
have known what would happen. The most influential lobbying
group was the American Immigration and Citizenship Council,
an umbrella organization that represented Jewish, Catholic,
liberal Protestant, and southern European ethnic associations,
as well as the communist-leaning ACLU and CIO. Prof. Graham
names Jewish leaders and organizations as the most
important, and the driving force at the core
of this movement. Voting in Congress closely followed
the patterns of lobbying: Every Jewish member of Congress
in both chambers voted for it, as did all Catholics in the
Senate and all but 3 (of 92) in the House.
If Prof. Graham had looked
at the sectional pattern of the vote he would have found
that the chief opposition came from the South and the Mountain
West, the two regions least affected by the mass immigration
of the late nineteenth century. Old-stock Protestants living
in those parts of the country relatively untouched by the
previous wave of immigration wisely voted to keep their
country as it was. The immigration reform of 1965 was therefore
passed by the descendants of the new immigrants
who came to America 50 to 80 years earlier. This means that
even after half a century and a 40-year moratorium on new
arrivals, these new arrivals had been only partially assimilated.
Patrick Buchanan has often proposed a five-year moratorium
on immigration to permit assimilation of the 35 million
post-1965 immigrants. If 40 years was not enough for a largely
European population, five years will have little effect
The 1965 reform capped annual
immigration at 290,000 (170,000 for the eastern hemisphere
and 120,000 for the western). Within these two quotas, visas
would be awarded according to one of seven preferences (one
refugee, two occupational, and four family preferences).
These seemingly simple provisions set up the conditions
for endless chain migrations from the Third World. First,
professionals (doctors, scientists, and engineers), most
of whom were educated in the West, applied for skilled occupational
visas granting permanent residency. They could then request
visas for their spouses and unmarried children. Refugees
could do the same. Once our new residents became American
citizens, they could get visas for their brothers and sisters.
The brothers and sisters then repeated the process by requesting
visas for their spouses and children. By the 1980s,
the admissions of brothers and sisters of US citizens accounted
for two-thirds of all family visas. This was the main form
of chain migration.
It is important to remember
that once an immigrant has American citizenship, he is entitled
to bring in his wife, minor children, and parents automatically,
and they do not count toward filling quotas. The result
was that by the 1980s immigration exempt from the
quotas was greater than immigration under the quotas themselves.
For example, in 1985, the ceiling for immigration was 254,000
but total legal immigration was 570,000. Prof. Graham explains
that immigration expansionists invoked family reunification
as a mantra to disarm opponents. This defense was false
and misleading, because every act of immigrant admission
in effect broke up a family and created a chain of potential
reunification claims. If the goal was
to keep families together, a better policy would have been
to prevent Third-World immigration in the first place. And,
of course, if their families are so important to them, immigrants
can always go home.
At the same time, ever-larger
numbers of foreigners were entering illegally. Many millions,
mostly Mexicans and other Central Americans, simply sneaked
across the southern border. Others overstayed various temporary
student or tourism visas, and the INS made only perfunctory
efforts to find them.
Kept out until
Prof. Graham fails to point
out that the refusal of the federal government to enforce
immigration laws was, in effect, a policy decision common
to every administration since Lyndon Johnsons, to
increase immigration beyond the legal limits. He also fails
to explain the effect of granting automatic citizenship
to children born on US soil even if their parents were here
illegally. Since they were now parents of US citizens, they
could not be deported. Their children had a legal right
to attend school, and the family was eligible for welfare.
By the mid-1980s, the public
was beginning to notice the country was filling up with
foreigners, and that Mexicans were spreading everywhere.
Congress responded by passing the Immigration and Refugee
Control Act of 1986 (also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act).
Despite the reassuring title, it increased immigration.
The law had three major provisions: a temporary
guest worker program, an amnesty for illegals who had lived
in the country since 1982, and sanctions for employers of
illegals. Because the public was opposed to amnesty, congressional
supporters promised there would never be another, and that
employer sanctions and guest worker programs would deter
future illegal immigration. They were, to put it charitably,
Prof. Graham argues that
Congress deliberately vitiated employer sanctions by creating
a new justice department agency-the Office of Special Counsel
for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices-to prosecute
and fine employers who discriminated against
foreign-looking workers when verifying their
legal status. Congress also required employers to accept
any two of 30 possible documents (all easily obtained illegally)
as proof of identification. The much-vaunted employer sanctions
were a sham, and the government sent a coded message to
the effect that it would look the other way if companies
Big business had wanted
a pool of low-wage, docile, union-resistant immigrant labor,
and Congress obliged. Virtually every major employer organization
supported Simpson-Mazzoli: the US Chamber of Commerce, the
National Association of Manufacturers, the National Council
of Agricultural Employers, the United Fruit and Vegetable
Association, the National Restaurant Association, and the
Associated Builders and Contractors.
Over the next ten years,
no fewer than one million guest workers received legal residency,
three million illegal aliens were amnestied, and two to
three million illegals who had arrived after 1982
were also allowed to stay. Just as opponents of amnesty
had predicted, illegals poured into the country, and employers
rushed to hire them. The new influx was so great that by
2001, there were at least ten million illegals in the country,
and the Bush administration was pushing for another amnesty.
If the 1980s were a decade
of defeat, the 1990s were a rout. Only four years after
Simpson-Mazzoli, Congress raised the legal ceiling from
500,000 to 700,000, created new diversity visas
for people from underrepresented countries,
and launched a new temporary worker program
(H-1B) to issue 65,000 visas a year to high-tech workers.
Polls continued to show the public wanted less immigration,
but Congress gave it more. In 1998, it raised
the annual number of H-1B visas to 115,000, and in 2000
increased the figure to 195,000. In late 2000, Congress
passed, and President Clinton signed, a law granting permanent
legal residency to 500,000 illegal aliens and refugees from
El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Haiti.
Why does Congress continue
to defy the will of the majority? Prof. Grahams answer
is that the coalition of interest groups in favor of immigration
had grown so powerful by the 1990s that it could dictate
policy. The left wing of the coalition included the same
groups as in 1965-the ACLU, Jewish organizations, the US
Catholic Conference, the National Council of Churches, Northern
Democrats, the congressional Black Caucus-and had grown
to include immigration lawyers, the AFL-CIO, the congressional
Hispanic Caucus, and the new Arab, Asian, and Hispanic ethnic
lobbies produced by the post-1965 immigration. Even the
Sierra Club, the nations most powerful environmental
lobby, joined the open-borders coalition after opposing
immigration for decades.
The right wing
of the coalition included the US Chamber of Commerce, the
National Association of Manufacturers, fruit and vegetable
growers, the meat and poultry processing industry, the business
press (especially the Wall Street Journal), conservative
think tanks (Heritage, American Enterprise Institute), libertarian
think tanks (CATO, the Foundation for Economic Education,)
the Christian Coalition, and the Republican Party. In the
face of all these and a hostile media as well, it is clear
why groups like the Federation for American Immigration
Reform and the American Immigration Control Foundation have
had so little effect.
Business and the Republicans
are now squarely on the side of more immigration. Not only
have corporations funded the pro-immigration lobby, they
have themselves lobbied to open the floodgates. Since the
1980s, every immigration expansion and amnesty has either
been passed by a Republican Congress or signed by a Republican
president. Corporations want more pliant workers, and many
Republicans simply vote the way the Chamber of Commerce
tells them. At the same time, Republicans crave respectability,
and nothing so terrifies them as the cry of racism.
When corporate interests and politically correct ideology
converged in the 1980s, Republicans were quick to betray
their white voter base.
The Civil Rights Revolution
Because so many post-1965
immigrants were non-white, immigration inevitably became
caught up in the civil rights and preference
debates. Still, Prof. Graham first wants to know how the
civil rights movement, which he believes was about individual
rights, equal opportunity, and color blindness, so quickly
turned into demands for group rights and racial preferences.
His account of how it happened is quite good.
The Civil Rights Act of
1964 was a revolutionary piece of legislation. It banned
racial discrimination in all public accommodations (restaurants,
hotels, etc.), in the workplace (in companies with 25 or
more workers), and created the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission to root out discrimination. It was a huge expansion
of government power that subjected private business and
employment decisions to government scrutiny. Still, Section
703 (j) stated that the law did not require employers to
grant preferential treatment to any individual or group
on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect
to the total number of or percentage of persons of any race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin. Supporters
cited this language to deny charges that the law would lead
to racial quotas. Sen. Hubert Humphrey dismissed such fears
as a bugaboo, and vowed famously to eat the
pages of the civil rights bill one after another
if there were ever quotas. Yet before the end of the decade,
the federal government was pressuring private employers
to adopt racial quotas (disguised as goals and timetables),
and to give preferences to non-whites.
Prof. Graham is shocked
that the EEOC, which in adopting race-conscious remedies
in the late 1960s, indisputably violated its own founding
charter, Title VII, and got away with it. He does
not understand that the logic of quotas and preferential
treatment was inherent in the act itself. The only way to
be certain an employer was not discriminating was to count
his employees and make sure there were enough non-whites.
Because blacks were broadly less competent than whites,
the only way to hire enough of them was to discriminate
This, of course, was not
a publicly acceptable justification for preferences. The
theory was that because of the lingering effects of past
discrimination, it was unfair to expect minorities to compete
equally with whites. Prof. Graham recognizes that preferences
were a departure from the liberal ideals of color blindness,
but he is far from displeased with the results.
As Prof. Graham points out,
it was not Congress but the civil rights bureaucracy that
started affirmative action, and did so before any theoretical
justifications had even been proposed. In 1968, the Small
Business Administration (SBA) created the Section 8 (a)
program to award grants and low-interest loans to socially
disadvantaged persons, a euphemism for blacks and
other non-whites. In the same year, the EEOC began to investigate
businesses not just for overt discrimination but for underutilization
or underepresentation of minorities.
The Office of Federal Contract
Compliance at the Labor Department formulated what became
known as the Philadelphia Plan. Federal contractors
in Philadelphia had to take immediate steps to ensure that
their work forces mirrored the proportion of minorities
in the Philadelphia area, which was then 30 percent. Opponents
of the Philadelphia Plan realized that if the program survived
it would establish a precedent for proportional representation
and preferential treatment for minorities. Public, congressional,
and business opposition was so great that the Labor Department
quickly withdrew the plan. However, President Nixon revived
the program his first year in office, and used all his influence
to fight off congressional attempts to kill it. It was thus
Richard Nixon and the Republicans who saved the Philadelphia
Plan, which became the model for all subsequent racial preferences.
gave us racial preferences.
The Nixon Labor Department
quickly issued Order No. 4 requiring all federal
contractors everywhere in the country to submit goals and
timetables for minority hiring. It would not be long before
the EEOC was requiring private businesses to do the same.
Why did Nixon do this? Prof. Graham reports that he suffered
from the same delusion that plagues all Republicans: He
thought he could win the black vote in 1972.
Various forms of affirmative
action could not have survived had the federal courts not
upheld them. Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade
preferential treatment on the basis of race, the courts
disregarded this plain language and ruled frequently that
race-conscious remedies were constitutional. Soon it was
not enough for companies to prove they did not intend
to discriminate; they had to avoid practices that had
an adverse or disparate impact on
non-whites. This principle was established by the 1971 Supreme
Court case Griggs v. Duke Power, in which the Duke
Power Company of North Carolina was forbidden to use IQ
tests to evaluate management trainees because blacks got
lower scores. IQ tests had a disparate impact
and were therefore illegal. Employers soon learned that
in order to convince the civil rights police they were not
discriminating against blacks they had to discriminate against
Prof. Graham appears to
be shocked that preferences were then extended to non-white
immigrants. After all, the theory of compensation that supposedly
justified remedies for blacks did not apply to foreigners
just arriving in the United States, but it didnt take
long for other non-whites to get in on the action. In 1967,
the EEOC considered whether Asians should get preferences.
At the time, the median family incomes of Japaneseand
Chinese-Americans were well above the national average,
so the EEOC chairman decided they should not. All the same,
he reclassified Asians as a protected class for fear of
pressure from Asian-American interest groups and the press.
Needless to say, there was no press or interest group pressure
to protest this additional discrimination against whites.
In 1978, when Congress passed
the Small Business Investment Act, which for the first time
provided a legal basis for the SBAs 8(a) preferences
program, it left Asians out of its definition of the socially
disadvantaged. Asian groups pressured the SBA for
re-inclusion, and within a year, the SBA not only reinstated
Chinese and Japanese but included newly-arrived Oriental
immigrants such as Vietnamese, Koreans, Laotians, Cambodians,
As immigration continued
to grow, both in numbers and variety during the 1980s, more
groups lobbied to become government-recognized minorities.
Hasidic Jews (1979) and Iranians (1989) were turned down
on the grounds they were white, but East Indians, Pakistanis,
Bangladeshis (1982), and Indonesians (1989) joined the Asian
All this was a natural outgrowth
of the revolutionary 1964-65 legislation. Since the 1964
law said discrimination was unlawful on the grounds of race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin,-and this
was the basis for establishing protected classes-all non-white
immigrants could be protected. At the same time, the civil
rights bureaucracy created in the 1960s had the incentive
of all government bureaucracies to expand, so it was natural
for it to extend programs to newly-arrived immigrants. Third,
the same apathy, lack of white racial consciousness, and
white guilt that kept whites from mounting any real resistance
to black affirmative action led to acceptance of the same
preferences for other non-whites. Whites preferred not even
to notice that immigrants were getting affirmative action.
Of course, by this time,
racial preferences had a new justification. It hardly made
sense to claim that young blacks-who had lived their entire
lives in the age of affirmative action-deserved preferences
to make up for past discrimination. The new theory that
emerged in the late 1980s was that universities and corporations
would benefit from the mere presence of non-whites. This
diversity justification could also serve to
explain why Cambodians and Guatemalans deserved preferences
over whites (see the article on diversity on p. 12).
Prof. Grahams book
explains how absurdities of this kind come into being: The
bureaucracy, judges, corporations, and interest groups have
far more political power than the general public, and when
the four act together, as they have on immigration and affirmative
action, they can ignore the majority. Prof. Graham ably
discusses how iron-triangles, composed of federal
agencies, interest groups, and congressional committees,
have largely made government policy. When the public has
tried to roll back racial preferences by legal challenge
or popular referendum, federal courts have stepped in to
protect them, as happened in California during the 1990s.
These racial policies are
prime examples of a democratic country flouting
the will of the people. Neither mass non-white immigration
nor government-imposed preferences for blacks and immigrants
has ever enjoyed majority support, nor have political leaders
ever been open about the full reality of these two policies.
There has not been a single national referendum or election
campaign that has centered on these issues. When affirmative
action and forced integration have crept into a campaign,
the public verdict has been negative.
The votes for Nixon in 1968
and 1972 were, at least in part, against school busing,
but in return the public got busing and affirmative
action. The vote in 1980 for Ronald Reagan was, at least
in part, a vote against affirmative action, but Republicans
have taken every opportunity to betray whites. President
Reagan could have significantly reduced federal affirmative
action and civil rights enforcement but did
not. President George Bush went on to sign the Civil Rights
Act of 1991, which finally gave legislative sanction to
the pernicious theory of disparate impact. Newt
Gingrichs 1994 Contract with America ignored immigration
and affirmative action. Colin Powell even endorsed racial
preferences to great applause at the 2000 Republican convention.
Corporations have been as
destructive as the Republicans. They have funded non-white,
anti-majority pressure groups (including La Raza, MALDEF,
LULAC, NAACP, and PUSH), lobbied the Reagan administration
not to scale back affirmative action, embraced the
new diversity rationale for preferences, and
groveled to black and Hispanic shakedown artists.
Needless to say, Prof. Graham
does not grasp the deeper cause of the racial revolution
his book describes-the inability of whites to think in racial
terms or to believe they have a right to defend their country
from invasion. And because he cannot understand the aggressive
racial consciousness of non-whites, he cannot see the larger
pattern of events. He is shocked that the non-discrimination
movement of the 1960s grew so quickly into one of blatant
racial preferences, and is baffled that non-white immigrants
demanded the same preferences. There is no mystery here.
For blacks, whose racial hatreds have been fed for decades
on liberal anti-white propaganda, preferences were just
another advantage to be wrested from demoralized whites.
Preferences need never end, and if they can be supplemented
with reparations for slavery or anything else that comes
to mind, so much the better. Like most whites, Prof. Graham
does not understand that blacks seek advantage and gain,
Other racial groups behave
the same way. If the white majority can be made to discriminate
against its own children in favor of non-whites just off
the boat, immigrants are delighted to reap the benefits.
Preferences for foreigners are just one more example of
what happens when whites lose any conception of their legitimate
The political details of
how capitulation takes place are interesting and instructive,
and Prof. Graham describes them ably, but without grasping
what is at stake. He is like a scientist studying a beast
of prey-without realizing that he himself is its favorite
John Sims lives in St.
• BACK TO TOP • •
Bruno Wins the Dashes
find they care about race after all
by Roger McGrath
fans were noticeably worried about the white sprinter from Orange
County. He had won his heats the day before, and had recorded
the days fastest time in the 100 at 10.40 and the second
fastest in the 200 at 21.02. He was assigned lane five, the
premier position, for the 100 meter final. As the runners took
their lanes and began positioning their starting blocks, the
tension in the stands mounted. A runner took a practice start.
Then another sped out of the blocks. Several more did the same.
Then Mr. Bruno exploded from the blocks with such quickness
that the crowd began buzzing. A black spectator, referring to
Mr. Brunos well defined, muscular legs, exclaimed, That
boys ripped! Everyone, black or white, seemed to
be thinking, Can the white kid do it?
The black runners appeared relaxed
and confident after completing their practice starts. They chatted
amiably with each other, punctuating their conversations with
a hand or arm gesture. Mr. Bruno, his jaw clenched, paced back
and forth by his blocks. A fan commented, He looks like
a caged tiger. When the starter called the runners to
their marks, Mr. Bruno clearly stood out. To his left were four
black sprinters. To his right were four more. His brown hair,
blue eyes, and very fair skin only made the contrast sharper.
The finish of the
When the gun went off, Mr. Bruno
burst out of the blocks into an immediate lead. At the 50-meter
mark he was two meters ahead of the pack, his knees high, accelerating
into a headwind. A huge roar rose from the spectators and continued
as Bruno raced down the track and hit the tape well ahead of
his nearest competitor. People were now standing on the bench
seats, yelling, stamping their feet, and applauding. When the
new state champion made his way back past the grandstands to
collect his sweats, a group of friends began chanting, Bruuu
. . .no . . .Bruuu . . .no . . .Bruuu . . .no. The crowd
joined in and the stadium rocked. At least most of it rocked.
Black spectators were conspicuously subdued. Some appeared sullen.
If white spectators had behaved in a similar manner in the face
of a black victory, the scene probably would have been featured
on the nightly news with the headline, Racist Reaction.
Although Mr. Bruno was well
off his best time, his 10.55 into the wind was two tenths of
a second better than second place, a stunning margin of victory
in California state finals. Speculation now focused on how he
would do, with his short, powerful legs, in the longer 200 meters,
which favors a long, flowing stride. By the time the runners
were taking their marks, fifty minutes later, black spectators
had recovered somewhat from the shock of the white sprinter
not just winning but demolishing the field in the 100. Many
black fans were now loudly voicing support for their favorites
in the 200, one or another of the black sprinters.
The start of the 200 looked
like a replay of the 100. Mr. Bruno blew out of the blocks and
made up the stagger on two of the runners on the curve to his
outside before the race was more than 20 meters old. Another
20 meters and he caught the remaining two runners who had a
stagger advantage. Those runners on his inside, meanwhile, had
gained little ground. Coming off the turn, Mr. Bruno had a solid
lead. The crowd was again roaring. Could he hold the lead all
the way to the tape? One black sprinter in the middle of the
straight closed to within a couple of meters but then could
gain no more. Mr. Bruno won in a 20.82, the fourth fastest prep
time in the nation this year. Second place was more than a tenth
behind and third place more than three tenths.
Again the white fans roared
their approval and again the black fans were uncharacteristically
quiet. Blacks are not afraid to express their support for black
athletes and even proclaim racial solidarity with their black
brothers. Whites, on the other hand, have been conditioned over
the last several decades to suppress, at least in public, the
same natural feeling-an affinity for people who look, sound,
and act like themselves. The eruption of cheers and thunderous
applause for Mr. Bruno suggests that the warped attempt at conditioning
whites to behave in an unnatural, and ultimately self-destructive,
manner has not entirely succeeded. White fans saw a kid who
looked like their son, or brother, or how they remembered themselves
in high school-and they roared.
With his victories Matt Bruno
became the first white sprinter to win both dashes at the state
track championships since the legendary Forrest Beaty did so
as a 16-year-old junior in 1961. Mr. Bruno, a fine student as
well as an outstanding athlete, has accepted a track scholarship
to attend UCLA.
Mr. McGrath was a spectator
at the championships.
Preferences Survive in Michigan
diversity arguments win the day.
by Stephen Kershnar
proponents of preferential treatment won a big legal battle
on May 14th, in the case of Grutter v. Bollinger . The
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that racial diversity of
the student body is such an important goal that the University
of Michigan Law School is justified in discriminating against
In order to understand this
ruling it is helpful to review the US Supreme Courts decision
in Regents of University of California v. Bakke. The
court has not revisited the question of racial preferences in
university admissions since this ambiguous split-decision of
1978, and Bakke certainly shaped the Grutter decision.
In Bakke, the Supreme Court took up the preferential
treatment program used by the University of California-Davis
Medical School. With 3,000 applicants for only 100 slots, there
was a great deal of competition to get into the school, which
set aside 16 slots for minorities. Alan Bakke, a white man who
was rejected for admission, sued, claiming that the admission
of less-qualified minorities violated the Equal Protection Clause
of the Constitution and Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The Supreme Court split into
three blocs. A liberal bloc of four held that the Constitution
and Title VI permit benign quotas. A second bloc
of four held that the program was illegal since it violated
Title VIs plain language forbidding racial discrimination.
This left the late Justice Lewis Powell with the decisive vote,
and his reasoning is frequently cited in support of the constitutionality
of preferences. He argued that racially discriminatory policies
should receive strict scrutiny, a test that requires
that the states reason for discrimination be a compelling
one, and that any discriminatory policy be narrowly tailored
to achieve its goals. Powell argued that because racial diversity
contributes to a students education, it is a compelling
state goal, and race may therefore be considered as a plus factor
for minority applicants.
would have favored admitting Marxists, fundamentalist
Christians, Afghans, convicts, primitive tribesmen,
However, he then determined
that Daviss quota system was not narrowly tailored to
this goal since it did not give applicants individual
attention. By this he meant that diversity should have
been considered as one of many factors in a system in which
all candidates competed for all available slots. Individual
consideration of applicants would take into account each ones
combined attributes, which would include such things as compassion,
a history of overcoming disadvantage, and an ability to communicate
with the poor. The Davis system failed the narrowly tailored
part of the strict scrutiny test by holding open a certain number
of slots for non-whites only. Along the way, Powell rejected
the argument that preferential treatment was justified as a
means to correct past injustices, holding that such an argument
required a specific showing of past injustices by the institution
practicing the preferences.
In Grutter, the University
of Michigan Law School, one of the best in the country, had
adopted a system that gave significant preferences to blacks,
Hispanics, and American Indians. In effect, the school automatically
admitted minorities with grades and Law School Aptitude Test
(LSAT) scores that for whites and Asians almost always meant
rejection. For candidates with the same LSAT scores, for example,
minorities with a high B or low C average were let in at the
same rate as whites with an A average. A middle-range applicant
with an LSAT score of 164-166 and a GPA of 3.25-3.49 had a 100
percent chance of being admitted if he were black or Hispanic;
a 22 percent if he were white or Asian. The law school admitted
that three out of four minority students would not have gotten
in if applications were colorblind.
The majority in Grutter
found this policy constitutional. It said the policy followed
Powells guidelines, in that educational diversity is a
compelling state goal, and that Michigans system was narrowly
tailored to achieve this goal since it gave applicants individualized
The dissenters in Grutter
attacked the majoritys argument on several grounds.
They rejected the notion that Powells guidelines were
binding, first, because they did not receive the support of
a majority of justices in either the Bakke or later Supreme
Court cases relating to affirmative action, and second, because
the guidelines were not essential to Powells argument
in support of Mr. Bakkes claim. They then argued that
diversity is not a compelling state interest. They noted that
if the university really wanted diversity it would discriminate
against vastly overrepresented groups, such as Jews, and systematically
favor people with genuinely unusual experiences, such as professional
The dissenters wrote that Michigans
admissions system was not narrowly tailored to achieve diversity,
arguing that such an attempt would have to take into account
how much diversity any one individual might contribute. For
instance, they noted that the school gave preference to a black
graduate of Choate and Harvard over a poor, rural white applicant,
and questioned whether the black really contributed more to
campus diversity. Michigan appeared to be assuming that any
minority applicant would make a great contribution to diversity
while white applicants would make little or no contribution.
This suspicion was supported by the fact that despite its claim
to the contrary, Michigan appeared to be using a quota system.
For example, between 1995 and 1998, the last four years for
which data were available, the law school enrolled minorities
at a rate of 13.5 to 13.7% of the class.
Dissenting Judge Danny Boggs
also argued that the court had avoided standard judicial procedure,
and implied that this was an attempt to rig the outcome. In
particular, he asserted that Chief Judge Boyce Martin, a Carter
appointee, had bypassed the standard random-selection of judges
and assigned himself to the three-judge panel that would hear
the parties motions. The result of one of these motions
was temporarily to block the lower courts decision against
Michigans program. The Chief Judge also delayed telling
the courts other judges that the university had petitioned
for a full-court review, until after two Republican-appointed
judges had withdrawn from active service and could therefore
no longer participate in the review.
University of Michigan
Judge Karen Nelson Moore, who
concurred in the ruling, sharply attacked Judge Boggss
procedural critique. She wrote that the Chief Judges procedure
was routine given the understaffing of the Sixth Circuit and
its heavy case load. From the decisions themselves it is impossible
to tell who is right, though Judge Moore did not dispute the
point that the Chief Judge had deviated from the courts
There is now a clear split in
the federal appellate courts. The Ninth and Sixth Circuits have
held that they are bound by Bakke and that preferential
treatment is constitutional. The Fifth Circuit has ruled that
preferences are not constitutional. The Eleventh Circuit ducked
the issue of whether diversity is a compelling interest but
held that even if it is, race may not be considered as the only
thing that contributes to it. This split will almost undoubtedly
force the Supreme Court to face this issue.
Diversity or Uniformity?
The diversity argument is obviously
a sham. As the dissent pointed out, the law school was really
protecting slots for blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians
rather than seeking true diversity of intellect or experience.
Real diversity would have favored admitting Marxists, fundamentalist
Christians, Afghans, convicts, primitive tribesmen, and transsexuals
since they are likely to have ideas and experiences sharply
different from those of white students who recently graduated
near the top of their Ivy League classes. Instead, the law school
recruited minority students who often have the same experiences
and even ideas as upper-class whites.
But if we accept the view that
blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians offer the classroom
something so valuable it justifies racial discrimination against
whites, what might that be? First, minorities might help whites
understand what they think (such as why blacks overwhelmingly
vote Democratic, favor big government, want reparations for
slavery, etc.). Second, they might get other members of the
class to adopt their beliefs. Third, they might have a special
perspective on the subject matter unrelated to these beliefs
(such as intricate questions of corporate law or how the courts
procedural rules should work). The third justification is doubtful.
It is hard to see what unique insights minorities are likely
to have on substantive issues of law. In fact, given their significantly
lower qualifications, one would expect them to contribute less
than the whites who would otherwise have taken their slots.
At the same time, the value
of learning about or adopting a groups beliefs depends
at least in part on whether those beliefs are true. Law schools
do not give diversity preference to conspiracy theorists, fundamentalist
Christians, or white separatists because admissions officers
do not think what they believe is true. Therefore, even if admissions
officers really were considering the diversity value of what
blacks and Hispanics actually think, rather than using the diversity
argument simply as a cover for out-and-out racial preferences,
they would still be promoting a particular set of views. Needless
to say, these are likely to be the very views held and promoted
by admissions officers and faculty, so what are called diversity
campaigns are really programs to promote certain ideas.
We can imagine three points
of view minorities might contribute to a law school, specifically.
First, justice should be concerned with bringing about equality.
Second, certain minorities have been denied claims to equality.
Third, the government has a far-reaching mandate to combat this
However, if we view these beliefs
as controversial and not obviously worthy of promotion (which
is how admissions officers view the beliefs of Christians and
conservatives), the case for this kind of diversity
weakens. I suspect opponents of preferential treatment and diversity
promotion have failed to make this argument against the idea
of learning from the oppressed because most of them accept all
three of the above points. Why else would conservatives
support laws that ban discrimination against minorities, women,
and disabled people? Having adopted the very positions non-whites
are likely to hold, they have disarmed themselves in the face
of those who want to promote diversity. Conservatives
may oppose outright discrimination against whites, but the ideas
that this discrimination encourages on campuses are ones with
which they already agree.
Stephen Kershnar is an attorney
and teaches philosophy at SUNY-Fredonia.
• • BACK TO TOP • •
O Tempora, O Mores!
Back in March, the US Department
of Agriculture tried to bully the West Virginia 4-H into dropping
all Indian references in its programs for children. It said
it was investigating whether using Indian names constituted
racial discrimination that barred the West Virginia program
from receiving is annual $4.5 million in federal support. The
department kindly produced two Indian activists to explain just
how awful it was to divide children into tribes
and to call their meetings powwows. On March 22,
West Virginias local 4-H chapter leaders announced they
would do away with all Indian names and traditions. People who
had been in 4-H as children were outraged, and President David
Hardesty of West Virginia University, who has official authority
over the program, overruled them. For the time being, 4-H in
his state will remain unchanged, but Mr. Hardesty could well
overrule himself if the federal investigation eventually concludes
that tribes and powwows are racist.
In the meantime, the threat
has worked elsewhere. 4-H representatives from Virginia sat
in on the brow-beating in West Virginia and decided they didnt
want to wait for the results of a federal investigation. Now
children who used to be divided into tribes of Mattaponi, Monacan,
Pamunkey and Cherokee-all Indians native to Virginia-will be
Eagles, Snakes, Deer, Bobcats, and Owls. Powwows for the nineto
13-year-olds are now cave meetings, the great
chief is now the great bear, and the campfire,
which used to be the great light, is now the sacred
light. An important 4-H camp in Front Royal, Virginia,
still has a large, white teepee standing behind the administration
building, and 4-H has decided to risk continuing to use it as
the classroom for Native American Arts and Traditions. [Jon
War, Virginia 4-H Yields, Washington Times, June 28, 2002, p.
The usual argument is that Indian
names and mascots demean Indians. Oddly, when Southern schools
use Confederate mascots, that glorifies the rebels, so that,
too, must be banned. If mascots are demeaning and America is
hopelessly racist, why do no schools ever call their
teams the Darkies or the Nig-nogs, and
no youth camps ever divide children into tribes of Hottentots
At midnight, June 24, about
3,000 white farmers in Zimbabwe officially became criminals
if they continued to work their land. This was the deadline
Robert Mugabes government gave them to stop work, in preparation
for complete evacuation of their farms by August eighth. If
the government enforces the evacuation, about 95 percent of
the countrys white farmers will have been thrown off their
Many farmers started packing
up , but others kept working. Dairymen pointed out that cows
had to be milked or would sicken and die. Even in the face of
threats of a two-year prison sentence for continued farm work
they refuse to neglect their animals-even though they will lose
them when they leave the land. Other farmers continued working
because they would not let food rot in the fields in a country
facing famine. The UN estimates half the countrys 12.5
million people face starvation because of bad weather and the
land seizures. Zimbabwe used to be a major food exporter but
will subsist next year on food aid, much of it from the United
There are shortages of many
staples. Mr. Mugabe routinely accuses Britain, white farmers,
and multinationals of deliberately trying to starve the country.
In a speech on June 30, he said Zimbabwes largest food
production company was keeping salt off the market: I
want to say this to National Foods. We want them to come out
in the open and tell this nation why they have been hoarding
salt. . . . If not we will take over their enterprises.
A National Food spokesman said the company has 2,000 tons of
salt in storage, which would last the country two weeks. It
is all imported, and the government has ordered it to sell at
a price that is half what the company paid for it. The spokesman
explained that National Food, which is in deep trouble along
with the rest of the food sector, cannot afford to sell at a
Minister Joseph Made says the food crisis has nothing to do
with putting commercial farmers out of business. He says whites,
who make up one percent of the population, have fomented a crisis
in an attempt to take power. Meanwhile, the European Union has
expressed concern-though not about ethnic cleansing. The haphazard
redistribution of property, it observed, could worsen
the impending [food] crisis. [Michael Hartnack, Zimbabwe
Emphasizes Farm Order, AP, June 27, 2002. White Zimbabwean Farmers
Protest Order to Stop Working, New York Times, June 26, 2002.
Angus Shaw, Zimbabwe White Farmers Stop Working, AP, June 25,
Third-World asylum seekers in
Britain have found a new loophole that lets them stay in the
country. If they have a disease that cannot be adequately treated
in their own countries the European Convention on Human Rights
says they must stay. Such diseases include tuberculoses, Ebola,
and, of course, AIDS.
Hindu Mwakitosi, a Tanzanian
who has the AIDS virus, was the first test case. She was about
to be deported when someone tried the trick and it worked. I
am HIV-positive, I am HIV-positive, yes I am, most definitely!
she rejoices. I have a certificate to prove it, and I
now have the right to stay in this country.
Retroviral drug treatments for
HIV carriers in Britain cost close to $20,000 a year. When the
disease advances to full-blown AIDS it can cost many times that.
Heterosexual AIDS is on the rise in Britain, with 1,819 cases
diagnosed last year. People like Miss Mwakitosi are the main
cause; 71 percent of the cases were found in Africans.
Those with a black sense of
humor have pointed out that there are more AIDS carriers in
Africa than the entire population of Britain. If they can make
it into the country they now have the right to stay. [Paul McMullen,
Got Aids? Welcome to Britain, Sunday Express, April 7, 2002,
Going . . .
In the first quarter of 1992,
the 15 most common surnames of people buying houses in the nine-county
San Francisco Bay area were, in the following order: Wong, Lee,
Smith, Nguyen, Chan, Johnson, Chen, Miller, Brown, Tran, Anderson,
Davis, Williams, Jones, and Martin. That was six Asian names
and nine Anglo names, though the top two were Asian
(a few of the Lees may have been white).
By the first quarter of 2002,
the top 15 names were, in the following order: Nguyen, Lee,
Garcia, Tran, Smith, Gonzalez, Wong, Johnson, Martinez, Rodriguez,
Lopez, Hernandez, Sanchez, Brown, and Chen. Asians were down
to five out of the top 15, though they still held the top two
slots. The number of Anglo names had dropped from
nine to just three, and there were now seven Hispanic names
in the top 15. A large number of mortgage lenders now offer
soup-to-nuts service entirely in Spanish. [Ethnic Shift in Bay
Area Home Buyers, San Francisco Chronicle, May 19, 2002.]
Were the Animals?
The zoo in Buffalo, New York,
has a tradition of sponsor-subsidized free admission on major
holidays. On Memorial Day, a drug store chain and a medical
insurance company gave out free passes, and 15,000 people came
for free. Many of the blacks misbehaved. A large number smuggled
in beer and malt liquor despite a ban on alcohol, and littered
the grounds with trash. People urinated in public, trampled
flower beds, tried to feed the animals, and deliberately plugged
toilets. Parents dangled small children over the railings around
the bear and lion pens despite clearly posted danger warnings.
People threw garbage and even a baseball bat into the enclosures
of the large animals, and someone started a grass fire in front
of the outdoor lion and tiger exhibit. In a special enclosure
where visitors can walk among uncaged birds, people bent down
the branches and let them fly up, throwing the birds off their
perches. Some people tried to steal birds. There were several
fights, including one in which women maced each other. Zoo staff
and private security were out in force, but it was impossible
to maintain order. The zoo may discontinue its tradition of
free admission on holidays. [Tom Buckham, Mass Misbehavior Leaves
Zoo a Mess, Buffalo News, May 29, 2002.]
On May 30th, 23-year-old Pablo
Lopez Jarquin went to Rosys Market & Taqueria in Santa
Cruz, California. According to surveillance tapes, two men cornered
Mr. Jarquin, and a third shot him in the back of the head, in
what police think was a gang-related slaying. The tape then
shows people (race unspecified) calmly stepping over the body
to take their purchases to the counter. [Customers Continue
Business Despite Dying Man on Store Floor, AP, May 31, 2002.]
at the Verdict
On August 30, 2000, group of
Lebanese men approached a white 18-year-old Australian girl
on a train, and offered her marijuana. She accepted and got
off with them. The men then spent six hours raping her, passing
her around among at least 14 friends. One called the girl an
Aussie pig, and another told her, Im going
to fuck you Leb-style. Four of the assailants went on
trial this year, and were convicted on June eighth. They grinned
and waved as the jury delivered its verdict, and two got into
a scuffle that stopped only when a court officer put one in
a headlock. All four mugged and carried on throughout the trial.
Two of the Lebanese have already been convicted in a similar
gang rape of two white girls.
Last year, gang rapes of white
girls by Middle-Eastern men became something of a scandal in
Australia (see AR, Sept. and Oct., 2001). When Judge Michael
Finnane sent the case to the jury he warned against racial considerations
of any kind: You have to put aside any view that you might
have . . . about Muslims, either favorable or unfavorable,
he said. The jury, he said, was not trying a class of
persons or a race. [Sarah Crichton, Gang Rapists Smile
as Guilty Verdict Delivered, The Age (Sydney, Australia), June
The people of Maine have long
worried that the state is losing population and that young people
go out of state to college and never come back. Jim Tierney,
who was the states attorney general for 10 years, thinks
he knows what the problem is: The state is too white. Many
of our best Maine kids move away-perhaps for education or perhaps
for work-and find a level of energy and excitement in places
where diversity is the rule and not the exception, he
says. And they like it. He thinks the diversity
of non-white immigration will save the state:
Both liberals and conservatives
view diversity the same way. Liberals see it as, We have
to help these people. Conservatives see it as We
cant afford to help these people. What Im
saying is, guys, youre looking at it the wrong way. This
is not a burden. This is essential. This is an opportunity.
In fact, maybe its more than just an opportunity.
[Bill Nemitz, States Future Looks Brighter With More Color,
Portland (Maine) Press Herald, May 12, 2002.]
According to a Zogby poll taken
in Mexico and released June 11, 58 percent of Mexicans believe
the southwestern United States rightfully belongs to them, and
57 percent believe they have the right to cross the border without
US government permission. In a poll taken in the United States,
Zogby found that 68 percent of Americans think the US military
should patrol the border. Sixty-five percent oppose amnesty
for illegal aliens, and 58 percent believe the US should cut
back the number of legal immigrants. Americans for Immigration
Control Inc. commissioned the poll, which was conducted in Mexico
and the US in late May. [Poll: US-Mexico Border Opinions Differ,
UPI, June 12, 2002]
in the Troops
Despite the poll numbers cited
above, President Bush and Homeland Security Director Ridge refuse
to consider using troops to guard the borders. In early June,
Gov. Ridge told lawmakers the White House opposed this for cultural
and historical reasons. I want an explanation of
these cultural and historical reasons why we cant
protect our nations borders, says Rep. Tom Tancredo,
Colorado Republican and chairman of the congressional immigration
reform caucus. Rep. Tancredo angered the White House when he
criticized the presidents open door immigration
policy last April. Presidential advisor Karl Rove told Rep.
Tancredo never to darken the door of the White House
Lawmakers who want troops on
the border cite a report by the Center for Immigration Studies
in Washington that says more than 481,000 immigrants have entered
the United States illegally since September 11. A spokesman
for Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Tex.) says proposed reforms
of the INS and border patrol will give agents the tools
they need to improve border security. Not so, says William
King, a retired Border Patrol chief agent. Mr. King believes
it will take at least 20,000 soldiers to secure the borders.
Whats mind-blowing to me, he says, is
that many of our troops are currently guarding borders and protecting
the sovereignty of other nations while our own borders are incredibly
in total disarray, wide open to any criminal activity imaginable,
[Dave Boyer, Troops for Border Sought, Washington Times, June
Odeline Caroline Monestime,
a 21-year-old black woman was struggling to come up with the
$700 a month she needed to make the car and insurance payments
on her 1997 Toyota Camry. A man who helped her fix a flat tire
suggested she just burn the car, so early in the morning of
May 6, Miss Monestime poured gasoline over the interior. She
tried to light matches, but couldnt get one to strike.
She then went back to her house to get a piece of paper to burn.
In the meantime, fumes built up inside the car. As she came
back to the car, the fumes ignited and the car exploded. Fire
destroyed the Camry and two other nearby cars, and Miss Monestime
was burned over 60 percent of her body.
From her hospital bed, Miss
Monestime told the police that two men had tried to rob her,
then put her in the car and set it on fire. When investigators
determined that the evidence did not match her story, she admitted
the arson. Police say they will not file charges against her.
[Luisa Yanez, Cops: Woman Lied, Set Self Afire, Herald (Miami),
June 5, 2002.]
The INS has something called
the Transit Without Visa program, which allows foreigners to
enter without a visa if they are flying on to third countries.
Airport security is supposed to make sure they do not leave
the airport. On June 10, federal authorities filed charges against
an INS inspector, two airport security personnel, and two others
for smuggling illegal Filipinos in through Los Angeles Airport.
Maximiano Ramos, 53, an INS shift supervisor, and the other
four arranged to meet the Filipinos on arriving flights and
escorted them past airport security. [Kate Berry, Airport Worker
Arrested for Smuggling, AP, June 12, 2002]
• BACK TO TOP • •
| L E T T E R S
F R O M R E A D E R S
was deeply impressed by the breadth and depth of Richard Lynns
scholarship in his article about racial differences in psychopathic
behavior. It appears to me that he has certainly found the reason
why people of different races behave differently even when IQ
is controlled for. Taken in combination with average intelligence,
psychopathic tendencies surely explain essentially all the racial
differences in outcomes that anguish the liberals. Imagine all
the hand-wringing, head-scratching, and breast-beating that would
stop if the country would simply accept the facts as Prof. Lynn
presents them. Prof. Lynns research is original and hugely
important, but in todays climate would be recognized as
such only if he were to find personality differences that reflect
badly on whites.
Peter Greene, Boise, Idaho
Lynns article on psychopathic personality reminds me of
a conversation I had years ago. Our city has a recycling program,
and issues all households three plastic tubs: one for newspapers,
one for glass, and one for cans. When the system was first established,
a few of my neighbors grumbled a little about having to sort trash,
but soon everyone got into the habit and, I think, was glad to
Once, on a hunch, I asked the
men on the recycling truck on my route how well the blacks in
Smoke Town were sorting their trash. They told me recycling was
a complete failure in black neighborhoods. They said blacks use
the tubs for laundry or as beer coolers, or just throw them away.
All the recycling men wanted routes on black streets because so
few people put out their tubs they almost never had to stop the
Much as I admire Prof. Lynns
article nothing in it surprised me.
Name Withheld, Louisville, Ky.
was surprised by Stephen Websters conclusion in his article
about the California Racial Privacy Initiative, namely, that whites
should oppose it because it will make it harder to collect information
about the costs and deviance of non-whites [the initiative would
forbid collection by the state of almost all race-related statistics].
The information no longer available from California would be available
from other states, and could be assumed to apply to California
as well. If Hispanics in Texas, say, are three times more likely
than whites to commit violent crimes, the same is likely to be
true of Hispanics in California.
At the same time, it is possible
whites might gain from the initiative. If there were no official
statistics on how many Hispanic lawyers there are in the state,
it would be harder for La Raza to claim that the race
was underrepresented in judicial appointments, for example. If
there are no statistics on the number of blacks in the schools,
it will be hard for blacks to claim they are not getting into
honors programs and gifted programs as often as they deserve.
The natural differences in outcome that stem from racial inequalities
will be harder to uncover, making it more difficult to demand
Over the years I think I have
detected in AR an opposition to uniformity and centralized power.
From that perspective alone, you should be supporting any initiative
that gives one state a chance to conduct its business differently
from other states. If the results are fairer for whites, let us
try to pass similar measures elsewhere. If we never try something
like the racial privacy initiative in at least one state we will
never know if it is useful or harmful.
Arthur Church, Redwood City, Cal.
Lynns calm assessment of charlatan Stephen Jay Gould proves
what many of us have long maintained-that the race issue, at its
core, is not so much about graphs, charts, theories, and interpretations,
as it is about truth vs. lies. If ever a moral issue existed in
our civilization, this is it.
Kelly Nicholson, Draper, Utah
was interested to learn in an O Tempora item that according to
one school teacher, black students caught in an infraction are
likely to turn aggressive, whereas whites submit quietly to reproval.
Surely, this difference continues into adulthood and explains
why so many blacks have violent encounters with the police. I
suspect black criminals are considerably more likely than whites
to resist, swear, run away, or try to steal an officers
weapon when they are caught, and this, rather than police misbehavior,
explains a great deal.
I suspect also that most whites,
deep down, know there are racial differences of this kind, but
that in public they must pretend otherwise. I believe the knowledge
that would change racial thinking lies just below the surface,
waiting for some dramatic event or charismatic spokesman to bring
it into the open.
Anne Edelman, Charlotte, N.C.
was fascinated by your account of Dwight York and his Nuwaubian
Nation of Moors. He was obviously a sociopath and a pervert, but
you have to credit him for energy and organization. Inventing
languages and religions isnt easy, nor is maintaining the
loyalty of hundreds of acolytes.
Why are there no 473-acre communities
of American racial nationalists working together, homeschooling
their children, and shutting out the poisonous mainstream?
If crazy blacks can do it, why cant sane whites?
A. Todorov, Bucharest, Romania.
• BACK TO TOP • •