Equal treatment under the law for ALL citizens!

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.

CONTRIBUTE!
Make a tax-deductible contribution to Adversity.Net

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 equal results!

          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 these issues.

          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.

End Philosophy and Theory