Crumbling Racial Preferences

by Stephan Kinsella on May 23, 2026

[Cross posted at StephanKinsella.com]

From The Editorial Board, “Old McDonald Had a Race Preference: A lawsuit settlement helps end discrimination at the USDA,” Wall Street Journal (May 22, 2026):

One of the worst sources of race preferences has been the federal government, so cheers to the news that some discriminatory programs have been sent out to pasture. The Agriculture Department recently settled a lawsuit and agreed to end race and sex preferences in federal farm programs.

Adam Faust is a Wisconsin dairy farmer who found his Holstein milking operation harmed by USDA programs that used race or sex preferences to allocate financial benefits. The Dairy Margin Coverage Program, which farmers use to cover fluctuations in milk prices, charged him a fee that wasn’t paid by farmers USDA designated as “socially disadvantaged.”

The USDA’s Loan Guarantee Program gave Mr. Faust a smaller guarantee when he refinanced the loan on his farm than he would have received if he were a woman or minority farmer. And when he planned to create a new manure storage system, Mr. Faust found he was eligible for less reimbursement by the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), which helps farmers offset the costs of conservation.

With changes like this, recent cases like Louisiana v. Callais making it harder to reject use race in drawing voting districts,¹ and so on, the decades long destructive experiment with official racism seems to eroding a bit.

Anyway this report reminds me of an incident I had in 1993 when I was discriminated against because of my race in submitting a legal article to the Texas Bar Journal (yes: I am comparing my struggle to that of others; I also refer to The Patent Holocaust).² As I noted there:

A while back I posted about political correctness infesting the Texas Bar. I noted there that back in 1993 I submitted an article entitled “Oilfield Indemnity and ‘Separate Insurance’ Provisions in the Wake of Getty Oil” to the Texas Bar Journal, which is distributed to tens of thousands of Texas attorneys. I got a letter back saying my article had been accepted for publication, but that it might take over a year to publish it–but “If you are a member of a recognized minority group, your article may be published in accordance with the affirmative action plan for legal article.” I.e., if I proved I was black or Hispanic, they would publish it within a couple months. In other words, if you’re white, you get moved to the back of the bus. I was so offended by the rudeness that I withdrew my article and published it elsewhere.³

As I wrote in response to the Texas Bar Journal’s offer to publish my article:

Previously I submitted the captioned article to you for consideration for possible publication in the Texas Bar Journal. Thereafter I received a letter (copy enclosed) from Ms. Pamala Greathouse, Administrative Assistant of the Journal, dated September 15, 1993 informing me that the Journal’s Editorial Committee had approved the article for publication. Ms. Greathouse also informed me that the article could take up to a year before being published, but that, pursuant to the “Affirmative Action Plan for Legal Articles” adopted by the State Bar of Texas Board of Directors, the article could be published much sooner if I am a member of a “recognized minority group.”

I must say that I was offended by this response to my submission, since this policy clearly discriminates against authors based solely on their race. And it is simply bad manners, if nothing else, to send a letter to me informing me that I must sit at the back of the Texas Bar Journal bus. Regretfully, I must therefore withdraw my article from consideration by you for publication in the Journal. I will seek to publish the article elsewhere where my race is not taken into account.

Nobody puts baby in the corner.