stu2002
05-13-2010, 04:24 AM
Truth in Advertising
http://www.alternativeright.com/media/k2/items/cache/83a9554230ed6e6cccfe522a2a4bd53e_M.jpg
Since the 1970s government has obsessively imposed "diversity" on a reluctant public. Unfortunately, the political equivalent of a "it's good for you" liver-and-cauliflower diet has not ushered in an Egalitarian Paradise, despite promises that a jumble of races, ethnic groups and sexes enriches everyone. As matters now stand, the unpopular mania rests entirely on admonitions -- eat it because it's good for you, backed up by government power ("if you don't eat it, Daddy will jam it down your throat!").
The "everybody benefits" argument is exceedingly difficult to prove. Testimonials, even from distinguished college presidents, typically lack hard evidence outside of tortured statistics, and the counter-arguments, notably, the inferior past performance of favored beneficiaries, certainly seem just as persuasive. After all, if it is so worthwhile, why must government jam it down our throats? Diversity defenders stress vague hopes to be delivered tomorrow while opponents cry shameless political pandering to secure votes from those otherwise unable find lucrative jobs or gain admission to top schools. It is no wonder, then, that acrimonious litigation continues to clog the legal system.
Letting the marketplace place decide is the obvious non-coercive solution. Institutions and businesses will announce their "diversity content" as a box of Cheerios lists vitamin content and consumers will choose.
This is hardly new or controversial. Product labeling, even if government mandated, is ubiquitous, universally accepted and this surely helps consumers make informed judgments. Millions gladly pay a premium for rabbi-certified kosher food, government-labeled organic produce, and appliances displaying the UL seal when quality is uncertain. Labels tell us about movie rowdiness and the automobile industry already lists foreign content in its cars. Countless trusted firms, everything from Consumer Reports to privately run insurance institutes, verify car safety. Investors rely on Moody's or Morningstar to certify bond safety. Going one step further, racial entrepreneurs like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton may create proprietary rating agencies that for a fee would certify "minority content."
The voluntary character of this labeling is critical. Colleges will proudly affix their "diversity content" to brochures to secure a marketplace advantage if, as claimed, parents and students dislike lily-white schools since "whiteness" is a liability in an increasingly multicultural world. In fact, some college guidebooks already list the student body's racial/ethnic composition so we can only assume that this is treated as an advantage in competing for top-flight students.
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/truth-in-advertising/
http://www.alternativeright.com/media/k2/items/cache/83a9554230ed6e6cccfe522a2a4bd53e_M.jpg
Since the 1970s government has obsessively imposed "diversity" on a reluctant public. Unfortunately, the political equivalent of a "it's good for you" liver-and-cauliflower diet has not ushered in an Egalitarian Paradise, despite promises that a jumble of races, ethnic groups and sexes enriches everyone. As matters now stand, the unpopular mania rests entirely on admonitions -- eat it because it's good for you, backed up by government power ("if you don't eat it, Daddy will jam it down your throat!").
The "everybody benefits" argument is exceedingly difficult to prove. Testimonials, even from distinguished college presidents, typically lack hard evidence outside of tortured statistics, and the counter-arguments, notably, the inferior past performance of favored beneficiaries, certainly seem just as persuasive. After all, if it is so worthwhile, why must government jam it down our throats? Diversity defenders stress vague hopes to be delivered tomorrow while opponents cry shameless political pandering to secure votes from those otherwise unable find lucrative jobs or gain admission to top schools. It is no wonder, then, that acrimonious litigation continues to clog the legal system.
Letting the marketplace place decide is the obvious non-coercive solution. Institutions and businesses will announce their "diversity content" as a box of Cheerios lists vitamin content and consumers will choose.
This is hardly new or controversial. Product labeling, even if government mandated, is ubiquitous, universally accepted and this surely helps consumers make informed judgments. Millions gladly pay a premium for rabbi-certified kosher food, government-labeled organic produce, and appliances displaying the UL seal when quality is uncertain. Labels tell us about movie rowdiness and the automobile industry already lists foreign content in its cars. Countless trusted firms, everything from Consumer Reports to privately run insurance institutes, verify car safety. Investors rely on Moody's or Morningstar to certify bond safety. Going one step further, racial entrepreneurs like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton may create proprietary rating agencies that for a fee would certify "minority content."
The voluntary character of this labeling is critical. Colleges will proudly affix their "diversity content" to brochures to secure a marketplace advantage if, as claimed, parents and students dislike lily-white schools since "whiteness" is a liability in an increasingly multicultural world. In fact, some college guidebooks already list the student body's racial/ethnic composition so we can only assume that this is treated as an advantage in competing for top-flight students.
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/truth-in-advertising/