Comments on: Theater Of The Absurd

By: pdt1420

pdt1420 — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:40:52 +0000

Sorry, I thought it was against discrimination… not against a certain race. If hispanics ran a company, and discriminated against black people… that's not discrimination or that doesn't fall under Title VII?

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:11:13 +0000

Umm….yeah, wasn't it white people who were doing the discriminating? Or did aliens slip in, undetected, and enslave and punish blacks for a couple hundred years?

By: pdt1420

pdt1420 — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:10:39 +0000

The law was written against white people? Equal protection, schmequal protection.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:13:28 +0000

See?…That's the whole point of Title VII. It was passed to eliminate discrimintory practices by WHITE people against blacks. Now the Supremes have turned the law on it's head a bit.

By: pdt1420

pdt1420 — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:55:33 +0000

The horror…

How about it just be used to prevent discrimination.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:38:45 +0000

Good comment pdt. The Supremes, as you say, set new precedent….new rules.

How it plays out is yet to be seen.

My point in this discussion has been that the very law meant to rectify the imbalance of discriminatory practices by whites primarily against blacks….has been turned upside down and will now be used to prevent discrimination against whites.

By: pdt1420

pdt1420 — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 16:00:23 +0000

Also, the Supremes decision is called a precedent… and a pretty smart sounding one too… now you can't just throw something out over disparate impact, which could just be a statistical fluke, you have to present a case of WHY… sounds like a good idea.

I also believes this lessens the burden on the employer… if they go out of their way to engineer non-discriminatory tests, the don't have to not promote successful candidates for fear of Title VII. If they can't show WHY there would be any discrimination in the tests, then it stops right there.

By: pdt1420

pdt1420 — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:56:03 +0000

Rev, although I disagree with your definition of discrimination, be careful there… sure sounds like picking a minority over someone else to fill a quota would count as discrimination.

If a person comes in to apply for a job, and I refuse him, because he's a minority, and then end up hiring nobody for the position, he's still been discriminated against. In essence, the "someone else" you seem to require in you definition could be "nobody"… as in "if not a person of this race, then nobody."

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:05:20 +0000

To be discriminated against…..someone else must be picked or chosen over you.

The Supremes said that it was the obligation of the employer to PROVE that any disparate impact to minorities in testing was discriminatory. Title VII rules on evidence of disparate impact in testing cannot simply be used as a defense for throwing out results……the disparate impact must be proven to be a result of discrimination, in order for the results to be thrown out.

In other words….in order to show legitimate disparate impact….the employer must legally present a case as to WHY the results are discriminatory.

This change places a larger burden on employers. Whether we agree or not on the Supremes' ruling…..they definitely changed the rules of Title VII.

By: pdt1420

pdt1420 — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:02:05 +0000

Rev, what were the new restrictions they wrote?