Reverse Discrimination Case Goes to the US Supreme Court

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: spidey07
Bump to keep this in people's minds and they can follow the story.

This seems pretty open and shut. You can't discriminate based on race.

Why is it that you only care about racial discrimination when it happens to whites? You wouldn't read any of the studies posted in the "Correcting Racism" thread that proved the obvious: there is still systemic racism against blacks in the workplace. It seems very inconsistent, racist even, to empathize with white supposed victims of discrimination, but ignore discrimination against people of color, even though it effects us in much more profound ways than it did this man (he was not fired; no one was promoted instead of him).

Jesus H. Christ you are hands down the biggest dumb ass on this board.

... and those awards don't get handed out every day!!!

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: SunSamurai

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: babylon5
"Fifty-six firefighters passed the exams, including 41 whites, nine blacks and six Hispanics. But of those, only 17 whites and two Hispanics could expect promotion."

Yes, there are actually Non-whites qualified for promotion *Shock*

Just no blacks qualified, so no problem, right?

41/9/6 = 73%/16%/11%
17/0/2 = 89%/0%/11%

16% of the blacks passed the test, but 0% got promotion. No racism there.

Or maybe you just think there is because you're a closet racist. It's called reverse racism. So what if the guys that happened to be black didnt get that job? Perhaps the employer was choosing based on more than an exam, like individual personalities, people skills, or a hundred other things to consider when all else is equal.

Or who knows maybe they WERE just racists. However Countering that with a system that is blind to everything except skin pigmentation is fucking retarded and so are the people still defending it.

There is more to it than just an exam, but the plaintiffs think they should be entitled to a promotion because they passed the exam.

umm no wrong try again. group of white firefighters passed a promotion exam, but the city threw out the test because no blacks would have been promoted.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: SunSamurai

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: babylon5
"Fifty-six firefighters passed the exams, including 41 whites, nine blacks and six Hispanics. But of those, only 17 whites and two Hispanics could expect promotion."

Yes, there are actually Non-whites qualified for promotion *Shock*

Just no blacks qualified, so no problem, right?

41/9/6 = 73%/16%/11%
17/0/2 = 89%/0%/11%

16% of the blacks passed the test, but 0% got promotion. No racism there.

Or maybe you just think there is because you're a closet racist. It's called reverse racism. So what if the guys that happened to be black didnt get that job? Perhaps the employer was choosing based on more than an exam, like individual personalities, people skills, or a hundred other things to consider when all else is equal.

Or who knows maybe they WERE just racists. However Countering that with a system that is blind to everything except skin pigmentation is fucking retarded and so are the people still defending it.

There is more to it than just an exam, but the plaintiffs think they should be entitled to a promotion because they passed the exam.

They passed what was outlined by the city to recieve a promotion. After they did what was required for promotion the city decided it didnt like the outcome and changed its mind. Tough luck city, you lost, do what you want from now on, but you couldt change the requirements post mortem and expect to get away with it this time.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: SunSamurai

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: babylon5
"Fifty-six firefighters passed the exams, including 41 whites, nine blacks and six Hispanics. But of those, only 17 whites and two Hispanics could expect promotion."

Yes, there are actually Non-whites qualified for promotion *Shock*

Just no blacks qualified, so no problem, right?

41/9/6 = 73%/16%/11%
17/0/2 = 89%/0%/11%

16% of the blacks passed the test, but 0% got promotion. No racism there.

Or maybe you just think there is because you're a closet racist. It's called reverse racism. So what if the guys that happened to be black didnt get that job? Perhaps the employer was choosing based on more than an exam, like individual personalities, people skills, or a hundred other things to consider when all else is equal.

Or who knows maybe they WERE just racists. However Countering that with a system that is blind to everything except skin pigmentation is fucking retarded and so are the people still defending it.

There is more to it than just an exam, but the plaintiffs think they should be entitled to a promotion because they passed the exam.

Did you even read the fucking thing before spouting off?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: SunSamurai

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: babylon5
"Fifty-six firefighters passed the exams, including 41 whites, nine blacks and six Hispanics. But of those, only 17 whites and two Hispanics could expect promotion."

Yes, there are actually Non-whites qualified for promotion *Shock*

Just no blacks qualified, so no problem, right?

41/9/6 = 73%/16%/11%
17/0/2 = 89%/0%/11%

16% of the blacks passed the test, but 0% got promotion. No racism there.

Or maybe you just think there is because you're a closet racist. It's called reverse racism. So what if the guys that happened to be black didnt get that job? Perhaps the employer was choosing based on more than an exam, like individual personalities, people skills, or a hundred other things to consider when all else is equal.

Or who knows maybe they WERE just racists. However Countering that with a system that is blind to everything except skin pigmentation is fucking retarded and so are the people still defending it.

There is more to it than just an exam, but the plaintiffs think they should be entitled to a promotion because they passed the exam.

umm no wrong try again. group of white firefighters passed a promotion exam, but the city threw out the test because no blacks would have been promoted.

Blacks passed it too and didn't get promoted.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Blacks passed it too and didn't get promoted.

Dude, you don't get it. This was not a matter of "Pass the test and get promoted". If it were, your argument might have some validity.

The test was ONE aspect of what is required for promotion. The other 37 candidates who passed had OTHER quantitative and qualitative goals to meet still. Like I said before, the black firefighters who passed didn't not get promoted due to race but because they don't have enough seniority or physical fitness, or whatever.

Hell, if anything they should be lauded for passing the test and getting it out of the way. It looks like the 21 people who were eligible for promotion left the test for last.

 

[waggy]

wow! the 2nd decision i agree with!

RACE should never enter into hire/fireing.Now the racist fucks can't hire/fire/promote or hold off promotions because of skin color! this is good.

 

[marincounty]

Too bad we still have a right-wing Supreme court. This was a 5-4 decision folks, this is not clear cut. This decision is due to a legacy of right-wingers appointed by Republicans.

Here is what Ruth Bader Ginsburg had to say on the subject:

Text

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer and Souter, taking part in his last opinion before he retires from the court. Justice Ginsburg read her dissent from the bench, a clear signal of her deep disagreement with the majority.

?It took decades of persistent effort, advanced by Title VII litigation, to open firefighting posts to members of racial minorities,? she said. Moreover, she said, contrary to the majority?s finding, there was ?substantial evidence of multiple flaws in the tests New Haven used.?

?Firefighting is a profession in which the legacy of racial discrimination casts an especially long shadow,? Justice Ginsburg observed, alluding to a report by the United States Civil Rights Commission in the early 1970?s finding racial discrimination in municipal employment even ?more pervasive than in the private sector.?

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: marincounty
Too bad we still have a right-wing Supreme court. This was a 5-4 decision folks, this is not clear cut. This decision is due to a legacy of right-wingers appointed by Republicans.

Here is what Ruth Bader Ginsburg had to say on the subject:

Text

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer and Souter, taking part in his last opinion before he retires from the court. Justice Ginsburg read her dissent from the bench, a clear signal of her deep disagreement with the majority.

?It took decades of persistent effort, advanced by Title VII litigation, to open firefighting posts to members of racial minorities,? she said. Moreover, she said, contrary to the majority?s finding, there was ?substantial evidence of multiple flaws in the tests New Haven used.?

?Firefighting is a profession in which the legacy of racial discrimination casts an especially long shadow,? Justice Ginsburg observed, alluding to a report by the United States Civil Rights Commission in the early 1970?s finding racial discrimination in municipal employment even ?more pervasive than in the private sector.?

Uh..it is pretty clear cut. You'll get over it.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: senseamp
And it may very well be that a diverse leadership is better at leading a diverse fire department than a mostly white one. If I am a black firefighter and I see that there are no blacks getting promoted, what is my incentive to put my life on the line?

By the way, you are making the ridiculous assumption that a different skin color = a diversity in background.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: marincounty
Too bad we still have a right-wing Supreme court. This was a 5-4 decision folks, this is not clear cut. This decision is due to a legacy of right-wingers appointed by Republicans.

Here is what Ruth Bader Ginsburg had to say on the subject:

Text

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer and Souter, taking part in his last opinion before he retires from the court. Justice Ginsburg read her dissent from the bench, a clear signal of her deep disagreement with the majority.

?It took decades of persistent effort, advanced by Title VII litigation, to open firefighting posts to members of racial minorities,? she said. Moreover, she said, contrary to the majority?s finding, there was ?substantial evidence of multiple flaws in the tests New Haven used.?

?Firefighting is a profession in which the legacy of racial discrimination casts an especially long shadow,? Justice Ginsburg observed, alluding to a report by the United States Civil Rights Commission in the early 1970?s finding racial discrimination in municipal employment even ?more pervasive than in the private sector.?

While I respect Justice Ginsberg for her moderation and generally sensible opinions, I must point out that the 70's were almost 40 YEARS AGO.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: marincounty
Too bad we still have a right-wing Supreme court. This was a 5-4 decision folks, this is not clear cut. This decision is due to a legacy of right-wingers appointed by Republicans.

Here is what Ruth Bader Ginsburg had to say on the subject:

Text

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer and Souter, taking part in his last opinion before he retires from the court. Justice Ginsburg read her dissent from the bench, a clear signal of her deep disagreement with the majority.

?It took decades of persistent effort, advanced by Title VII litigation, to open firefighting posts to members of racial minorities,? she said. Moreover, she said, contrary to the majority?s finding, there was ?substantial evidence of multiple flaws in the tests New Haven used.?

?Firefighting is a profession in which the legacy of racial discrimination casts an especially long shadow,? Justice Ginsburg observed, alluding to a report by the United States Civil Rights Commission in the early 1970?s finding racial discrimination in municipal employment even ?more pervasive than in the private sector.?

While I respect Justice Ginsberg for her moderation and generally sensible opinions, I must point out that the 70's were almost 40 YEARS AGO.

And how many of the firefighters in your town are minorities?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: senseamp
Blacks passed it too and didn't get promoted.

Dude, you don't get it. This was not a matter of "Pass the test and get promoted". If it were, your argument might have some validity.

The test was ONE aspect of what is required for promotion. The other 37 candidates who passed had OTHER quantitative and qualitative goals to meet still. Like I said before, the black firefighters who passed didn't not get promoted due to race but because they don't have enough seniority or physical fitness, or whatever.

Hell, if anything they should be lauded for passing the test and getting it out of the way. It looks like the 21 people who were eligible for promotion left the test for last.

I am sure they appreciate the atta boys.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: senseamp
And it may very well be that a diverse leadership is better at leading a diverse fire department than a mostly white one. If I am a black firefighter and I see that there are no blacks getting promoted, what is my incentive to put my life on the line?

By the way, you are making the ridiculous assumption that a different skin color = a diversity in background.

Yeah, totally ridiculous to think that being a minority is part of one's background. :roll:

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: marincounty

And how many of the firefighters in your town are minorities?

What does that have to do with anything? Are you trying to imply that there is causality between low minority employment rates as firefighters and racism? Because if you are, you should know that even if the numbers were skewed in my community (which they're not, I checked) that wouldn't prove anything. At best, you'd have a "statistic" to spout that, when quoted to a statistician, would earn you a hearty laugh in the face.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: marincounty
Too bad we still have a right-wing Supreme court. This was a 5-4 decision folks, this is not clear cut. This decision is due to a legacy of right-wingers appointed by Republicans.

Here is what Ruth Bader Ginsburg had to say on the subject:

Text

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer and Souter, taking part in his last opinion before he retires from the court. Justice Ginsburg read her dissent from the bench, a clear signal of her deep disagreement with the majority.

?It took decades of persistent effort, advanced by Title VII litigation, to open firefighting posts to members of racial minorities,? she said. Moreover, she said, contrary to the majority?s finding, there was ?substantial evidence of multiple flaws in the tests New Haven used.?

?Firefighting is a profession in which the legacy of racial discrimination casts an especially long shadow,? Justice Ginsburg observed, alluding to a report by the United States Civil Rights Commission in the early 1970?s finding racial discrimination in municipal employment even ?more pervasive than in the private sector.?

I will not condone ANYONE saying that racism should be continued because it existed in the past. Ginsburg is nothing but a racist.

 

[theeedude]

Are you saying racism against blacks only existed in the past?

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Are you saying racism against blacks only existed in the past?

i dont see anyone saying that, but i do see you saying that reverse racism, aka racism against whites, is a-ok

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Are you saying racism against blacks only existed in the past?

Go on, slay that straw man!

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: senseamp
Are you saying racism against blacks only existed in the past?

Go on, slay that straw man!

Poor strawman. 🙁

Discriminating against yellow people on a stick is wrong!

 

[SunSamurai]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: SunSamurai

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: babylon5
"Fifty-six firefighters passed the exams, including 41 whites, nine blacks and six Hispanics. But of those, only 17 whites and two Hispanics could expect promotion."

Yes, there are actually Non-whites qualified for promotion *Shock*

Just no blacks qualified, so no problem, right?

41/9/6 = 73%/16%/11%
17/0/2 = 89%/0%/11%

16% of the blacks passed the test, but 0% got promotion. No racism there.

Or maybe you just think there is because you're a closet racist. It's called reverse racism. So what if the guys that happened to be black didnt get that job? Perhaps the employer was choosing based on more than an exam, like individual personalities, people skills, or a hundred other things to consider when all else is equal.

Or who knows maybe they WERE just racists. However Countering that with a system that is blind to everything except skin pigmentation is fucking retarded and so are the people still defending it.

There is more to it than just an exam, but the plaintiffs think they should be entitled to a promotion because they passed the exam.

You're either a liar or you're ignorant. Choose one or both.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Are you saying racism against blacks only existed in the past?

Instead of constantly posting these stupid one-liner questions in a thinly veiled attempt to paint someone else into a corner to distract from the corner into which you've painted yourself, how about you actually SAY something to substantiate your claim that AA is anything but racism?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: marincounty
Too bad we still have a right-wing Supreme court. This was a 5-4 decision folks, this is not clear cut. This decision is due to a legacy of right-wingers appointed by Republicans.

Here is what Ruth Bader Ginsburg had to say on the subject:

Text

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer and Souter, taking part in his last opinion before he retires from the court. Justice Ginsburg read her dissent from the bench, a clear signal of her deep disagreement with the majority.

?It took decades of persistent effort, advanced by Title VII litigation, to open firefighting posts to members of racial minorities,? she said. Moreover, she said, contrary to the majority?s finding, there was ?substantial evidence of multiple flaws in the tests New Haven used.?

?Firefighting is a profession in which the legacy of racial discrimination casts an especially long shadow,? Justice Ginsburg observed, alluding to a report by the United States Civil Rights Commission in the early 1970?s finding racial discrimination in municipal employment even ?more pervasive than in the private sector.?

I will not condone ANYONE saying that racism should be continued because it existed in the past. Ginsburg is nothing but a racist.

Well as soon as we get rid of the pervasive racism throughout the rest of society, we can get rid of affirmative action. I for one can't wait for that day.

Look my fellow white people, it's okay. We are in fact the beneficiaries of racism, and we have been for our entire lives. This doesn't mean that we have to give back everything, it doesn't mean that we need to pay reparations, but we should at least be civil enough to recognize how good we have it. I'm as white as they come and I wish I could claim I gained no advantage, but I'm not stupid. It's pretty fucking easy to see.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: senseamp
Are you saying racism against blacks only existed in the past?

i dont see anyone saying that, but i do see you saying that reverse racism, aka racism against whites, is a-ok

Dude, it's right above my post:

I will not condone ANYONE saying that racism should be continued because it existed in the past. Ginsburg is nothing but a racist.

You don't see because you don't read.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: senseamp
Are you saying racism against blacks only existed in the past?

Instead of constantly posting these stupid one-liner questions in a thinly veiled attempt to paint someone else into a corner to distract from the corner into which you've painted yourself, how about you actually SAY something to substantiate your claim that AA is anything but racism?

Obviously if you are going to counter effects of racism, you have to target it to groups that were impacted by such racism. Are groups fighting anti-semitism racist too because they target discrimination against one race/nationality?