Racism is undoubtedly one of the greater problems in the world today. It's an issue I've thought a lot about since I was a kid, so it's kind of important to me. So it occurred to me, while I was studying the U.N., that it might be instructive to study its approach to solving problems of racial discrimination. What I found was fairly informative, in a generally negative way.

The Good Stuff

In its International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination, which it wants to become globally-binding law in 2005, the UN reiterates:

Considering that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set out therein, without distinction of any kind, in particular as to race, colour or national origin,

On the surface, this sounds good to me: Individuals have certain enumerated rights. They need to be protected. Race is not a criteria for removing them.

Okay, that's the good stuff, now let's move on to the problem areas...

1. It's Unconstitutional

The U.N. shows a fundamental disrepect for the freedom of speech which Americans enjoy through the first ammendment. For example, in the next paragraph (all emphases mine):

Considering that all human beings are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law against any discrimination and against any incitement to discrimination,

Here in America, for example, we've found that groups like the KKK, Louis Farrakahn, and the Black Panthers have a constitutional right to say things that many of us would deeply disagree with. Louis, for example, tells members of the Nation of Islam not to do business with white people. Discriminatory? Yes. Federally protected speech? Yes again.

Taking it one step further:

Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof;

Did you know that Asians outscore whites on SAT tests? By proposed U.N. law, I would now be a criminal for publishing that statement.

2. It's Unscientific

My previous statement is true. Asians, in aggregate, do outscore whites on SAT tests. Yet it would also be criminalized because the U.N. has adopted a specific "scientific" formulation as a dogma, from which none can depart:

Convinced that any doctrine of superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and that there is no justification for racial discrimination, in theory or in practice, anywhere.

I personally agree that theories of racial superiority are scientifically false, but "differentiation" is an entirely different matter. First, it should be up to science, not a body of law, to determine what it "scientifically false", however I may personally feel about it. Second, while "superiority" can't be shown "racial differentiation" is obvious. For example, white people tend to have lighter skin than blacks: its a racial difference.

Why do asians outscore whites on SAT tests? What factors account for crime disparities between neighborhoods having differing ethnicities or national origin? Why do the Japanese have a lower incidence of heart disease? Should we criminalize researchers if they come up with observations or causes which might imply beneficial or deterimental behavior on the part of one particular race, ethnic group, or nation?

3. It would fundamentally change immigration law

Article 1 states:

Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as affecting in any way the legal provisions of States Parties concerning nationality, citizenship or naturalization, provided that such provisions do not discriminate against any particular nationality.

It would be impossible to discriminate between emmigres of conscience verses others: We could no longer grant special rules (say) for those fleeing a dictatorship because country of national origin could not be consideration in naturalization. Neither could we naturalize (say) all illegal Mexican immigrants without also granting citizenship to all Saudi Arabians here illegally.

4. It would aid terrorists

Here in the U.S., we debate the efficacy of racial profiling. Can we issue an alert to watch for a group of individuals and use their race as a part of the description? The U.N. would make this quandry even worse by prohibiting consideration of nationality!

In Section 3 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination:

[T]he Committee demands that States and international organizations ensure that measures taken in the struggle against terrorism do not discriminate in purpose or effect on grounds of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin.

In other words, not only can we not say things like "Be on the lookout for five mean of Saudi extraction..." but we can't take measures which might have a disparte impact on any particular race or nationality. For example, if agents spent five minutes searching each bag, and found there were ethnic disparities in bag count, such measures could be shown to be illegal!

5. It mandates sweeping state-run social tinkering

The U.N. isn't concerned merely with direct racial discrimination: it also seeks to criminalize or thwart and behavior, views, speech or policies which might have a downstream effect of racial, ethnic, and/or national-origin disparity.

Consider Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph c (2/1/c, in my notation):

Each State Party shall take effective measures to review governmental, national and local policies, and to amend, rescind or nullify any laws and regulations which have the effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination wherever it exists.

We would have to go through each and every law, in every level of goverment (every city, county, state, and the Federal government) and review each law, not just for overt racial discrimination (which is already illegal) but for producing a discriminatory effect.

For example, if a city has rent control, and that rent control is found to have the effect of granting disproportional benefits to Italian Americans, then the law needs to be removed. Or ammended to discriminate against Italian americans (as we'll see later).

Even apparently race-neutral laws, such as those which set fees for services (say, driver's licenses) could be found to be discriminatory: such as by showing economic differences among races/ethnicities and thus arguing that those from the "poorer" groups were disproportionately affected by the fee. Even sales tax could be thusly affected by the same reasoning.

And the state isn't merely required to remove existing laws, but it is also mandated to create more programs, according to 2/1/c:

Each State Party undertakes to encourage, where appropriate, integrationist multi-racial organizations and movements and other means of eliminating barriers between races, and to discourage anything which tends to strengthen racial division.

Talk about a broad mandate!

Furthermore, we're not interested in promoting benefits to minorities by whatever means works. No, instead the the unscientific nature of the U.N. comes through in enshrining a particular type of solution as the only option that may be considered: integrationism. All governments must (a) believe that integration is the only possible answer and pursue it doggedly, and (b) must prohibit all social experiments (even private ones) to improve the status of minories which are not inherantly integrationist.

I myself am an integrationist. Done without coercion or discrimination, its my favored solution. But I recognize, for example, that recent studies show that minority children can benefit from having role models of the same race available. Aligning minority children with same-race mentors would not be integrationist, and hence would be illegal.

I also recongize that there are those, like Louis Farrakahn, who I personally abhor, but whom I think has the right to free association, and has the right to, if he wishes, suggest that blacks should improve their lot by going to all-black colleges or joining all-black clubs. I disagree with him, but I do not wish to silence him or force him to include me in his cabal.

6. It doesn't stick to racism

Ratifying the declaration to end discimination would also obligate a nation to:

1. Protect individuals against experiencing any unemployment (Art 5/e/i).
2. Guarantee housing for all (Art 5/e/iii)
3. Marriage to any spouse (including same gender) (Art/e/iv)
4. Universal health care (Art 5/e/iv)

You may personally be for some of these things. But I doubt you'd agree with all of them, nor would you think they'd be an important part of ending discrimination. Much less question whether the U.N. should be in charge of such decisions regarding our nation and culture.

7. It's Inconsistent

What about affirmative actions programs which madate racial quotas, or consider race more than, or to the exclusion of all other criteria? The causal observer might infer they were prohibed by the stated definition of racism:

1. In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

The casual observer would be wrong. Quite to the contrary, the U.N. would not prohibit race-based preferences, but would, in fact, mandate them. Article 2, section 2 reads:

1. States Parties shall, when the circumstances so warrant, take, in the social, economic, cultural and other fields, special and concrete measures to ensure the adequate development and protection of certain racial groups or individuals belonging to them, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. These measures shall in no case entail as a consequence the maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved.

To recap, the state must take "special and concrete measures to ensure the development ... of certain racial groups or individuals belonging to them", even if this creates "unequal or separate rights for different racial groups"!

Note again: The only way these "unequal or separate rights for different racial groups" can be removed is "after the objectives ... have been achieved." In short, if a racially-discriminatory government program doesn't actually work, it will continue forever. Does this sound like a bad idea to you?

In regarding to the mandated "separate rights" by race: Any time you find a document which both (a) claims to eliminate discrimination, and (b) mandates discrimination, it becomes clear that the "elimination of discrimination" is subservient to another goal.

What is that goal?

Equal effect and results across all racial, ethnic, and national-origin groups, at the expense of free speech, freedom of association, elimination of actual discrimination, and scientific integrity.

In short, total group-based socialism in the name of racial justice.

Socialism subsumes individual rights in order to ensure equal result for each individual. Supposedly. The actual result, however, is always simply the loss of rights, while the original goal remains unmet.

Instead of attempting to achieve fair treatment under law, and maintain individual rights, we're diving society by race and/or ethnicity and/or national origin and attempting to equalize every possible factor. Do fewer Scotsmen vote? Make the Scottish vote count more per person. (Equal effect!) Do Hispanics make less money? Then compensation is shown to be discriminatory in effect: Force each business to give all hispanics a compensating raise!

The brave new world arrives disguised as a prophet of peace and justice.