There was a bit of controversy in 2020 during the COVID pandemic, and it didn't have anything to do with vaccines or masks. As the federal government funneled billions upon billions of dollars into each individual state, those states were taking that money and only handing it out to racial minorities, particularly to black Americans. And if that were the end of it, that would be fine. However, most people know that wasn't the end of it; these grants were also excluding white people from applying. Their businesses were being shut down like everyone else's, but the government said that was okay. And they're still saying that, as there are still new grants available, as of this week, that exclude an entire race of people. These are a series of small business grants, but they're only available to racial minorities and women. White males will not even be considered on applications.

The Supreme Court is currently hearing a case on affirmative action in Harvard's admissions. They're going to rule if it's against the Civil Rights Act to discriminate based on race. Just imagine that in 2022, in America; the highest court in the land has to hear a case about racial discrimination, as if it's the 1960s. Many Americans think that it's perfectly fine to discriminate, however, and somehow that's supposed to be viewed as good for the nation. This is the attitude that leads to grant programs excluding entire racial groups.
 

At Best, It's Very Patronizing

The New York Times ran a story yesterday, Nov 2, with the headline, "A Diverse Supreme Court Questions the Value of Affirmative Action." The subtext there is to imply that without affirmative action in America, there would be no "diversity" on the Supreme Court. "Diversity," of course, meaning people who are not identified as white people. So, according to America's oldest and (arguably) most famous newspaper, the only reason there is diversity on the Supreme Court is due to affirmative action placing them there. Even if you're the world's biggest advocate for affirmative action, you likely realize how patronizing that is. And while SCOTUS's case is specifically dealing with Harvard's collegiate admissions, it's a microcosm of what's going on in America on a macro scale.

Being any particular race or any particular gender does not guarantee anyone anything. In the Appalachia cultural region of the United States alone, around 27 million white people exist so far below the poverty line that they're considered the poorest people in the country. However, according to the rules of affirmative action and the way these identity-based grants are set up, no white males can apply for small business grants. Apparently, if someone is female or a racial minority, they need more help than poor white guys. This topic may be a bit too political for some people's liking, but it is one of the largest issues in America right now. Should someone be denied help based on their race and sex? Should some people be entitled to help specifically because of their race and sex?

It's very polarizing as a topic. The Vice President of the United States literally believes that, yes, your race matters when it comes to government aid. Kamala Harris famously said that white people would not receive help with disaster relief from the federal government. It's incredibly hateful to an entire race of people who suffer and bleed just like everyone else, while it's also very patronizing to minority Americans to hear that they cannot help themselves as well as others due to how they were born. One race of people was born wrong, and the other races were born not good enough, according to the second-most powerful person in the (once) free world.

"Women and racial minorities have faced many barriers in the business world," the MSN article reads, as it shills positively for the idea that white males are apparently all wealthy and are all business owners keeping everyone else out. This isn't just one grant either; it's a series of nearly a dozen grants, some funded by the government, that are denying a race of people based on the happenstance of their birth. Somehow, in the United States, this is considered justice. This is considered equitable.

It's unclear how the Supreme Court will rule on their Harvard case, but what is clear is that America at large is only increasing its favoritism based on identity factors, and that's not going to end well.