Title VII: Unconstitutional?

Heading into 1964, Barry Goldwater was all but set to win the GOP nomination and capture the White House from the hands of Texas' Lyndon Johnson. With waning popularity and a an administration tarnished due to hosts of scandals, the incumbent president needed a ploy to distract from his weaknesses and retain the American executive's chair for a bit longer, even if the price to pay was in absolute dishonesty. Behaving like a practical politician, Johnson took the plunge by spearheading the Civil Rights Act of 1964, his hopes high that this game-changer would cause the strict constitutionalist ego in Goldwater to overpower political instinct and create a problematic image in the public eye. Regrettably, he was precisely right, and the White House went to Johnson with 486 electoral votes and a 61% popular vote mandate, leaving Goldwater with defeat due to his upholding of the Constitution by opposing the bill. Few other breaches of  the nation's founding rules have been more easily adapted by an administration, and thus the impact of the bill must be considered beyond its initial negatives to demonstrate the dangers of the uneducated masses clinging to emotions rather than governmental knowledge.

 (Photo credit goes to knowledgerush.com)

While Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does establish some reasonable rules for service companies and larger, departmental stores, its more evident problems come in how the tenets included with its pages deliberately hijack the First Amendment when concerning market-specific businesses. Such an entity is one that primarily targets a certain age group or ethnic interest, generally vamping up tactics and promotions to get the greatest benefit from their customers by appealing to a specific desire or concern. Because the business may need to focus solely on a particular type of employee, the legislation creates conflict where it should not remain by undermining business sense.

Thus Title VII's inclusions end up forcing some businesses to make excuses or ridiculous concessions in order to pave the way for the acceptance of employees who may do nothing but detriment to their operating successes. At the most fundamental level, consider a Mexican-styled restaurant targeting both Mexicans and others who enjoy the cuisine and culture. The manager may choose to higher a stage with three guitar-strumming Mariachi, and perhaps a dashing Latino couple, dancing the salsa while the dinning guests look on with interest and wondrous appreciation. Nothing about this arrangement is unnatural for the owner, who wants to attract more customers, and yet a sinister element stands: the desired race. For what if an African-American woman (attractive and trained in dance) applies for the position?

Defenders of the act will argue that this situation is unlikely, yet we all know it is hardly impossible. Under these circumstances it seems natural that the manager-owner might desire a Latina woman instead, though Title VII ties his hands by implying he is a racist for refusing her application on the basis of race. It is doubtful that the man is in fact harboring racial hatred against the applicant, but the 1964 legislation essentially makes this his intent.  

Even on a more specific level, Title VII hurts some companies when marketing is concerned. In the case of the popular restaurant chain Hooters, customers could hardly be described as attending one of its locations simply to dine on mediocre burgers and fries--with all the options available in fast food, this motivation seems more like a pitiful excuse to spouse or girlfriend than anything else. In reality, most attending Hooters for what exactly? Perhaps the stunning women with frontal personality and strategically low-cut shorts? Though not entirely the highest form of marketing out there, the owners have a strategy and intend to follow it, yet once again the problems arise.

Assume for a moment that a Muslim woman wishes to apply not as a kitchen worker but as a waitress, serving food to the horny consumers who wait expectantly for servers in the sexually-charged atmosphere. Now further consider that this woman is prescribed religiously to wear a full body covering and hijab scarf whenever she is out and about or within the workplace. Obviously this does nothing to help Hooters, seeing as few men enter into the restaurant expecting to be served by a semi-ninja, so it seems reasonable that under the First Amendment the management would be justified by rejecting her on the basis of her religious practices in the workplace. Makes sense, right? Tell that to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission however, and Hooters gets smacked with a massive fine (this is adapted from an actual incident).

Civil rights will always remain a subject of controversy in America, yet tossing the Constitution out the window to make way for a neo-multiculturalist agenda is unacceptable and un-American. Businesses should not discriminate with hate towards any one religion, gender, or race, and yet a time must come when it is realized that some discrimination on these foundations is absolutely fundamental to freedom. 

Jessica Yui

National Alliance Vice Chairman

Reasonable Appreciation

I think it's best to begin this piece by making a rather obvious distinction: the National Alliance Party shares close to zero sympathies to the political positions of activist and former Green Party presidential nominee Ralph Nader. When one examines even the general viewpoints of Mr. Nader, they are clearly way out of line with both the American way of life, and the concerns of most of the mainstream population. But while that may be true, I feel inclined as a member of this organization to reach out and show him the respect garnered by even the wisest who promote values similar to those of our viewpoint. 

Despite being considered irrelevant by both parties at the onset of the 2000 Presidential election, Nader ascended to a position of the so called "spoiler," after his campaign for chief executive gathered an impressive 2.74% of the popular votes. Since the man's campaign received such a large number of its ballots from the State of Florida, Democratic strategists have since contended that his presence on the voting papers cost Vice President Al Gore the general election.  

I feel this is unfair on many accounts, and simply surmises to a juvenile sore loser attitude from the DNC, which could not even take the presidency from George W. Bush in 2004, despite their tremendous advantage, and Nader's far lesser portion of the votes. These can briefly be covered by including Gore's weak campaign, the presidential debates commission, and Nader's own message for the year 2000. 

Perhaps in an admirable attempt to avoid the "no clear definition" characteristic given to former President George H.W. Bush after the Republican's copying of Ronald Reagan's image to win in 1988, Al Gore distanced himself, rather disastrously, from Bill Clinton's administration of America. Considering the Arkansas Democrat's tendency to present a record of messy and unsettling personal relationships, as well as the South's aversion to such public behavior, this might actually be viewed as wise, accept for the fact that the Vice President's alternative was nothing short of weak and ineffective. 

And so Al Gore became the paladin for environmental protection in the United States, leaving behind the strongest issue for his candidacy in that year: the 3 trillion dollar surplus left by Bill Clinton. The merits of the money reserves can be debated, but no matter what is said, it made a terrific ploy for a strong and difficult to beat campaign. Instead, Donna Brazile, Gore's manager, allowed him to pursue a reckless and shoddy plan which was doomed to fail against the charismatic pro-tax cuts Texas governor, George W. Bush. Fused together, the following ad reveals just how out of touch Gore's message felt to a public in which less than 10% today feel protecting the planet is an important issue (Gallup Poll). 

As the election came around to presidential debates, little action was taken by the Democratic Party to help include Mr. Nader, despite his insurgent strength in choice polls and in battleground states. Not surprisingly, the commission for debates, controlled by both former party chairs of the two major electoral factions and a large number of corporations, refused to allow Ralph Nader to attend any of their three sessions, and even went as far as to deny him a seat despite his registered invitation and ticket for attendance. According to commission rules, candidates must poll at least 5% in several national questionnaires before being admitted, and Nader did not qualify with enough support. In minced terms, he was not relevant to the equation--accept that he became very relevant as soon as his movement hurt the Democrats. 

Ever since Al Gore conceded the race to George W. Bush, the Democratic Party has attempted to slander the man for his hopeful candidacy, absolutely avoiding how his message drew members of all parties and ideologies to cast their ballots for him in 2000. As noted before, Nader's views can seem ridiculous at some corners, yet his message for the turn of the century was to forge a strong alliance between the people and honest businesspeople in America. The Democrats failed to deliver their historical populist message, and neglected to use the strongest element of advantage: the Clinton surplus. What should have been an easy victory turned into a milestone of defeat as the party scrambled to realign, and failed again, in 2004. 

Ralph Nader may never become president, nor should anyone hope he does, yet the man deserves our respect and consideration. Standing firm against two of the largest and most powerful parties in the United States is not cakewalk; it requires tenacity and an iron resilience against the opposition. For all his work, Ralph Nader has seen even his closest friends betray him for the Democratic Party, yet a stronger force is allied with him: countless Americans who desire fundamental change in the system of government. 

David Marino

National Alliance Vice President for Campaigns