Subscribe via RSS Feed

Is “My Brother’s Keeper” Exclusionary?

By Jennifer Rubin | If you are wondering how a new initiative, My Brother’s Keeper, which would assist at-risk African and Hispanic males, is constitutional, you are not alone. This is not a situation in which there has been any finding of any discrimination (which might trigger Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which provides, “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article”).

Why Is It OK For “My Brother’s Keeper” To Target Black Males (Who Need The Most Help) But Not OK For Cops To Target Black Males (Who Do The Most Crime?)

Roger Clegg, head of the Center for Equal Opportunity, thinks this is flat-out unconstitutional. He writes:

It is almost always unconstitutional for the government (and any private program that receives federal money) to discriminate on the basis of race and ethnicity. There is no “compelling” interest to do so here. It may be that a disproportionate number of blacks and Latinos are at-risk, but many are not, and many whites, Asians, and others are. This is just another kind of “profiling.”

Nor will it do to say that there are other programs available for those being excluded here, as one White House official is quoted as saying. This is just another separate-but-equal argument.

Obama Visits White House Press RoomHe suspects this is just another bone to his base. (“President Obama has caved in to pressure from the left — the Congressional Black Caucus and others — to do something he was generally unwilling to do up to now: Endorse a federal program that is overtly limited to those of a particular color.”) In any event, it’s insipid to suggest one’s “brother” for whom you should look after is defined by skin color or ethnic background.

It’s odd, really, that we just got through celebration of the veto of Arizona’s anti-gay legislation that would have allowed business owners to refuse service on the basis of sexual orientation – if they could show they are acting upon a sincerely held religious belief. That was Wednesday. Now on Thursday the government itself wants to exclude at-risk boys who don’t meet the racial and ethnic requirements of the program. (If it was focused on only “straight” youth, would the left be up in arms?)

Now, it is refreshing that the administration has paused from its “war on women” rhetoric to take notice that it really has been men who were hurt more than women in the recession, have worse educational outcomes than women and seem to be more affected by the absence of a father in their lives.

The problem with hyping gender and racial differences is not simply the increased resentment and divisiveness it creates but also that it uses victimhood as a political weapon. Pretty soon words like “discrimination” lose meaning. It seems you are either for an inclusive society – devoted to diminishing racial, ethnic, religious and other distinctions — or you’re not.

Like the Arizona anti-gay law, no good can come from a program that divides up the population by these categories.



The American Freedom Party (AFP) supports the right to keep and bear arms. Emancipate yourself from the dinosaur Democrat and Republican parties. Join a National Party that puts America first, The American Freedom Party!


Support and maintain American Freedom Party growth and the spread of Western civilization! The American Freedom Party is the only party that addresses issues concerning European-American communities and all Americans.


Freedom from Republicans. Freedom from Democrats. American Freedom Party!

The American Freedom Party needs your help! Send $10, $20, $50, $100, or any contribution you can via PayPal “Send Money” to treasurer@american3rdposition.com or click here:





European-Americans should push back! European-Americans should abandon the Republicans and Democrats. Change your party allegiance to the American Freedom Party. A Nationalist party that shares the customs and heritage of the European American people. We need a Nationalist Party interested in defending our borders, preserving our language and promoting our culture. The American Freedom Party is not beholden to foreign governments, special interest groups, nor Wall Street. The American Freedom Party is for America First!


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: American Voice, Establishment News

Comments (7)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. corpusinnominata says:

    Actually, that bit about "whites not being capable of such acts" was sarcasm. It seems like lately whenever I post sarcasm anywhere it fails to get detected. Other websites are notoriously bad about this.

    Lately, I go to anti-white places and post that France, Germany, Poland and Scandinavia should be given back to the "Native Americans." The anti-whites think I'm serious and start up-voting my posts. I guess I've found a new way to start making friends. But that was just sarcasm.

  2. Baron Matrix says:

    So can I be invited to the next rally.. I have lots of hate… A lot may be for you but what the hell…

    • American3P says:

      No you can’t be invited. Because you aim to start a conflict. Take your hate to LaRaza or the NAACP–because there you will find hate.

  3. Baron Matrix says:

    Was keeping blacks out of white schools exclusionary…? I say you’re no one to decide… I live in LA too…

    I want it for love not hate…

    Now decide…

    • American3P says:

      Sir, I have no idea what you are talking about except that you focus on “hate”.

      I challenge you to show me where on the website it states that “we hate” someone.

      Now show me… or shut up.

    • American3P says:

      Sir What are you babbling about?

    • corpusinnominata says:

      I think the Baron of the Matrix is addressing the old segregated system
      that excluded blacks from white schools. Also, when he says "we want it
      for love not hate" he may be suggesting that the Brother's Keeper is for
      the love of fellow blacks while the old segregation system was only for
      the hatred of blacks.

      There are some obvious fallacies here. Does he consider a policy of
      retribution a better policy than reciprocity? Unfortunately, there are those
      in our legislature that think so. A good policy of reciprocity would allow
      for white schools, black schools, and keep with the constitutional principle
      of separate-but-equal. Allowing for one but not the other violates the
      separate-but-equal principle. Or maybe the Baron would like to just do
      away with the Fourteenth Amendment?

      And lest we forget, blacks do things for love of their own while
      whites are simply not capable of such acts. It's just an innate part
      of our white genetic character I suppose.

Top