Death of "I have a Dream" - the new overt discrimination against white males

I am a partner at one of the top 25 national law firms. I have been practicing law for more than 20 years. The dream of Martin Luther King is rapidly being extinguished by the new cadre of woke culture warriors. Never in my career have I observed such unabashed discrimination against white males as I have seen in the past 12-18 months.

We represent many major life sciences companies, corporations whose names would be familiar to all of you. Our clients have become militant in regulating the skin color and gender of the attorneys who are staffed on their matters. They all require us to provide race/gender breakdowns of the attorneys at the Firm.

Recently, one of my female partners led a three person team to a pitch meeting with a prospective client with whom we already have a relationship. She took two highly-qualified white male partners to accompany her to the meeting. After the meeting she was pulled aside by in-house counsel and chastised for bringing the two white males to the meeting. She was informed it was "tone deaf" and could not happen again.

Another major life sciences client has given us actual quotas. Including that 40% of the staff time on their matters be by women and 10% by underrepresented minorities. If the quotas are not met we will lose all work from them. This particular client has also insisted we provide gender/race breakdowns for attorneys staffed on their matters who work in Europe, even though providing such data is illegal according to the laws in many EU countries. Amazingly, this client has also offered to "assist" my firm in deciding who we should internally promote.

The vast majority of my partners are on the East Coast and are hardcore liberals. So the foregoing does not conceptually bother them other than figuring out how to comply with the mandates. When it was pointed out to the white female partner who took the two white males to the client meeting that she has two sons, the notion that they could be subject to the same kind of discrimination was lost on her.

In any event, just wanted to vent and give some insight into what is happening in my industry. I expect quotas and overt gender and racial discrimination against white males to become more and more normalized. Indeed, when commercials come on TV, do any of you also play the game "find the white guy"?

The end result of this is that competent, hard working white males will just start their own companies. And succeed despite the obstacles.

Yet those obstacles will increase.

Any company that's too "white male" will find it increasingly ...

* Hard to get government contracts,

* Demonized as "white supremacist" on social media,

* Boycotted by "respectable" businesses, ad agencies, law firms, accounting firms, suppliers, airlines, trucking companies, etc.

And any business that does not join in the boycott, will likewise be demonized and boycotted.

I always loved this article on affirmative action by Pittsburgh newsman Al Julius. It says it all and it was broadcast on KQV-AM on April 11th, 1966:

Y' CAN'T SUBSTITUTE ONE PREJUDICE FOR ANOTHER OR ONE QUOTA FOR ANOTHER QUOTA

Written and broadcast by Al Julius

April 11, 1966

At the very outset let's get one thing straight, everyone should be entitled to compete for a job based solely upon his qualifications to fulfill that job, and not upon his race religion or ethnic background ... That's the ideal proposition, that's the way it should be in the field of employment ... When you fill out an application for a job, the only salient points that should be of interest to the personnel manager is whether you have the background to enable you to perform the job so that you will be an asset to your employer, so that your work will prove profitable to him and this profitable to you, except in certain specific and minor cases there is no room on an application blank for race, religion or where your grandparents come from ... Thus we'll say that a firm has an opening for a qualified engineer, and a negro and a caucasian apply for the job, the man with the highest qualifications and greatest potential should be the one who finally gets the position, that's the only good common business sense because an employer is going to pay out dollars and cents in wages for the greatest return which in this case is work done, if he allows prejudice to play a part in his choice then he is decreasing his prime purpose in business which is to show a profit ... And it must be remembered that prejudice is a two edged sword, it can hack and cut in either direction, causing much pain and much more anger ... That mythical personnel manager can hire the less qualified caucasian over the more qualified negro just because he doesn't like negroes and that is prejudice, or because he is afraid of public opinion or he is out to satisfy certain vocal groups he will hire the less qualified negro over the more qualified caucasian, and make no mistake about it this too is prejudice ... Call it a repayment for many years of injustice, call it an attempt to balance a series of wrong doings, however you want to disguise it, it still fits the definition "a judgment or opinion held in disregard of facts that contradict it", and that's the definition of prejudice ... Minority groups have been wronged, minority groups have been sinned against, and there is such a thing as second class citizens, but this was caused by prejudice, and this will not be remedied by prejudice, even if they call it reverse prejudice ... By the same token everyone agrees that quota systems are bad, they are bad when they work against minority groups, and when they are turned around used as a tool for the minority groups it doesn't necessarily cleanse them and make them good because their purpose has changed ... They are still quota systems, they are still the misbegotten child of prejudice, they are still wrong ... You can't fight something one day and then turn around and use it the next day because now it happens to suit your purposes ... Therefore is one prejudice being substituted for another ... Is one quota system replacing another ... Are we losing sight of what should be the goal ... Judge a man as an individual, rate him on his merits ... His merits alone. This ... Is Al Julius

Close to 30 years I was told I would not be getting a promotion because they had government contracts and there were too many white male managers.

I shortly left the company for a better offer elsewhere.

In 1976, my parents divorced. I turned 10 on July 8th of that year. Mom worked at K-Mart but needed a better job to take care of me and the house. Mom was a secretary before I was born and she had to become one again. My motrher was called in for an interview with the Port Authority of Pittsburgh, aka PAT Transit, who runs the mass transit system in Pittsburgh and Allegheny County, PA. Mom was so excited. She went to the interview. When she came home, she was so angry. My grandmother (her Mom) and myself asked why? She said that the interviewer told her that she would have the job but they had to hold out a spot for a "colored woman." Grandma and I, we were upset, we both said, "that is not right." Mom was so hot with anger it was like charging up the Tsar Bomba. Ever since then, if this subject was brought up, Mom became instantly angry. I'm the same way too because of it.

The media coined (or at least popularized) the term "angry white man" in November 1994.

The media termed 1992 "The Year of the Woman" because women put Clinton in the White House.

The media termed 1994 "The Year of the Angry White Man" because white men gave the House and Senate to the Republicans.

I noted the difference. "The Year of the Woman" vs. "The Year of the Angry White Man.

Weren't all those female Clinton voters angry? We had been told they were, because of the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings. Yet still, it was not how the 1992 Democratic victory was characterized.

I also remember MTV hosting a televised "star-studded" party to celebrate democracy after the election. They did it again in 1996. They were going to do it again in 2000, but canceled after Bush won. The excuse was the controversy over the election.

‘’ The leaves the white males free to form up in CO’s that aren’t stupid and slaughter the quota queens in the real world”
The liberal racists should be careful what they wish for. Once you establish that racism and sexism are acceptable - if applied against white men - those white men might decide that they should adopt racist and sexist policies to protect themselves and advance their interests. A demagogue may emerge, with no shame, to lead the fight. The consequent backlash could be ferocious. However, gradually all these sexist and racist policies will be challenged in court, and we will see whether our legal system can rationalize some discrimination but not counter-discrimination It all depends on whose ox is gored.

Our clients have become militant in regulating the skin color and gender of the attorneys who are staffed on their matters. They all require us to provide race/gender breakdowns of the attorneys at the Firm.

This particular client has also insisted we provide gender/race breakdowns for attorneys staffed on their matters who work in Europe, even though providing such data is illegal according to the laws in many EU countries.

Amazingly, this client has also offered to “assist” my firm in deciding who we should internally promote.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.