American Renaissance
Previous Story       Next Story       View Comments       Send This Page       Date Archives       Category Archives

More Whites Complaining to EEOC of Racial Discrimination

More news stories on Anti-White Discrimination

Scott Cannon, Kansas City Star, July 28, 2009

{snip}

More and more whites—weary of a generation of minority racial preferences, fighting for scraps in a feeble economy, feeling the sting of skin color as a disadvantage—are joining minorities in crying foul.

“The pendulum is swinging where people are challenging things on both sides,” said Denise Drake, a Kansas City employment lawyer. “Everybody is saying, ‘You don’t get to consider race at all.’ “

Earlier this month, two of Kansas City’s white budget analysts filed suit against City Manager Wayne Cauthen, who is black, and the city, claiming that age and race discrimination led to the losses of their jobs and the retention of minority workers.

Their attorney accused the city of a “whites need not apply” policy.

{snip}

Increase in claims

From 1998 to 2008, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recorded a 45 percent rise in race-based discrimination claims filed by whites. (The agency shuns the term “reverse discrimination.”) Today, complaints from whites of racism make up 10.4 percent of all complaints to the agency, up from 8.5 percent in 1998.

That trend stretches at least back to the case of Allan Bakke, a white medical school applicant who was twice denied entry by the University of California-Davis in the late 1970s. The Supreme Court ultimately faulted the school for shutting Bakke out while it let minorities with lower test scores in.

Significant cases

{snip}

* In 2001, Ford Motor Co. paid $10.5 million to settle two class-action lawsuits filed by older, white men who claimed they had been mistreated by the automakers’ efforts to develop a more diverse work force.

* A Jackson County, Mo., jury in 2005 awarded Sue Gorker $311,600 after deciding that race was a factor in Kansas City School District officials’ decision not to renew her contract as a vice principal.

* Clay County, Mo., Assistant Prosecutor Melissa Howard last year won $2.1 million in a jury verdict after she contended she was passed over for a Kansas City judgeship because she was white. She argued that the City Council did not nominate her for the post because it wanted a racial minority to fill the post. The case is under appeal.

* In May, a white woman from Texas filed suit claiming that Hispanic colleagues at an assisted-living center harassed her for not speaking Spanish.

Mark Jess, a Kansas City lawyer who represented the plaintiffs in three cases of whites claiming racial favoritism, contends that in the same way “old-boy networks” hoard business among a mostly white country-club set, urban city halls and school districts can run on a spoils system for minorities.

{snip}

Public opinion

Americans seem to have conflicted views about balancing a desire to overcome discrimination against minorities while protecting the rights of white people. For decades, polls have shown support for policies that improve diversity and overcome past discrimination. But when asked about giving preferences to racial groups, Americans’ support for affirmative action drops quickly.

It has not been a hot-button issue because most people say they have not felt a direct impact from affirmative action. In a Pew Research Center poll conducted in 2007, 5 percent of respondents said they had been helped by affirmative action, 10 percent said they had been hurt by it and 82 percent it said they had not been affected.

{snip}

Original article

(Posted on August 4, 2009)

     Previous story       Next Story       Post a Comment     Send This Page      Search

Comments

1 — feller wrote at 10:29 PM on August 5:

EEOC should be abolished. It is an agency dominated by blacks. Its purpose is to install blacks in jobs for which they are not qualified and keep them in those jobs. White use of EEOC is playing a game whites aren’t qualified for: wrong skin color.

The civil rights law of 64 should be abolished. that is where all the trouble began. whites can move this along by being totally uncooperative with black hiring through EEOC, affirmative action, and private and public ‘goals”. Our slogan should he “most qualified” even if workforce in nearly all white.

2 — Cousin Charlie from TN wrote at 6:14 AM on August 6:

feller is 100% right. Non-story. PC media wants us to be “all the same”, so they find stuff like this to “back it up”. Blacks are whiners in ALL countries, even their African paradises, not just the USA. Whites in America getting shafted by the “communism won” super-PC thing need to find some better way to publicize & defeat their problems, than the EEOC. Hoods & crosses are yesteryear; a new approach is needed.

3 — Alexandra wrote at 5:21 PM on August 6:

I see nothing wrong with equal opportunity—but I’m against forcing equal outcome.

If you have a job opening, let anyone and everyone test for it. Take only those who qualify. See, everyone’s had an opportunity, and if they failed, they can try to improve themselves or find something that’s up their alley.

The fact that liberals want affirmative action says that deep down they know right well that blacks are at the bottom.

4 — Bon, Tax Slave of the NWO wrote at 9:34 AM on August 7:

“…See, everyone’s had an opportunity, and if they failed, they can try to improve themselves or find something that’s up their alley…”

As long as Disparate Impact laws are in effect, there will be no change. The Hostile Elites well know that blacks and hispanics are not qualified for most jobs so Disparate Impact is used instead to place them in jobs for which they are not qualified.

Here is an excellent explanation from James Fulford:

http://tinyurl.com/l7nt8l

I believe it is one of the main tactics in their arsenal to achieve their ultimate goal of destroying Western Civilization and the Whites that created it. What better way than to deny White men jobs in the country they built and created. Blacks and other non-Whites are merely pawns.

Disparate Impact means that if blacks and hispanics test lower than Whites it is because the test is biased. This was sotomeyor’s argument in her ruling against Ricci, which the Supreme Court overthrew. It is the same argument the educational-industrial complex uses to dismiss the achievement gap.

In the future, more sotomeyors will fill the courts and Dispart Impact will be an axiomatic law not subject to over-rule, as the hostile elites continue their Long March.

Bon

5 — UnTel wrote at 11:50 PM on August 9:

One reason Whites are conflicted about equal opportunity is that most households are two earner households. Equal opportunity has improved the White woman’s employability through a gender-based preference system. If you are sharing the spoils, then it is harder to get tough on affirmative action hires based on race. In the end, however, the only way to give others jobs is to take them away from those who are qualified for them. Equal opportunity becomes a tax that White males pay.

6 — Anonymous wrote at 8:14 PM on August 12:

I agree with the above poster. They should abolish the 1964 Civil Rights policy when it comes to the private sector. As long as an organization, be it for profit or non-for-profit, is not getting any subsidies, they should be allowed to hire, fire, promote and do business with whoever they see fit.


Home      Top      Previous story       Next Story      Send This Page      Search