Have squatters’ rights in race and gender privileges canceled equality under law?

• January 14, 2026
• Categories: Articles & Columns

 Print This Article

Dear readers, this is an important article that explains much. Please share it widely, and if you have access to social media, please refer to the article and post its URL address.

The interview today is also important. Any attention you can bring to it will contribute to the survival of civilization.

Have squatters’ rights in race and gender privileges canceled equality under law?

Paul Craig Roberts

It is difficult to choose whether it is the New York Times, NPR, or CNN that is America’s worst enemy, but combined the three comprise an effective force that has destroyed the belief system that once made the United States a united nation.

The 14th amendment to the US constitution, ratified in 1868, requires the equal applicability of law to every citizen. This means that the 14th amendment prevents any legal privileges or administrative preferences for any American on the basis of race, gender, creed, birth, class, or religious relief. Equality under law does not mean or require  equality of result. However, ever since Alfred Blumrosen at the EEOC stood the 1964 Civil Rights Act on its head and imposed race and gender quotas explicitly prohibited by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, American liberals have succeeded in substituting legal privileges for “preferred minorities” in the place of equal treatment under law.

The debate over the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a debate about racial quotas. The civil rights act could not pass until statutory language and amendments were added that expressly prohibited quotas. The turning point was when Senator Everett Dirksen inserted what is probably the longest sentence in the English language, which expressly and unambiguously forbids quotas. The 170-word sentence is worth reading in full. Entitled “Preferential treatment not to be granted on account of existing number or percentage imbalance,” the provision said:

“Nothing contained in this title shall be interpreted to require any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee, subject to this title to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance, which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex, or national origin employed by any employer, referred or classified for employment by any employment agency or labor organization, admitted to membership or classified by any labor organization, or admitted to, or employed in, any apprenticeship or other training program, in comparison with the total number of percentage of persons of such race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in any community, state, section, or other area, or in the available workforce in any community, state, section or other area.”

Alfred Blumrosen at the EEOC gambled that the federal courts would defer to the regulatory agency’s discretion in how the regulations enforcing the act were drafted. Consequently, Blumrosen imposed racial quotas and won his gamble.

It was obvious to all that Blumrosen’s racial quotas were prohibited both by the 14th Amendment and by the 1964 civil rights act. However, the Swedish socialist Gunnar Myrdal in his screed, An American Dilemma, had convinced American liberals that the United States was a “caste system” that had to be overturned by extra-legal, extra-constitutional means. Blumrosen’s quotas spelled the end in the United States of equal protection under the law. Henceforth, “preferred minorities,” such as “people of color” and women had preferential treatment in university admission, employment, and promotion.

The evidence that the 14th amendment and the civil rights act were being systematically violated was overwhelming. University admissions clearly reflected the fact that white males who met and exceeded the university admission requirements were moved aside in order that less qualified blacks and females could be admitted on the basis of their race and gender, not on their merit. Recently Stanford University admitted that the percentage of white males in Stanford’s freshman class was far below the percentage of white males in the population. Blumrosen’s quotas launched the DEI attack on America’s merit-based system, and white heterosexual males are the victims.

In our own time, we have seen US corporations such as Starbucks publicly announce that no white males need apply. Universities have done the same. During the recent Biden regime the black Secretary of Defense announced that all promotions for white military personnel were on hold until blacks had been advanced.

Yet on January 11, New York Times presstitute Erica L Green quotes Derek Johnson, the president of the NAACP, who alleges that there is “no evidence that white men were discriminated against as a result of the civil rights movement, the civil rights act.” The New York Times presstitute insinuates that complaints about discrimination against white Americans are nothing but claims to white supremacy.

Despite sixty years of evidence of racial discrimination against white males in university admission, employment, and promotion, Erica Green misrepresents Trump’s recent statements encouraging white males to seek redress from the EEOC as a “blunt distillation of his administration’s racial politics.” To the contrary, trump’s statement is an attempt to move away from racial politics back to the merit-based tradition that is the American system.

My book, The New Color Line, documents the destruction of the 14th amendment and equality under the law. It was published 31 years ago in 1995 by Regnery. Henry Regnery said that my book along with Russell Kirk’s, The Conservative Mind, were the two most important books his publishing company had ever published. The New York Times Book Review said that the new color line presented “a forceful and convincing case.” The Washington Post said that the book “makes a strong case that the civil rights legislation of the 1960s has been distorted beyond recognition.” The Wall Street Journal said “there are important lessons to learn, not least how good intentions can go badly awry.”  Irving Kristol said that the “description and analysis in The New Color Line of how affirmative action, which was supposed to help integrate America racially, has become a divisive, segregationist policy, is superb.” Judge Robert bark said that The New Color Line “chronicles, the transformation of the civil rights movement into a racist program of quotas and preferences that makes a mockery of equal Justice before the law and threatens our ability to live peacefully together.” Professor Alan Dershowitz said “whether one agrees or disagrees, and I do some of both, the controversial opinions in The New Color Line cannot be ignored. “Professor Charles Geshekter said “we liberals are embarrassed to learn how academic social engineers, unaccountable bureaucrats, and the courts perverted the principal of nondiscrimination into an illiberal system of preferences and diversity quotas. ” California governor Pete Wilson said “The New Color Line is a penetrating analysis of the impact unfair racial preferences are having on American law and life. It leaves no doubt that these special preferences are undermining the American ideal articulated by Thomas Jefferson as ‘equal rights for all, special privileges for none.'”

Despite the the extraordinary support The New Color Line received from liberals themselves–a marketing bonanza for Regnery–the marketing campaign was suddenly killed, and all further reference to the book prohibited. Clearly a decision was made that there would be no interference with the establishment of the new principal of race and quota privilege preempting equality under the law. After 60 years of enforced race and gender privileges, into which several generations of Americans have been born, the public is accustomed to race and gender privileges as the norm for American society. Erica Green knows nothing whatsoever of this history, and therefore is incompetent to write about it.

Any effort to return the United States to equality under the law could be opposed and blocked on the grounds that blacks and women have squatters rights in their privileges. “Squatters’ rights” is the common term for the legal principle of adverse possession, which allows a squatter to gain legal ownership of property they don’t own if they occupy it continuously, openly, and exclusively for a specific period. The statutory period for squatters rights to go into effect varies by states from 7 to 20 years. Blacks and women have enjoyed squatters’ rights in their privileges for 60 years, clearly, more than enough time to have become part of  inalienable rights of blacks and women.