Adversity.Net strongly supports equal treatment under the law without
regard to race, gender, ethnicity or other irrelevant demographics. We are opposed to all
forms of discrimination.
Make a tax-deductible contribution to
Giving special treatment or preference to any individual or group because of their
demographics (race, gender, ethnicity) automatically results in illegal and
unconstitutional discrimination against the individual or group who is excluded from such
special treatment. We oppose all forms of preferential treatment and all forms of
discrimination including so-called reverse discrimination.
Laws, programs, policies, and regulations which dictate that individuals or groups with
certain demographic characteristics receive preferential treatment are unconstitutional
and should not be tolerated by American voters.
There is no possible
justification -- legally, constitutionally, ethically, or philosophically -- for such
discrimination, regardless of the stated purpose. More discrimination does not
remedy past discrimination.
|Our constitution guarantees EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, not
Adversity.Net opposes all forms of discrimination. However, our special focus
is on discrimination caused by the granting of preferential treatment based on race,
ethnicity, and gender. Government laws, policies, and regulations,
as well as private sector initiatives, which encourage any degree of preference based in
any part on race, ethnicity or gender must not be tolerated.
Terminology and language are very
important in this debate. Race-based and gender-based quotas, preferences, targets,
and goals all mean illegal discrimination.
Race and/or gender should never
ever be a factor in any employment, contracting, or educational admission decision.
Referenda and Ballot Initiatives: We support all citizen referenda and ballot
initiatives which seek to eliminate laws, programs, policies, and regulations aimed at
providing preferential treatment based on such demographic characteristics. The
citizens of the U.S. should demand and exercise their right to vote democratically on
Re-wording, re-phrasing, or editing
of such citizen referenda should never be allowed! Once the requisite number of
signatures have been gathered to place an initiative on the ballot, that initiative must
be honestly and accurately presented to the voters on the ballot - verbatim - without
editing or re-wording. Citizens must be allowed to vote on referenda in their
original, unedited language. To do otherwise is to subvert the democratic process.
Gerrymandering: We strongly oppose the creation of legislative
voting districts which are designed to grant advantage to any group, whether that
advantage is intended to benefit a political party, an ethnic group, a racial group, or a
specific gender. This practice has traditionally been known as
"gerrymandering", and it has been repeatedly struck down by the Supreme Court.
We believe there is only one valid criterion for drawing legislative voting districts: the
total population count -- period. Race, ethnicity, national origin, gender or
political affiliation should never be factors in the drawing of legislative voting
districts. True democratic representation demands no less.
We strongly oppose the use of our tax funds for programs intended to benefit only certain
races, ethnicities, or genders. Taxes collected from all citizens must be used for
the equal benefit of all citizens regardless of race, gender or ethnicity. Democracy
and equality under the law demands no less in the United States of America.
Disparate Impact: We strongly disagree with the politically-correct
notion that test scores or employment criteria which appear to have a "disparate
impact" upon selected racial, ethnic, or gender groups are inherently racist or
sexist. In fact, most instances of so-called "disparate impact" constitute
a legitimate reflection of differences in skills, education, and abilities. Thus,
almost all "disparate impacts" are non-racist, non-sexist indicators of earned
achievement and and learned ability. It is wrong and it is racially divisive to
label such "disparate impacts" as discriminatory, racist, or sexist.