Roger Clegg writes at National Review:
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court was poised to hear oral arguments in the fully briefed Magner v. Gallagher, a case presenting the issue of whether a “disparate impact” cause of action may be brought under the Fair Housing Act. Now, the theory in disparate-impact causes of action is that someone can be held liable for racial discrimination if he uses a selection device that leads to a racial imbalance, even if the device is neutral on its face, in its intent, and as applied. In the housing context, for example, rejecting mortgage applicants because of their credit history can be challenged if this results in a higher percentage of blacks than Asians being turned down, and it then becomes up to the lender to prove to a jury some degree of “business necessity” for his practice. The Obama administration is a great fan of this approach to civil-rights enforcement, and it was quite upset that the Supreme Court might rule it illegal. So it successfully leaned on the City of St. Paul, a petitioner in the suit, to withdraw its case from the Supreme Court.
The Magner case stems from the city of St. Paul deciding to crack down on slumlords by enforcing already written laws and regulations in the housing code (e.g., fire safety). The slumlords got together and sued the city for racial discrimination because most of their tenants are black, and they argued that enforcing the laws would have disparate impact on blacks because that would raise the slumlords' costs, which they would pass on to their black tenants. (I don't know what race(s) the slumlords are.) So, that would be discrimination!
The plaintiffs and defendants split the first two rounds, and the Supreme Court accepted the case.
I imagine the Obama Administration found Magner to be an extremely hot potato. On the one hand, the Roberts Court might use this ridiculous case to do major damage to the legal concept of disparate impact. On the other hand (and this is much more speculative, but it's fun to follow out the logic), the Roberts Court just might have strongly uphold disparate impact, and then started applying the logic of disparate impact to do who knows what damage to liberal interests.
For example, how about the Endangered Species Act, which has a huge disparate impact in reducing the number of blacks and (especially) Hispanics in sophisticated locales by driving up the cost of new developments.
Or, in employment, disparate impact is a huge deal in hiring firemen, but it's a very small deal in Hollywood and Silicon Valley. You might think that being a big city fireman and being a movie set technician are fairly similar jobs: they are among the best blue collar jobs in America in terms of pay and fun. But they are wildly different in terms of discrimination lawsuits. But nobody ever notices. Movie crews look like the LA Fire Department in 1975 -- a whole bunch of competent white guys. You might think that's illegal these days, but the discrimination laws don't apply to Hollywood. Angelina Jolie would not be pleasant to be around after she saw the dailies of what her wrinkles looked like with a cut rate diverse lighting crew.
The Obama Administration likes to occasionally poke at liberal areas like Marin County, but it likes doing it at its own discretion, maybe getting some Awardable Housing units to hand out to allies. You know, that kind of thing. The last thing in the whole world the Obama Administration wanted in an Election Year was the chance of the Supreme Court either cracking down disparate impact or calling its bluff and ordering it to enforce it impartially.
So, the word came down from inside the Obama Administration: make this case disappear:
When the Justice Department’s coercion came to light, two House committees decided to investigate, and what they found is the subject of today’s Journal editorial. It turns out that part of the deal with the City of St. Paul was that the Justice Department agreed not to intervene in a separate, False Claims Act lawsuit alleging that the City had made false certifications to the federal government. That deal was made at the insistence of Civil Rights Division head Thomas Perez and over the objections of the department’s career attorneys in the Civil Division. Oh, and here’s another nugget, not mentioned by the Journal: The false certification was that the city was using federal funds to create jobs for low-income workers of all races, when in fact it was only focused on employing minorities. To Perez, then, it was a win-win deal: He would ensure that the Obama administration could continue to bring disparate-impact lawsuits (which result in politically correct racial discrimination) in exchange for giving the city a pass on its policy of . . . politically correct racial discrimination. Of course, staying out of the False Claims Act suit may have cost U.S. taxpayers over $180 million, according to the House committees, but who says that social justice is cheap?
Posts
49 comments:
Hollywood is a Scots-Irish racket, so there'd be screeching and howling over anti-Presbyterianism if you ever brought the law to bear on them. After all, they are the Elect People.
"I imagine the Obama Administration found Magner to be an extremely hot potato. On the one hand, the Roberts Court might use this ridiculous case to do major damage to the legal concept of disparate impact. On the other hand (and this is much more speculative, but it's fun to follow out the logic), the Roberts Court just might have strongly uphold disparate impact, and then started applying the logic of disparate impact to do who knows what damage to liberal interests."
One thing that's been clear over the years, when it comes to the intersection of government, logic, liberal interests, we can generally expect government to do whatever liberal interests want, with logic (or fairness, for that matter) taking a backseat, or even flying out the window. These concepts don't matter to a liberal-run power structure, what matters are who gets the benefit, regardless of principles.
The original civil rights laws were sold as just providing some semblance of equality. This has all mutated into a cancerous growth that's turned blacks into a privileged class. They must be hired even if their qualifications are poor, can't be fired, are overrepresented on television and in ads, must be portrayed as geniuses, are given a disproportionate share of government subsidies such as Section 8 and free food, all public education twisted around to cater to them especially, nightly news leading off daily with anguish over the latest shootings of aspiring rappers, it just goes on and on. At the same time the costs of paying police, social workers, judges, corrections workers, babysitting teachers to watch over the black population always goes up, never down. As time has gone by they've become more and more expensive and are greater liabilities than ever before. What happened? I thought that Midnight Basketball and Operation Head Start were supposed to solve all their issues.
"being a big city fireman and being a movie set technician are fairly similar jobs: they are among the best blue collar jobs in America in terms of pay and fun"
So why not privatize the fire department so it can be White like Hollywood set technicians? The Whites in the fire dept would get lower salaries and poor benefits, but they would be able to work around White people and their children would be able to be firemen instead of having to join the miltiary or the TSA. But then again they might face competition from Asians. Suggest that at the next White fireman's event and see how it is received.
Outsource your fire dept.
http://www.assetco.com/
I guess we can expect more fires in St Paul, and with a racially diverse fire dep't, more deaths as well.
However, since the dead can vote, that does not affect progressive politicians.
Disparate impact isn't a race-based doctrine.
For example, dIsparate impact analysis also applies to people with disabilities-- such as wounded returning veterans-- and any other protected class.
For example: a lender or landlord's requirement for proof of employment (versus proof of income), could potentially discriminate against a returning severely wounded soldier, because although that veteran may not be able to work due to his injury (thus not able to demonstrate proof of employment) he would be able to demonstrate proof of income, if he were receiving disability compensation.
So, something as minor as proof of employment-- which seems like a pretty neutral policy, actually could discriminate against those that served our country most.
That's what disparate impact is, and it protects businesses because it ONLY applies if another, less discriminatory but equal policy is available, such as proof of income.
Given Justice Roberts recently discovered, strange-new-respect Liberalism, I would think disparate impact would have passed 5-4 (no way on earth the four Leftists would have voted it down), or even 6-3 with Kennedy coming on board.
The blatant unconstitutionality of disparate impact laws -- to say nothing of their moral insanity -- being neither here nor there, the Supremes would do their usual thing and vote their social status.
Disparate impact isn't a race-based doctrine.
Neither technically are "hate crimes" laws. Yet here in the real world, 99% of hate crimes arrests go in one direction.
In the same way, when is the last time a disparate impact case was brought up arguing impact against whites?
Disparate impact is used as a class-action cudgel to threaten/brow-beat anyone seen as a potential "deep pockets" source of shake-down money and graft. It is corruption personified, a festering, oozing sore on the body politic gussied up with the flowing robes of faux "justice." It was forced upon us largely in 1971 so a bunch of Commies on the Supreme Court could give themselves status woodies. Its toxic acid has been corroding our nation since.
Question about movie technicians: do the jobs tend to go from father to son, sort of how the children of actors often end up with acting jobs?
I think Hollywood basks in its exceptional status. There's no people like show people and all that. Hollywood producers enjoy very strong hire and fire powers over those persons working on a production and the unions do not object. A technician can lose his job just for looking a film star in the eye. It doesn't matter because everyone understands the fragile nature of the artists involved and union members will always find work on a different project swiftly. Plus the anti-racist leftist credentials of the persons working in Hollywood are impeccable.
I would like to see a disparate impact case brought against the supreme court.
Look, a wacky doctrine such as disparate impact could only have come about in a race-based case (Griggs v. Duke Power, I think, is the case). Like many other race-based Supreme court decisions, it has been applied to other forms of discrimination, as it must. National Review overstates it a little bit...only if the employer cannot justify the business necessity of the restriction (e.g., an intelligence test for job applicants) will the court find that the failure to hire had a discriminatory impact.
That being said, what constitutes "justification" in the eyes of a liberal/progressive judge or a minority jury may be very different from what the average person/businessman would understand.
I think that the original stated intent of the doctrine of disparate impact was to smoke out discrimination where the employer used tests and other hurdles as a mask to hide racial animus. In my opinion, it went way too far, in effect taking the burden of proving one element of a prima facie case off the plaintiff's shoulders, and putting the burden on defendant to justify his employment requirements as non-discriminatory. This should have been a big Due Process problem for the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, back in the '70s, the Court was so eager to re-shape society that it did not worry too much about that. We live with the results now.
Dave:
Yes, the jobs are a lot like the skilled union jobs of two generations ago- they tend to get passed down within families, both for skill reasons (nothing like having your dad and uncle to show you the ropes) and because it makes it easier to get in the union. And Steve is right. Below the line Hollywood jobs from Teamsters to A.D.s to sound and light guys are some of the best blue collar jobs left in America. You work long hours, but get paid enough to live in one of L.A.'s decent outer suburbs (Woodland Hills, Chatsworth, Ventura County or Santa Clarita) while having really good free food all day, getting to hang out with cute actresses and extras, and see interesting stuff happen.
It's obvious that you racists want the primary racial narrative in america to remain the white vs black dichotomy. Your entire site is dedicated to ignoring the hispanic expansion and finding ways to keep the traditional dichotomies paramount. You ignore hispanic immigration and anti-immigrant sentiment because you don't want a break between hispanics and whites over immigration.
An america where whites are 55%, hispanics are 25%, blacks are 13%, and the rest of the population being asians and others would not have a black/white dichotomy. The dichotomy would instead be white vs immigrant. Domestic issues would revolve around the immigration issue and the populaces opinion on it.
If whites fear a black/hispanic alliance, that will turn out to be an illusion, there won't be a long term black hispanic alliance. The main fault line would be hispanics/asians/liberal whites vs conservative whites/assimilationist-minded hispanics-asians/part of the black vote, however the majority of the black vote would largely remain neutral. However without the black vote the two aforementioned blocs would be at an impasse. As a result the black vote would be courted by both sides and blacks would switch sides based on which one is more favorable to black interests.
Maybe Obama really is smart. Maybe he's way ahead of the rest of us.
Jobs and wages are just just one means of distributing wealth. They are not the only way. Indeed for much human history they weren't the way at all. The Greeks and Romans of course had real slavery not wage slavery. Feudalism is a hierarchical form of a command economy. You gain access to resources by pleasing your liege lord not by earning wages. The connection between a jobs, wages and your personal income is a fairly modern notion.
But Obama and his like seem intent on change. Fundamental change. Change you can believe in. Black people, it should be clear by now, are not competitive with the advanced races in their wage earning worth. Never will be.
Products are made today in only two ways: by machines or by the Chinese. (OK, that's hyperbole) The point is that if we wanted to we could have the machines produce almost everything we need. But we are locked into a wealth distribution system that relies on people having jobs.
Why not then sever the connection between human work and a person's share of the wealth? The Samurai were awarded land and followers by the Shogun. Strawberry jam manufacturing was once authorized personally by the Queen of England. Having the top man hand out stuff is the "Chicago Way".
Obama seems intent on breaking the connection between work and wages. Public welfare, housing allowances, food stamps etc. are not just a safety net. That implies that they are short term substitutes. For Obama they are the new way to get the products of economy into the hands of the people. He wants much more than the socialists or communists wanted. They just wanted to have workers work under a different set of owners. Obama doesn't really want anyone to have to work at all. His people, you see, aren't very good at work.
Blacks have been the first casualties of the attack of the machines. The combines forced them out of Missippi. The auto assembling robots have forced them out of Detroit. How are they to live? Not by jobs and wages, that's for sure.
They say that FDR never really thought out what he was doing. The New Deal wasn't planned so much as it was improvised piece by piece. Maybe Obama, who is no fan of hard work, is just improvising on instinct too. But the net effect is much the same. Blacks are being released from the job-wage system of access to resources.
Obama tries to deny we are in a terror war with Islam. Less appreciated is the fact that we are in a longer term war with the machines. And very few people seem to recognize that we are in a race war too.
Obama may go down in history as the true black Moses - the savior of his people. I certainly have no other solution for Detroit. But almost all of Obama's remedies impact whites adversely. I doubt if he realizes it but when Romney uses the term "jobs" he's speaking in racial code. He's speaking to the aspirations of white people. Black people may not understand all the arguments but they can sense that. Romney's election means an America where they are doomed to increasing margininalization.
Obama alone can save them. Unfortunately that entails pretty much destroying most of what made America America.
Albertosuarus
"Question about movie technicians: do the jobs tend to go from father to son, sort of how the children of actors often end up with acting jobs?"
Since it's Hollywood, there probably are frequent cases of jobs that get handed down from "daddy", but that's a metaphorical term used by a certain community there.
"Question about movie technicians: do the jobs tend to go from father to son, sort of how the children of actors often end up with acting jobs?"
Since it's Hollywood, there probably are frequent cases of jobs that get handed down from "daddy", but that's a metaphorical term used by a certain community there.
Steve - what is the scope of disparate impact? Why wouldn't a Hollywood studio or any other industry be subject to its rigors?
And look at how the Hollywood unions/guilds exemplify the original and still most successful type of labor union-- one of highly-skilled "craftsmen" who organize for two goals: (1) getting a bigger share of the profits (pay/benefits/etc); and (2) keeping out the competition (apprenticeship schemes, referral-based [nepotistic] hiring, discouragement of technological improvements which might enable de-skilling, etc).
The fact that unions function best for highly-skilled workers frustrates the kind of academically-qualified leftists who run government agencies like EEOC and DOJ-CRD. In the fantasies of those people, all the poor and especially dark-skinned people form unions which eagerly welcome unskilled neophytes as members, then obtain high and "equal" pay for them.
Unlike fantasy unions, though, real-world unions always want to restrict employment, not increase it.* I really think one reason the DOJ-CRD types persecute firefighters' unions (and steamfitters unions, and so-on, and so-forth) is hatred based on those unions' "betrayal" of the ideals leftist lawyers think unions should embody.
Of course while the most successful union leaders of the 20th Century spouted socialism and communism all the time they were invariably racist and exclusionary-- in the interests of their members!
*Unions want to grow until all the workers in their industry belong, but then they want to raise wages above the free-market price and restrict entry-- they must restrict entry to keep wages up. Of course the union will welcome Joe Member's son John as his uncle Frank Member retires-- but they don't want Lamont, who doesn't have a relative to "sponsor" him into the craft, and they definitely don't want Julio, Sergio, and Pedro all at once because there's "no work" for them (at union scale).
During the Ricci Case, curiosity got the best of me, so I found fire fighter placement tests online.
Questions were germane but judge for yourself.
See fire-fighter-exam (dot) com
Anonymous 5:23am
"anti-Presbyterianism"
good one!
Yes, Hollywood is a Scots-Irish racket. Foreigners see Hollywood and think it's real America.
No wonder so many hate us.
OT, Steve
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9231800/Microsoft_calls_for_5B_investment_in_U.S._education
Microsoft calls for $5B investment in U.S. education
The new spending would be paid for by new fees on H-1B and green card visa, under Microsoft's plan
GOP going the way of Whigs. yeah, the best thing that can happen. With a one party state, whites can truly play racial politics without dividing the white vote.
Black women and black men vote alike.
Brown women and brown men vote alike.
Jewish men and Jewish women vote alike.
Asian women and Asian men vote alike.
Lesbians and gays vote alike.
But white women and white men don't vote alike. That is the biggest political development in the past 60 yrs. Bigger than the conservative/liberal divide among whites, it's the divide between men and women. White men lost white women.
Jewish feminists cleverly made white women feel like 'victims' of evil white patriarchal males, and so whole new generations of white women grew up identifying more with blacks, hispans, Jews, and gays than with their fathers, brothers, or even husbands--even though white women enjoy all the freedoms, rights, and privileges as the result of achievements of white males.
White women have been instilled with a race-traitor ideology by liberal Jews. It's gotten to the point where white guys have to support 'gay marriage' and worship MLK if they want any chance of finding a white girl who will marry him.
The spine of any people is the unity of men and women. White men lost white women. The white spine is broken. White power is paralyzed. Jews are loving it.
"On the other hand (and this is much more speculative, but it's fun to follow out the logic), the Roberts Court just might have strongly uphold disparate impact, and then started applying the logic of disparate impact to do who knows what damage to liberal interests."
Roberts could well be the troll America needs.
Romney, a better looking dubya.
white women and white men don't vote alike.
Yes, they do. I don't know how this particular piece of nonsense has gotten traction around here - surely people don't believe a word Whiskey writes? - but it is a lie. White women and white men both voted for McCain in 2008 and will vote for Romney in 2012.
If you want to get really ornate, say at the level of a lecturer in discrimination law at a major law school, you could pose this question: Is it constitutional to adopt a policy that has disparate impact, in favor of underrepresented groups, in order to offset the disparate impact of another policy, apparently neutral but with a disparate impact against the interest of underrepresented groups?
That question might be raised by the less controversial part of the University of Texas’s admission program. UT admits the majority of freshmen and women based on their presence among the top graduates of their Texas high schools. Since the races are distributed very unevenly by high school, this has the effect of increasing the number of Hispanics and blacks admitted, compare with a program that looked at SAT scores or other indicators of ability and effort evenly across the board. And that is one of its intentions.
The UT case highlights the problem with attempting to adopt Chief Justice Roberts’s preferred simple approach: “The way to stop discriminating by race is to stop discriminating by race.” In the old days, when at least part of the American elite was segregationist in intent against blacks, it frustrated bans on racial discrimination by adopting policies that discriminated by race, both in intent and in effect, against blacks. Now that these elites are determined to discriminate in favor of blacks and others, will they not find similar dodges around bans on racial preferences? So we may have to return to the question of what a policy’s effect and intent is, with respect to various groups.
Bibi's bomb... I'm waiting Steve.
It's obvious that you racists want the primary racial narrative in america to remain the white vs black dichotomy. Your entire site is dedicated to ignoring the hispanic expansion and finding ways to keep the traditional dichotomies paramount. You ignore hispanic immigration and anti-immigrant sentiment because you don't want a break between hispanics and whites over immigration.
Do you even read this blog? Hispanic immigration, the great hispanic voting bloc, the lack of hispanic achievement vis-a-vis their population, etc., etc. is discussed frequently on this blog. Also discussed from time to time is the 'Sailer Strategy' and how it relates to changing demographics of this nation.
What's funny/sad about this is something like 16% of blacks are mentally retarded. If only 3% failed the test, then...
"Since it's Hollywood, there probably are frequent cases of jobs that get handed down from "daddy", but that's a metaphorical term used by a certain community there."
Elvisd, you're a moron. Most of the below-the-line jobs in Hollywood are done by straight white men in cargo shorts with tool belts who would kick your ass for insinuating what you just did about them.
"[T]he Roberts Court just might have strongly upheld disparate impact, and then started applying the logic of disparate impact to do who knows what damage to liberal interests."
Never happen. When the RICO anti-racketeering act started being used against anti-abortion protesters, there was never any chance that it would be used in the same manner against leftist protesters. Everyone involved knows what these laws are for, and they're not going to accidentally apply them in an unapproved way.
"white women and white men don't vote alike.
Yes, they do. I don't know how this particular piece of nonsense has gotten traction around here"
Some handle called Whiskey mainly. I never bother to read his comments, but they have to do with that. Then impressionable, bitter people who don't check the fact (easy enough with the Internet), rinse and repeat.
As more and more groups realize that they can use Disparate Impact defenses or offenses, things are going to get very interesting and out of hand.
"Disparate impact isn't a race-based doctrine.
For example, disparate impact analysis also applies to people with disabilities-- such as wounded returning veterans-- and any other protected class. "
-It would definitely be nice for the Supreme Court to follow it to its logical conclusions and break down the whole thing. What's to stop a disparate impact suit by the mentally ill? After all, they are a discrete minority group who is discriminated against for jobs, housing, etc.. How many people with a history of schizophrenia are offered upper management positions in companies?
"Maybe Obama really is smart. Maybe he's way ahead of the rest of us."
I agree with the rest of your comment that he's intent on breaking down capitalism and turning the country into a Socialist fantasy, but given the long history of how these sorts of things turned out across time and place in the 20th century, I'd hardly chalk it up to being bright.
White women and white men both voted for McCain in 2008 and will vote for Romney in 2012
@severn
It's white unmarried women that voted overwhelmingly for Obama in '08 not white women in general.
I'm sure you know that.
Probably, a significant number of "men who love single women" voted in kind on the odd chance that it would increase their chances of "scoring" with those women.
When commenters around here talk about Obama being this diabolical socialist intent on turning the US into socialist paradise, what exactly are they basing that on? Is it pretty much all about the health care law, i.e. Obamacare?
As more and more groups realize that they can use Disparate Impact defenses or offenses, things are going to get very interesting and out of hand.
Hmm. Not so sure. I would guess that when necessary and expedient, they will be made offers they can't refuse so they will stay out of court and off the official record. Others will just have their cases dismissed. They just won't make any headway.
Consider that in Canada the same case for polygamy was made that was used to promote gay marriage. Obviously polygamy is far more reasonable than gay marriage (I don't support either), yet courts magically found the arguments for a civil right to polygamy not to exist while finding a civil right to gay marriage. So, judges are towing the line.
"Anonymous GLS said...
When commenters around here talk about Obama being this diabolical socialist intent on turning the US into socialist paradise, what exactly are they basing that on? Is it pretty much all about the health care law, i.e. Obamacare?"
No, It's pretty much all about everything he has a record of doing- growing up under a Marxist mother; agitating for redistribution as a community organizer; warming a pew in 'damn America' under Wright for two decades where he got his 'audacity of hope' message; teaching Alinsky; serving as a senator where he had the most liberal voting record; favoring a big socialist government through such items as Obamacare, several 'economic relief' stimulus measures that acted as redistribution schemes; quantitative easing, which in essence robs from savers and workers and gives to the government; his justice department's favoritism towards minorities; various ways of favoring illegal immigrants like restraining state apprehension of them; etc- if you want even more items see 689 reasons poster at NRO
When commenters around here talk about Obama being this diabolical socialist intent on turning the US into socialist paradise, what exactly are they basing that on? Is it pretty much all about the health care law, i.e. Obamacare?
That sure as hell ain't nothing. But it is also based on all his other actions and rhetoric. "You didn't build that, the government built that".
If it walks, talks, and quacks like a socialist, it's a socialist.
TL;DR for the moment, but I'm taken aback by this. Last I heard, "disparate impact" (racism in the name of "anti-racism") was a narrow bit of law that only applied in hiring. And only some kinds of hiring, at that (ever heard of a "disparate impact" suit vis-a-vis casting (or writing, or directing, or producing) in the entertainment biz going anywhere?).
The idea of "disparate impact" going on to general rule status is pretty nuts, really. It would mean moving "disparate impact" from racism in the name of "anti-racism" to anti-racism in the name of anti-racism, and you can't have that.
E.g., crackers suing for discrimination.
It's white unmarried women that voted overwhelmingly for Obama in '08 not white women in general.
I'm sure you know that.
What was the breakdown? Just curious as to what "overwhelmingly" means these days.
Disparate impact isn't a race-based doctrine.
The parts we're talking about are. Sections of "disparate impact" law are 100% race-based, ergo, "disparate impact" is race-based.
For example, dIsparate impact analysis also applies to people with disabilities-- such as wounded returning veterans-- and any other protected class.
So it isn't entirely race-based.
For example: a lender or landlord's requirement for proof of employment (versus proof of income), could potentially discriminate against a returning severely wounded soldier, because although that veteran may not be able to work due to his injury (thus not able to demonstrate proof of employment) he would be able to demonstrate proof of income, if he were receiving disability compensation.
Last I heard, real estate contracts had jack shit to do with "disparate impact" law.
So, something as minor as proof of employment-- which seems like a pretty neutral policy, actually could discriminate against those that served our country most.
You say "discriminate against" like it's a bad thing.
That's what disparate impact is, and it protects businesses because it ONLY applies if another, less discriminatory but equal policy is available, such as proof of income.
Er, no, it doesn't protect businesses, you mealy-mouthed libtard. It puts them at risk. And it applies ONLY if the judges and lawyers decide it does, don't pretend there's any real principle in operation here.
I would like to see a disparate impact case brought against the supreme court.
No shit. Thread-winner.
It's obvious that you racists want the primary racial narrative in america to remain the white vs black dichotomy. Your entire site is dedicated to ignoring the hispanic expansion and finding ways to keep the traditional dichotomies paramount. You ignore hispanic immigration and anti-immigrant sentiment because you don't want a break between hispanics and whites over immigration.
You're either joking or nuts. HBD-ers (most here, I guess) and racists (myself, others here) are the ones hiding the Mestizo-ization of America? Put down the crack pipe, friend.
Steve - what is the scope of disparate impact? Why wouldn't a Hollywood studio or any other industry be subject to its rigors?
I forget where I read it, and it wasn't under color of authority, but somewhere near the end of the Internet I found a page basically stating that the entertainment biz is exempt from "anti-discrimination" law vis-a-vis casting, at least, under the first amendment.
More disparate impact
This one will be interesting.
Obama seems intent on breaking the connection between work and wages. Public welfare, housing allowances, food stamps etc. are not just a safety net. That implies that they are short term substitutes. For Obama they are the new way to get the products of economy into the hands of the people. He wants much more than the socialists or communists wanted. ...
Albert Pat O'Saurus, that is an excellent post.
Re Svigor...Casting in e.g. a stage production or movie could require a particular race, appearance or sex as a "bona fide" employment qualification. As a hypothetical example, Liam Neeson would not win a lawsuit over being denied the Jack Johnson part in "The Great White Hope." Even in blackface, he would look and sound wrong.
It gets a little dicey, of course, in other areas of emplyment. I have seen at least one lawsuit where a stripper who was fired because she was pregnant had her case survive an attempt at dismissal and was allowed to proceed with her case (settled before trial). This is not really a "disparate impact" kind of situation, though. My guess is that the Hollywood folks are smart enough to make deals with EEOC, etc., whether political or not, to avoid lawsuits.
It is all about the juice (political connections).
From an email list I'm on:
In New York City, the Vulcan Society-not a labor union but a fraternal group for black firefighters-sued because the firefighter tests eliminated almost all black applicants. There was, they admitted, nothing racist about the test: it was just a hard test involving a lot of detailed fire science. Whites, they argued, were either from firefighter families (many were) and grew up around fire fighters or were "fire buffs" who obsessive-compulsively studied fire literature. Since, the Vulcan Society argued, Blacks were much less likely to be from firefighter families and did not tend to be "fire buffs", they were failing at a radically higher rate.
Sailer correctly points out the real reason few blacks are firefighters: Those blacks smart enough and buff enough to be firefighters can get a full ride scholarship to prestiege schools and sinecure jobs in corporate positions or other, much better paying and less dangerous jobs. Or they go into sports: big city FDs are very physically competitive and you have to be quite athletic to make the cut in most cases.
Maybe the NYFD should have subpoenaed Darius McCollum and his adversaries on the subway police so as to prove that blacks could be sufficiently intelligent and obsessive-compulsive to get hired if they wanted to bad enough.
McCollum, who is black, is the famous "superfoamer" who by the New York subway's own sworn account knows more about the New York train system than any single employee of their own firm. He has been apprehended at least seventeen times for impersonating subway workers and doing their jobs-flawlessly in each case.
You're getting the word out!
Post a Comment