Melissa Harris-Perry Calls Out Clarence Thomas

This is a good one. One of the reasons it is critical that Obama win this next election is the opportunity to replace at least 2 justices on the Supreme Court and clean up the cesspool the Rethugs made of that institution.

 

SCUMUS 5 to Re-segregate Schools

Looks like a setup to take down that level playing field…

Back to the Affirmative Action Wars…

In case you missed it the right has been reconditioning and rolling out their anti-Civil Rights crew frantically over the past several months.  One of the folks to get a shiny new paint job was Pat Buchanan - although with his vision of a white America as a precondition for continued greatness – I think he let the real cat out of the bag a little too quickly. George Will blubbering about how AA has hurt minorities… A Republican sitting a panel which dealt with discrimination gets canned – by railing against minorities… They have even have stalwart Lawn Jockeys like Larry Elder and Walter Williams de-fossilized and trotted out in a reprise of their racism shielding role for the conservative right in the 90′s.

So why all the sudden attention?

U.S. Urges Creativity by Colleges to Gain Diversity

The Obama administration on Friday urged colleges and universities to get creative in improving racial diversity at their campuses, throwing out a Bush-era interpretation of recent Supreme Courtrulings that limited affirmative action in admissions.

The new guidelines issued by the Departments of Justice and Education replaced a 2008 document that essentially warned colleges and universities against considering race at all. Instead, the guidelines focus on the wiggle room in the court decisions involving the University of Michigan, suggesting that institutions use other criteria — students’ socioeconomic profiles, residential instability, the hardships they have overcome — that are often proxies for race. Schools could even grant preferences to students from certain schools selected for, among other things, their racial composition, the new document says.

“Post-secondary institutions can voluntarily consider race to further the compelling interest of achieving diversity,” reads the 10-page guide sent to thousands of college admissions officials on Friday afternoon. In some cases, it says, “race can be outcome determinative.”

The administration issued a parallel 14-page outline on Friday for the nation’s 17,000 public school districts, explaining what government lawyers consider to be acceptable ways that educators can seek to reduce racial segregation, which has been increasing nationwide.

The two documents, issued as the presidential campaign heats up and as the Supreme Court considers whether to hear a new affirmative action case, were designed to give educators a clear administration interpretation of three high court cases that, since 2003, have limited the use of race in admissions, zoning and other school policies.

The contrast with the Bush guidelines interpreting the same three cases is stark. Where the Bush administration’s letter in 2008 states, “Quotas are impermissible,” the 2011 version says “an institution may permissibly aim to achieve a critical mass of underrepresented students.” Even in addressing the same principles, the framework is practically reversed.

Bush guidelines: “Before using race, there must be a serious good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives.”

Obama guidelines: “Institutions are not required to implement race-neutral approaches if, in their judgment, the approaches would be unworkable.”

Colleges seeking to increase diversity while not running afoul of Supreme Court guidelines, the new document says, “could select schools (including community colleges) based on their demographics (e.g., their racial or socioeconomic composition), and grant an admission preference” to graduates of those schools. They could also “select high schools for partnership” based, among other things, on “racial composition of the school’s student body” and former partnerships with historically black colleges and universities”; consider race as they select students for mentoring programs; and sponsor retention or support programs that highlight, for example, “the accomplishments of Latino business leaders.”

Ada Meloy, general counsel for the American Council on Education, which represents 1,800 universities and colleges, predicted that educators would immediately begin to pursue ways to draw more racial minorities, as the new guidelines would ease fears of legal challenge.

“University administrators have been confused about how they could follow the court’s rulings and still achieve the benefits of diversity,” Ms. Meloy said. “So they will welcome this practical, step-by-step set of directions.”

For kindergarten through 12th grade, the guidelines tell school districts that they can shape policies on locating schools, drawing attendance boundaries and governing student transfers to achieve a better racial mix. For example, a school district with two elementary schools with distinctly different demographics could consider making one school serve kindergarten through second grade and the other grades 3 to 5 in order to force a better mix.

“Diverse learning environments promote development of analytical skills, dismantle stereotypes and prepare students to succeed in an increasingly interconnected world,”Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a statement. “The guidance announced today will aid educational institutions in their efforts to provide true equality of opportunity.”

Lee C. Bollinger, an advocate of affirmative action, was the named defendant, as president of the University of Michigan, in the two 2003 Supreme Court cases that laid down new markers on the permissible use of race in admissions. He described the new guidelines as “perfect.”

“It’s a very fair interpretation of what the court decided,” said Mr. Bollinger, a First Amendment scholar who is now president of Columbia University, “which is primarily that race can be one of many factors, and as long as your policies truly embody that approach, you’ll be fine, and can strive for diversity in all its benefits.” (more)

UC Berkeley Republicans Bring Back Racist Bake Sale

The first one to come up with this was Dinesh D’Souza, the author of a racist, and discredited screed done for the Hoover Foundation – “The End of Racism” in 1995 during his book tour at campuses. John Stossel converted it into a nationwide campaign.

The funny thing about this is that when Prop 209 was passed in California, outlawing Affirmative Action, while black and Hispanic numbers went down – the percentage and number of white students did too. Indeed, the sole “winners” of Prop 209 were Asian students, which now make up 50% or more of most elite California Schools. Post Prop 209, the white student percentage has dropped from near 50% to 30% at Berkeley and other schools.

So when these Republicans are selling bake goods for…

$2 to white students and $1.50 to Asian students – that is racism. Asian kids aren’t the ones who got the preferences. The biggest losers in the conservative attempt to eliminate black and Hispanic students and resegregate California Universities…

Was white kids. And the group most advantaged before Prop 209 by Affirmative Action…

Was white people.

Not much different from when an earlier generation of Republicans/Tea Baggers was carrying these signs -

Michigan Segregation/Apartheid Law Overturned (Temporarily)

Not to worry conservative folks – the fix is in on this one with the 5 Thugs in Robes of the (formerly) Supreme Court – now known as the “Cash and Carry”. The re-Segregation of America will proceed on schedule!

Appeals court panel strikes down Michigan’s affirmative action ban

Affirmative action is back on the menu in Michigan, but for how long is anyone’s guess.

On Friday, a federal appeals court struck down Proposal 2, the 2006 Michigan constitutional amendment that banned affirmative action in college admissions, employment and contracting.

“It’s a tremendous victory,” Detroit attorney George Washington said after a U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled in a 2-1 decision that Proposal 2 was unconstitutional.

He represents a coalition that sued the governing boards of Michigan’s three largest universities — the University of Michigan and Michigan State and Wayne State universities — to overturn the proposal.

Not so fast, countered state Attorney General Bill Schuette, who said he plans to ask the entire U.S. 6th Circuit to reconsider the ruling. In the meantime, Proposal 2 will remain the law, Schuette said.

Proposal 2 — which Michigan voters approved 58%-42% — “embodies the fundamental premise of what America is all about: equal opportunity under the law. … Entrance to our great universities must be based upon merit, and I will continue the fight for equality, fairness and rule of law,” Schuette said.

The ballot proposal was prompted by a long legal fight brought by three white students who claimed to have been denied admission because of racial preferences in U-M admissions. The Supreme Court ruled narrowly in favor of the universities in 2003.

Legal experts said a final decision by the 6th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court, if the case gets that far, could go either way…

The appeals court said Proposal 2, which state voters approved 58%-42%, is unconstitutional because it restructured Michigan’s political process in a way that placed special burdens on minorities that deprived them of equal protection under the law. White people overwhelmingly voted for the proposal, polls showed, while black people overwhelmingly opposed it.

“The majority may not manipulate the channels of change in a manner that places unique burdens on issues of importance to racial minorities,” Judge R. Guy Cole Jr. wrote in an opinion joined by Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey. Judge Julia Smith Gibbons dissented, saying Michigan voters didn’t restructure the political process by amending the constitution, “they have merely employed it.”…

Financial Reform Bill Includes Diversity Requirements

Couple of factoids -

  1. Black people in the US start about 30% of the new incorporations each year – they receive less than .03% of the Venture Capital and Investment Money put into new or growing businesses.
  2. Women of all colors  start about 60% of new businesses in the US – they receive only 3% of the Venture Capital and Investment Money.

Not much of a “level playing field” – now is it?

Republicans and conservatives have opposed any move to change this, and make things more fair using disingenuous arguments about “quotas”, and other racially tinged code words.

Now the reason I call “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” black conservatives “Uncle Toms” is this – pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is exceedingly difficult, when those bootstraps have been cut by the fact you don’t have access to the very thing which makes every one of your non-minority businesses that is successful,  successful in the first place…

Access to capital.

So expect a fight by the right against ANY effort to level that field – including false arguments like quotas, Affirmative Action, and reverse discrimination…

And a lot of hayteration directed at Maxine Waters.

My own experience with exclusion of Minority owned firms dates form the early 90′s when I owned a Government Contracting Firm which specialized in very high end telecom and computer engineering. Most of my customers were other Government Contracting Firms. I never filed for any sort of 8a or Small Disadvantaged Business Classification, although we did file as a Minority Owned Small Business with the Feds. My company had 12 people working at a major Federal Contractor, who was having “problems” meeting their minority SDB and Minority Owned Business (8a) goals – and was filing for an exemption, claiming that there were no minority owned firms which could do the technical work. I pointed out to the Program Manager that indeed, 1/4th of his development staff was being supplied by my company – which was a Minority Owned Firm, although not a SDB (for which we could qualify if we wanted) or a MWOB (Minority Owned Disadvantaged Business or 8a for which we also could qualify if we wanted) and as such, they could indeed reach the 10% requirement. Although it would require hiring more people from my firm, or other like firms, of whom I gave him a list of 10 who were fully qualified and capable fo doing the work who were already certified as SDBs and MWOBs. (And no – white folks can own both SDBs and MWOBs, if they can meet the eligibility requirements).

They terminated my contract 48 hours later, and successfully got an exemption from having to hire Minority Firms because “none were technically competent to do the work”. This is the game that has been played for years at the Federal Contracting level, with the Federal Government Agency sometimes being willing participants. Republicans had managed to gut any enforcement or penalty for not meeting contract requirements (Much as they gutted the Criminal Penalties in Title IV of the Civil Rights Act) in this, and only this one area – meaning that there really wasn’t any penalty for ignoring Small Business or Minority  contract requirements.

That “level playing field” on the side of a mountain thing… Again.

Feds demand diversity on Wall Street

A little-noticed section of the Wall Street reform law grants the federal government broad new powers to compel financial firms to hire more women and minorities — an effort at promoting diversity that’s drawing fire from Republicans who say it could lead to de facto hiring quotas.

Deep inside the massive overhaul bill, Congress gives the federal government authority to terminate contracts with any financial firm that fails to ensure the “fair inclusion” of women and minorities, forcing every kind of company from a Wall Street giant to a mom-and-pop law office to account for the composition of its work force.

Employment law experts say the language goes further than any previous attempt by the U.S. government to promote diversity in the financial sector — putting muscle behind federal efforts to help minority- and women-owned firms gain access to billions in federal contracts. Continue reading

Chris Mattews – AA for White Guys in the NBA

This one is funny! Matthews is obviously putting Buchanan on… Which will probably generate a veritable poop-storm on conservative rags.

Senator James Webb of Virginia, Loses His Seat

Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, just destroyed his electoral chances with a ill conceived, and patently erroneous screed on “Diversity” in (of all stupid places), the Wall Street Journal.

Policy makers ignored such disparities within America’s white cultures when, in advancing minority diversity programs, they treated whites as a fungible monolith. Also lost on these policy makers were the differences in economic and educational attainment among nonwhite cultures. Thus nonwhite groups received special consideration in a wide variety of areas including business startups, academic admissions, job promotions and lucrative government contracts.

Where should we go from here? Beyond our continuing obligation to assist those African-Americans still in need, government-directed diversity programs should end.

Nondiscrimination laws should be applied equally among all citizens, including those who happen to be white. The need for inclusiveness in our society is undeniable and irreversible, both in our markets and in our communities. Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners. It can do so by ensuring that artificial distinctions such as race do not determine outcomes.

Senator Webb, this constituent is pissed at you. I am pissed at you because of your ignorance. Now, I know you are a former Republican, but that really is no excuse. You have been a Democrat now for a while. What that means is you now, unlike when you were a Republican have access to folks within your own party who fought for Civil Rights in this country. You have access to people who clearly understand the issues, are fully cognizant of the history (because they lived it), and who, like Mrs Sherrod don’t have any crosses to burn about hating white folks.

Further, as a Senator, you have access to many of the countries best legal and academic minds, who can clearly enunciate the history, the legal and Constitutional context, and operation of the various Affirmative Action and Diversity programs in the United States. So why don’t you go down down the hall and talk to one of those legal experts and learn -

Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the US Government cannot pass a law, legislation, or federal regulation which discriminates based on race.

Now, read that a couple of times and let it sink in.

What that means is that ANY Federal Legislation, FAR, or regulation had to apply equally to every single group in America… including the current conservative pity candidate – white folks.

First a few facts to allieviate you ignorance -

Prior to Adorand v Pena, the Supreme Court decision which effectively ended Affirmative Action in this country as a remedy for past and existing discrimination (Existing discrimination, Mr. Webb? Virginia has lots of farms, Mr. Webb, at one time many owned by black farmers. Read this on how racism, and discrimination against minorities still is a serious issue at the USDA.)…

  1. In 1993 there were over 400 Disadvantaged Small Businesses owned by white males – many from exactly the same region you are crying about.
  2. Over 90% of the beneficiaries of Affirmative Action in contracting by the Federal Government were white.

Post 1993 and conservative uproar and pushback against black folks starting businesses, the Government contracting system shifted to “Hub Zones”, ergo – companies set up and operated in economically disadvantaged areas were given “Small Disadvantaged Business” status, which allowed them to bid on small (<$200k) contracts without competition, and small competitive contracts (<$12 m) against other similarly situated companies. Hub Zones are not assigned by race – they are assigned by the income and poverty level in any particular area – meaning there are lots of Hub Zones in poor white areas, and hundreds, if not thousands of white owned companies taking advantage of the Federal Government’s “Diversity Contracting Program” as “Disadvantaged Small Businesses”.

But while you are fawning all over the racist conservative right - you might just want to read about the disparate economic impact of Minority Owned Firms, which just might be relevant because of how bad your conservative friends have screwed the American economy and the country. And what the Bushit did to Small Business -

  1. Cutting the Small Business Administration’s budget by nearly half. The SBA is the financial guarantor of only resort for many Minority owned businesses because of active redlining by commercial and merchant banks.
  2. Cutting financings of Minority and women owned businesses from 26% of total loans in 1998 to under 8% in 2007.
  3. Diverting over $800 billion in Minority and women Owned business contracts to the Big 6 Government contractors, often under false pretenses.

For reasons I can’t get a grasp on, you want to hold onto the racist meme that progress for black folks means negative progress for white folks…

And that is just plain unacceptable – because it is patently false.

Your version of a “level playing field” is the fact that black folks start 30% of the new incorporations in the United States…

But receive less that .03% of the Venture Financing as reported by Forbes Magazine.

That version of “level playing field” pretends that 10 black kids getting into a graduate program at a state university due to AA, is far more critical a national issue –  than the systematic perversion of Justice in many states where blacks are systematically excluded from Jury Pools.

In our own state – you ex-political mate Jim McDonnell has brought back a “literacy test” for ex-felons to gain back their voting rights exactly like the Old Jim Crow system of Poll Taxes and Literacy tests. Now, if a disproportionate percentage of those felons is black (see jury pools) – what exactly does that mean Mr. Webb?

Think you should take advantage of that “learning experience” Mr Webb.

BTW – I put this post under my category – “The New Jim Crow” – perhaps you should read it.

Making Management Pay Dependent on a Diverse Workforce

A Conservative Nightmare

The most effective companies at recruiting and retaining top level minority talent get there by purpose. For years many major corporations have opposed efforts by conservatives to limit the number of Minorities in schools through destroying Affirmative action programs. If you look at who filed amicus curiae on behalf of the University of Michigan in the Bollinger vs. Gratz/Gruter cases – the list included 68 of the Fortune 200 – including these companies:

3M
Abbott Laboratories Alcoa, Inc.
Alcoa, Inc.

Alliant Energy Corporation
Altria Group, Inc.
American Airlines, Inc.
American Express Company
Amgen Corporation
Ashland Inc.
Bank One Corporation
Baxter Healthcare Corporation
The Boeing Company
Charter One Financial, Inc.
Chevron Texaco Corporation
The Coca-Cola Company
Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc.
Daimler Chrysler Corporation
Deloitte Consulting L.P.
Deloitte & Touche LLP
The Dow Chemical Company
Eastman Kodak Company
Eaton Corporation
Eli Lilly & Company
Ernst & Young LLP
Exelon Corporation
Fannie Mae
General Dynamics Corporation
General Electric Company
General Mills, Inc.
John Hancock Financial Services
Harris Bankcorp, Inc.
Hewlett-Packard Company
Illinois Tool Works Inc.
Intel Corporation
Johnson & Johnson

Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc.
Kellogg Company
KPMG Int’l for KPMG LLP
Kraft Foods Inc.
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Lucent Technologies, Inc.
Medtronic, Inc.
Merck & Co., Inc.
Microsoft Corporation
Mitsubishi Motors North America
MSC.Software Corporation Nationwide
Mutual Insurance Co.
NetCom Solutions International
Nike Inc.
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc.
PepsiCo Inc.
Pfizer Inc.
PPG Industries, Inc.
Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP
The Procter & Gamble Company
Reebok International
Sara Lee Corporation
Schering-Plough Corporation
Shell Oil Company
Steelcase Inc.
Sterling Financial Group of Cos.
United Airlines, Inc.
Whirlpool Corporation
Xerox Corporation

The reason is quite simple – a diverse workforce in a corporation better addresses and understands the diverse marketplace – and ultimately is more profitable. Continue reading

The New Jim Crow – Republican Racism in Utah

This one is a bit of a shock, considering there are all of about 1/2 dozen black folks in Utah. It, however is not a shock considering the deeply embedded racism of the Republican Party.

Why are Utah Republicans racist?

Because this is a Constitutional Amendment without a cause. There are few, if any, minority owned businesses in Utah based on the fact the population of 2.7 million includes only 35,000 “black” people – most of whom are probably African who came to Utah as part of the Mormon Church Missionary programs in Africa. Ergo – there is nobody to apply for Affirmative Action – even if existing state rules and regulations didn’t prohibit it.

There doesn’t appear to be a single case of AA being implemented in the State.

Quite honestly, surrounded by racist conservative Republicans – black kids want to go to Utah to school, about as much as they enjoy volunteering for a root canal. And even though the Mormon Church has become civilized in eliminating the old racist liturgy,  many black folks still view them (sometimes unfairly) with suspicion.

Personally, I think if Utah’s racist Republican legislators do pass this, then President Obama should cut ALL Federal funding for projects in Utah, and shut down operations of the major Federal data center operations in the state.

Let these racist POSs stew in their Lilly whiteness.

The New Utah Jim Crow is Just Like the Old Jim Crow

Affirmative action ban advances in Utah House

SALT LAKE CITY — Lawmakers moved quickly Friday to place a ban on affirmative action in the Utah Constitution, despite little evidence the practice is being used or has caused problems.

A resolution that would prevent local governments, state agencies and public colleges from discriminating or providing preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin sailed through a legislative committee only two days after it was made public.

To amend the constitution, the resolution would have to be approved by a two-thirds vote in the state House and Senate and be signed by Republican Gov. Gary Herbert. Voters also would have to approve the measure this fall.

The proposal is likely to have little trouble getting the necessary votes for passage in the GOP-dominated Legislature.

A House committee approved the measure known as House Joint Resolution 24 with a 10-4 vote Friday. The full House will likely vote on it next week.

Opponents said there was little time to seek public input about the proposal by Rep. Curt Oda, R-Clearfield.

“To pull this bill out two days ago, and ram it down the throats of this community, is awful,” said Rep. Jackie Biskupski, D-Salt Lake City. “This is big, and it deserves public input.”

Jeanetta Williams, president of the NAACP Salt Lake Branch, said she wasn’t made aware of the proposal until Thursday night.

“He’s trying to kind of do it in a backdoor approach, which I find very offensive,” Williams said.

Democrats tried unsuccessfully to delay the measure by suggesting it undergo study during the summer.

Republicans said they want to pass the measure while Ward Connerly, a former member of the University of California Board of Regents who has worked to pass similar legislation in other states, was in town to testify for the bill.

“The implication is that those of us who are … minorities cannot compete and therefore society has to bestow its benevolence,” Connerly, who is black, told lawmakers. “Sometimes we don’t realize that’s a double-edge sword. We demean people.”

Connerly was joined by Jennifer Gratz, who successfully sued the University of Michigan for denying her admission, saying she was put at a disadvantage because she wasn’t a minority.

Senate President Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, said the measure will help ensure Utah colleges don’t discriminate.

We’re not getting necessarily the most qualified students there because of the quota system,” Waddoups said.

Kay Harward, University of Utah senior associate vice president for enrollment management, said minorities don’t get any preferential treatment when it comes to admission.

State agencies also have policies in place that prevent them from giving preferential treatment when it comes to hiring or promotions.

The University of Utah accepts 94% of it’s applicants. requiring a minimum combined SAT of 860 out of a possible 1600. There are Community Colleges in this country with higher acceptance standards. There are less than 300 black kids (many of whom are likely on Sports related scholarships) on a campus of 30,000. A school accepting 94% of the people who apply, who can only get 54% of the questions on the SATs…

Isn’t exactly turning away potential Fullbright Scholars. And I don’t mean to knock Utah, because it is a decent school. But it is a State School, which is designed to be as inclusive as possible to educate the State’s population – so the low SAT entry level is more indicative of the low level of product of the secondary schools in Utah, than the University’s quality…

But the only “quota system” in existence there…

Is the racism of the Republicans.

Come on down and get your Uncle Tom of the Decade Award, Ward Connerly -

Uncle Tom of the Decade Awardee - Ward Connerly

Obama to the NAACP – No Excuses!

President Obama’s Address to the NAACP.

What I’ve seen this AM is that a lot of (mainly conservative) folks are trying to paint this as a “Bill Cosby” moment by President Obama…

They are lying to themselves – and anyone else stupid enough to listen.

more about “Obama Addresses the NAACP“, posted with vodpod

Rachel Maddow Rips Pat Buchanan Over Sotomayor Racism

Maddow rips Republican Pat Buchanan a new one!

According to Pat Buchanan – “White men built this country”.

That is, they built everything except the roads, the canals, the farms, the railroads, and the economy which was based on slave labor…

The issue here isn’t Pat’s racism, of which there are ample examples – the issue is why this has any currency in the mainstream anymore. Pat is identifying the Republican Party as the “White People’s Party” in opposition to the “Mud People’s Party” AKA – the Democrats.

Pat is a true conservative.

Pat’s sob story for white guys would be touching, except for a question Maddow doesn’t ask. If white guys feel disadvantaged by the appointment of Sotomayor as one of 9 Justices on the Supreme Court…

Exactly how do black and brown people feel about a court dominated by conservative racists like Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Uncle Clarence?

I mean – as a black person I know there isn’t a freaking prayer of getting a fair trial from a conservative appointed judge. That is part of the “Black Tax” of being a citizen of this country – and it doesn’t really matter whether you are appearing before the Court in a criminal or Civil case.  If you are a businessman, part of the “Black Tax” is the fact that you have less of a chance in winning a Patent Infringement or Contract Dispute against a white owned corporation – for no other reason than your color…

Simply because of those conservative, white, male Judges – regardless of the merit of your case.

And that doesn’t even get into a Jury Trial.

So what Pat is really saying, is racism and discrimination only count if it is against white men – even if, as in this case, the only evidence against Justice Sotomayor is the fact she isn’t a white male.


more about “Rachel Maddow Rips Pat Buchanan Over …“, posted with vodpod

President Obama on Affirmative Action, Post Supreme Court 5-4 Ricci Decision

President Obama tries to be politic about the recent 5-4 Supreme Court abortion on Ricci today in an AP Interview -

This is how then future President Obama responded to George Stephanopolos last year -

Obviously the Ricci decision was politically motivated, making law from the bench – instead of a narrow reading of the Constitutional Law as it applied to the case.The issue here isn’t what should have been done relative to Ricci and the other 19 firefighters – the issue here is how the court attempted to make law by making that decision relevant to other cases.

The New Jim Crow… Indeed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 133 other followers