Eric Holder’s Disparate Impact Obsession

[Janelle2002 3,865]

Please don't start off demonizing (as you do so often). Surely you can provide a civil answer without stereotyping ("plenty of people like you"). Isn't that the root of prejudice? You're against prejudice, right?

What I'd like to know is: What's wrong with treating everyone equally?

I am just making a point. I see how you are on here demonizing black people when you can. It is this thought that keeps hindering the flight of black people. Everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt regardless of race or color, until they are proven they are unworthy. Everyone is different and just because Keith is black and he does something wrong does not mean Michael who is also black is going to do something wrong too. Michael could be the most friendless person, but you can miss out on that just because you keep putting everyone in the same bucket.

What is wrong with looking into it when everyone is not being treated equally?

Very good point.

[UncleBeer 244]

What is wrong with looking into it when everyone is not being treated equally?

Please read what's been written before 'contributing'. AG Holder is demanding the Justice Dept. and Dept. of Education treat the races unequally.

[UncleBeer 244]

I see how you are on here demonizing black people when you can.

Please give an example of this. I take this seriously.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Please read what's been written before 'contributing'. AG Holder is demanding the Justice Dept. and Dept. of Education treat the races unequally.

Is that what Tucker Carlson wants you to believe?

[UncleBeer 244]

This, from the DOJ memo to schools:

Schools also violate Federal law when they evenhandedly implement facially neutral policies and practices that, although not adopted with the intent to discriminate, nonetheless have an unjustified effect of discriminating against students on the basis of race.

What fair-minded person could possibly object to evenhanded application of neutral policies? Unless of course there's an axe to grind and a race card to be played....

[Janelle2002 3,865]

Please give an example of this. I take this seriously.

That would mean I have to go back through other posts, and I don't feel like doing this.

This, from the DOJ memo to schools:

What fair-minded person could possibly object to evenhanded application of neutral policies? Unless of course there's an axe to grind and a race card to be played....

Really, you sound like you are upset over something that actually needs to be done. If this was another race that is constantly swept under the carpet I do not think you would be so subtle.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This, from the DOJ memo to schools:

What fair-minded person could possibly object to evenhanded application of neutral policies? Unless of course there's an axe to grind and a race card to be played....

You should try contextual reading and see if that has any impact on you. Probably won't judging from your posts here but you may want to give it a try nonetheless.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/edu/documents/dcl.pdf

[UncleBeer 244]

That would mean I have to go back through other posts, and I don't feel like doing this.

Of course not. Because it would require you backing up your groundless character assassination.

[Jacque67 7,328]

You should try contextual reading and see if that has any impact on you. Probably won't judging from your posts here but you may want to give it a try nonetheless.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/edu/documents/dcl.pdf

+1

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

When all logic and reason eludes you

Go for the face Palm or the you can't comprehend ?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Just read the sentence that you all take issue with in the context it was written. It helps understand what it actually means. Not to spoil it but it doesn't mean what you guys think it does.

So, give it a try. It's a page and a half in the actual source document. Don't fall for Tucker Carlson's bull. Go to the source, read for yourself and then talk about it.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/edu/documents/dcl.pdf

Go for it. Don't be a sheep!

[Not a Tailor 1,370]

This, from the DOJ memo to schools:

What fair-minded person could possibly object to evenhanded application of neutral policies? Unless of course there's an axe to grind and a race card to be played....

They wouldn't. Because out of context, even, that sentence doesn't seem to mean what you think it does/might.

Shall we break it down?

(A)Schools also violate Federal law when they evenhandedly implement facially neutral policies and practices that, (B) although not adopted with the intent to discriminate, © nonetheless have an unjustified effect of discriminating against students on the basis of race.

Okay. So. I've used the letters to break the sentence down into analyzable bits.

(A) Okay, out of context, (A) could be an alarmist segment that says what you want it to say. Without the rest of the sentence. OH NOES EVENHANDEDNESS IS ILLEGAL.

(B) Admits that it may be unintentional--meaning that they are acknowledging that this isn't being done out of malice. It's not the school administration sitting down and saying 'let's make sure all the native american students drop out!'

© Is what makes (A) silly to use for alarmism. © talks about how even an evenhanded, surface non-discriminating action can be discriminatory. I think I'll need to have an example here to explain what is meant (and yes, I read nearly the entire document that Big Dog posted, looking for the type of thing you're saying this all means).

Junior Senior West Public School (fictional school) has a policy that boys' hair must not touch the collar. It is the only primary school in the rural area that it serves. There are several Native American families in the area and their belief structure is that cutting one's hair is a sign of mourning. The Smith family is one of these families. They have an five year old son named Joseph who is starting school. Reading the handbook, they decide that they will put his long hair up into a bun so it won't be touching the collar, and they send him to school.

They receive a letter home saying that, while Joseph's hair meets the letter of the rule, it does not meet the spirit of the rule. His long hair is distracting to other students who are unused to seeing a long-haired boy. They are told to cut Joseph's hair, in violation of their beliefs. If his hair is not cut, then Joseph will be suspended from school.

The rule is being applied evenly. Joseph, like little Howie, little Daniel and little Michael, all of whom are white, is being asked to keep his hair short. The rule about hair not touching the collar seems, on the surface, innocuous. It shouldn't be a big deal.

Except it is, because Joseph's family is being told 'either cut your son's hair, or he cannot attend school.' This violates his right to an education. His hair is part of his cultural heritage and part of his beliefs.

Similar examples have occurred in the news recently, often with African American female children who are told that their hair must not be in cornrows as it's 'distracting' to other students, or who are told that their natural hair ('afro' hairstyle) is 'distracting' to other students and are asked to cut or perm their hair in order to tame it so that they may attend school. Being told to alter their bodies for the right to attend classes.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Not a Tailor

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

They wouldn't. Because out of context, even, that sentence doesn't seem to mean what you think it does/might.

Shall we break it down?

(A)Schools also violate Federal law when they evenhandedly implement facially neutral policies and practices that, (B) although not adopted with the intent to discriminate, © nonetheless have an unjustified effect of discriminating against students on the basis of race.

Okay. So. I've used the letters to break the sentence down into analyzable bits.

(A) Okay, out of context, (A) could be an alarmist segment that says what you want it to say. Without the rest of the sentence. OH NOES EVENHANDEDNESS IS ILLEGAL.

(B) Admits that it may be unintentional--meaning that they are acknowledging that this isn't being done out of malice. It's not the school administration sitting down and saying 'let's make sure all the native american students drop out!'

© Is what makes (A) silly to use for alarmism. © talks about how even an evenhanded, surface non-discriminating action can be discriminatory. I think I'll need to have an example here to explain what is meant (and yes, I read nearly the entire document that Big Dog posted, looking for the type of thing you're saying this all means).

Junior Senior West Public School (fictional school) has a policy that boys' hair must not touch the collar. It is the only primary school in the rural area that it serves. There are several Native American families in the area and their belief structure is that cutting one's hair is a sign of mourning. The Smith family is one of these families. They have an five year old son named Joseph who is starting school. Reading the handbook, they decide that they will put his long hair up into a bun so it won't be touching the collar, and they send him to school.

They receive a letter home saying that, while Joseph's hair meets the letter of the rule, it does not meet the spirit of the rule. His long hair is distracting to other students who are unused to seeing a long-haired boy. They are told to cut Joseph's hair, in violation of their beliefs. If his hair is not cut, then Joseph will be suspended from school.

The rule is being applied evenly. Joseph, like little Howie, little Daniel and little Michael, all of whom are white, is being asked to keep his hair short. The rule about hair not touching the collar seems, on the surface, innocuous. It shouldn't be a big deal.

Except it is, because Joseph's family is being told 'either cut your son's hair, or he cannot attend school.' This violates his right to an education. His hair is part of his cultural heritage and part of his beliefs.

Similar examples have occurred in the news recently, often with African American female children who are told that their hair must not be in cornrows as it's 'distracting' to other students, or who are told that their natural hair ('afro' hairstyle) is 'distracting' to other students and are asked to cut or perm their hair in order to tame it so that they may attend school. Being told to alter their bodies for the right to attend classes.

Waste of time - this will go right over their collective heads. Guaranteed!

[Not a Tailor 1,370]

Waste of time - this will go right over their collective heads. Guaranteed!

Too many words does seem to confuse them unless, of course, some of those words are "WHITES ARE BEING THREATENED!"

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Too many words does seem to confuse them unless, of course, some of those words are "WHITES ARE BEING THREATENED!"

You need to attend the Tucker Carlson, Andrew Breitbart or Matt Drudge school of communication to learn how to formulate sentences that resonate with them.

It would appear that you took "How To Get The Attention Of Right Wingers" 101 already.