June 26, 2023

When the current occupant of the White House openly asserts that white supremacy is the greatest threat to America, it shows that demonizing whites is now an acceptable part of American life. Conservative writer Ed Brodow dubs this phenomenon the “new national sport” in the subtitle of his book The War on Whites. In a Townhall article, he says hating whites is a disease of epidemic proportions that must be called out for what it is – racism. He explains how, in the woke-perverted world of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), white people – by dint of pigment alone – are the default oppressors, obliged to feel guilty and do penance for imagined crimes of “systemic racism.”

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609268089992-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”); } }); }); }

This reversal has its roots in critical race theory (CRT) and Marxist ideology, which are working overtime to replace the American ideal of equality (of opportunity, not outcome) with a distorted version of equity. The word itself means fairness or impartiality. But the new discourse interprets it to mean providing special opportunities to minorities and groups perceived as disadvantaged and denying them to the majority and those perceived as advantaged.

With woke ideas well entrenched in academia and diffusing therefrom to the corporate world and government, this perverse interpretation is increasingly translating into a sidelining of whites. Although government programs are required by the Constitution to be non-discriminatory, instances abound of anti-white racism becoming their salient feature. Such discrimination even extends to COVID relief programs, as if whites were not affected (or were less affected) by the pandemic.

Fortunately, these are being challenged as unconstitutional in federal lawsuits. One involves a discriminatory COVID relief program for businesses in Massachusetts. The $75 million program is deceptively called the Inclusive Recovery Grant Program, but accepts applications only from firms owned by minorities, women, veterans, the disabled, or LGBTQ+.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609270365559-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”); } }); }); }

Challenging this, the pro bono Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Brian Dalton, whose New England Firearms Academy cannot receive aid because he happens to be heterosexual and white. Dalton, a retired law enforcement officer, opened the academy in 2013 to provide firearms and safety training. During the pandemic, he was forced to sell assets and use his savings to cover business expenses. Upon reopening, he incurred additional costs to comply with mandated safety measures. So, he wanted to apply when the program was first announced, but found he was ineligible.

In Brian Dalton et al v. Hao and MA Growth Capital Corp, filed on May 31st at the U.S. District Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, PLF attorneys argue that the program violates the 14th Amendment guarantee for “equal protection under the law.” They rightly characterize the program as inclusive in name, but in fact exclusive in its application. Broadening the argument to make a case for the American ideal of individual rights, the PLF states on its website:

When the government benefits or burdens us based on traits we cannot control, it unjustly diminishes our individuality and institutionalizes and reinforces stereotypes. Such treatment also hinders opportunity. Business owners have a right to be treated as individuals, and not as part of a group to which the government arbitrarily assigns them. Our country has had a terrible history of discrimination that cannot be remedied with more discrimination.

A similar case was filed in 2021 by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) on behalf of Tennessee restaurateur Antonio Vitolo against the Small Business Administration (SBA). The SBA prioritized women and minorities during an initial three-week period for grants from the $28.6 billion Restaurant Revitalization Fund, a COVID relief program. White males were relegated to the back of the line. On May 27, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled (with Judge Bernice Donald dissenting) that such prioritizing amounted to “racial gerrymandering.” It ordered the government to fund Vitolo’s grant application, if eligible.

In 2020, two whites and a Chicano sued Oregon in two lawsuits for racial discrimination when it designated $62 million in COVID relief specifically for blacks, presuming that the pandemic affected them disproportionately. Under pressure from the nightly Black Lives Matter (BLM) mayhem in Portland, state officials initially defended the program. Later, though, they admitted to its potential unconstitutionality. In an editorial commentary, the WSJ called the program “blatantly unconstitutional.”

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut had denied a request from one of the plaintiffs to block disbursements, but agreed to examine the constitutional issues “later in this litigation.” Eventually, the state settled both cases, paying out grants to 1,252 non-black applicants.