Americans Are Mistaken About Who Gets Welfare

[Flash]

Not the state/government and the CRA protects all groups under a protected class, which is how and why those programs have been limited by the courts.

They have not been limited very much. The only limitation is that an admissions plan cannot exclude any group such as giving points for being a minority; but, colleges can still have programs to achieve diversity including allowing students scoring lower, overcoming "adversity," showing sensitivity, etc. These plans usually punish Asian and white students and benefit blacks, Hispanics, and Indians.

[CFM]

Wrong.

Are you claiming AA doesn't use race, gender to benefit certain groups or that it's OK to use those things to benefit as long as they aren't used to deny?

Anyone that gets hired, admitted, or otherwise benefits from such a program isn't worth hiring. If they were, they'd use their qualifications. Wait, you leftwingers believe being a certain race or gender automatically makes one qualified. You proved that in 2008 and 2012 by picking an unqualified BLACK for President and tried it in 2016 thinking having a vagina meant the person could do the job.

[CFM]

College admissions certainly benefits those groups which are targeted for increased enrollment by allowing lower test scores and GPAs.

They have a standard for those that can actually qualify and a lower standard for those that can't meet that true standard.

[CFM]

Not the state/government and the CRA protects all groups under a protected class, which is how and why those programs have been limited by the courts.

Whites aren't a protected class, boy. We have to earn what we get. The protected classes have to be handed favors because those supporting such programs know they can't earn it.

[Timshel]

Whites aren't a protected class, boy. We have to earn what we get. The protected classes have to be handed favors because those supporting such programs know they can't earn it.

Are you one of grind's socks? Hard to believe youre really this ignorant and I have been over this a few times on these boards.

Race is a protected class which means no discrimination on the basis of race, whether the target is white, black or other.

[cawacko]

Are you one of grind's socks? Hard to believe youre really this ignorant and I have been over this a few times on these boards.

Race is a protected class which means no discrimination on the basis of race, whether the target is white, black or other.

I haven't thought this comment all the way through but off the top of my head if all races are protected classes how can Universities use a point system based on race for admissions? (maybe you can't and that's why some Asian students are suing Harvard I believe)

(and I'm not asking that question in the context of 'whoa is white people' I'm asking from a legal perspective)

[Flash]

I haven't thought this comment all the way through but off the top of my head if all races are protected classes how can Universities use a point system based on race for admissions? (maybe you can't and that's why some Asian students are suing Harvard I believe)

(and I'm not asking that question in the context of 'whoa is white people' I'm asking from a legal perspective)

You can't give points for being a minority because that excludes non-minorities (although you can for being a varsity athlete). But they can use subjective methods such as cultural diversity, overcoming adversity, etc. One student wrote an essay in which she said she ate lunch at the table with the black students and that showed sensitivity to other cultures.

In the Michigan undergraduate admission case (Gratz v. Bollinger) there was a 150 point admissions scale with 100 needed for admission.
20 points=underrepresented minority (Asians are not underrepresented)
12 points=perfect SAT score

Race can be a factor in admissions but cannot exclude others. Before Prop 209 the University of California at San Diego added 300 points to the SAT score of minority students (even if those students were children of upper income parents).

[CFM]

Are you one of grind's socks? Hard to believe youre really this ignorant and I have been over this a few times on these boards.

Race is a protected class which means no discrimination on the basis of race, whether the target is white, black or other.

Certain races have protected status and white isn't one of them. If you can't understand that, you're an idiot.

Sounds like you're one of those that believes because you say it that it's true. If so, you really are that stupid.

[CFM]

I haven't thought this comment all the way through but off the top of my head if all races are protected classes how can Universities use a point system based on race for admissions? (maybe you can't and that's why some Asian students are suing Harvard I believe)

(and I'm not asking that question in the context of 'whoa is white people' I'm asking from a legal perspective)

It's easy. All races don't have protected class status. Only certain ones.

[Timshel]

Certain races have protected status and white isn't one of them. If you can't understand that, you're an idiot.

Sounds like you're one of those that believes because you say it that it's true. If so, you really are that stupid.

Nope. Race is a protected class. All races are protected under that class. The same is true with gender (protects male or female), religion (protects Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindu, etc... various sects within those as well), national origin (protects those from China, Mexico, Canada, France, etc... even Massholes).


http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-suprem...t/427/273.html

United States Supreme Court
McDONALD v. SANTA FE TRAIL TRANSP. CO., (1976)
No. 75-260
Argued: April 20, 1976 Decided: June 25, 1976


Petitioners, both white employees of respondent transportation company, were discharged for misappropriating cargo from one of the company's shipments, but a Negro employee, who was also charged with the same offense, was not discharged. After subsequent grievance proceedings pursuant to a collective-bargaining agreement between the company and respondent union and complaints filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) secured no relief, petitioners brought an action against respondents, alleging that in discharging petitioners, while retaining the Negro employee, respondent company had discriminated against petitioners on the basis of race, and that respondent union had acquiesced in this discrimination by failing properly to represent one of the petitioners in the grievance proceeding, all in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits the discharge of "any individual" because of "such individual's race," and of 42 U.S.C. 1981, which provides that "[a]ll persons . . . shall have the same right . . . to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens . . . ." The District Court dismissed the complaint on the pleadings, holding, inter alia, that 1981 is inapplicable to racial discrimination against whites, and that the facts alleged by petitioners failed to state a claim under Title VII. The Court of Appeals affirmed.


Held:

1. Title VII, whose terms are not limited to discrimination against members of any particular race, prohibits racial discrimination in private employment against white persons upon the same standards as racial discrimination against nonwhites. Pp. 278-285.

(a) Title VII has been so interpreted by the EEOC, whose interpretations are entitled to great deference, and its conclusion accords with uncontradicted legislative history. Pp. 279-280.
(b) That petitioners' dismissal was based upon the commission of a criminal offense does not preclude them from seeking relief under Title VII. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [427 U.S. 273, 274] Green, 411 U.S. 792 . While respondent employer may decide that participation in a theft of cargo may warrant not retaining a person in its employment, this criterion must be "applied alike to members of all races," or Title VII is violated. Crime or other misconduct may be a legitimate basis for discharge, but it is not a basis for racial discrimination. Pp. 281-284.
(c) Respondent union, as well as respondent company, is subject to liability under Title VII, since the same reasons that prohibit an employer from discriminating on the basis of race among culpable employees apply equally to the union, regardless of whether the union, under the circumstances, may find it necessary to compromise in securing retention of some of the affected employees. Whatever factors such a compromise may legitimately take into account in mitigating discipline of some employees, under Title VII race may not be included. Pp. 284-285.
2. Section 1981 prohibits racial discrimination in private employment against white persons as well as nonwhites, and this conclusion is supported both by the statute's language, which explicitly applies to "all persons," and by its legislative history. While the phrase "as is enjoyed by white persons" would seem to lend some support to the argument that the statute is limited to the protection of nonwhite persons against racial discrimination, the legislative history is clear that the addition of the phrase to the statute as finally enacted was not intended to eliminate the prohibition of racial discrimination against whites. Pp. 285-296.

[Timshel]

It's easy. All races don't have protected class status. Only certain ones.

It is easy. You are full of ..... You are simply wrong. The McDonald v Santa Fe is just one case. There have been others.

[Timshel]

I haven't thought this comment all the way through but off the top of my head if all races are protected classes how can Universities use a point system based on race for admissions? (maybe you can't and that's why some Asian students are suing Harvard I believe)

(and I'm not asking that question in the context of 'whoa is white people' I'm asking from a legal perspective)

They can't use quotas based on race/national origin (or others) as a single factors. They are allowed to use a variety of factors that include protected characteristics because the courts have reasoned that the goal of achieving a diverse student body or overcoming substantial, chronic minority underrepresentation in [a specific] profession is sufficiently compelling. That is, if the goal is diversity and not discrimination it may be allowed. But the courts have limited these programs and there may be more limits on them since the CRA of 64 protects all races.

[CFM]

Nope. Race is a protected class. All races are protected under that class. The same is true with gender (protects male or female), religion (protects Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindu, etc... various sects within those as well), national origin (protects those from China, Mexico, Canada, France, etc... even Massholes).


http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-suprem...t/427/273.html



United States Supreme Court
McDONALD v. SANTA FE TRAIL TRANSP. CO., (1976)
No. 75-260
Argued: April 20, 1976 Decided: June 25, 1976


Petitioners, both white employees of respondent transportation company, were discharged for misappropriating cargo from one of the company's shipments, but a Negro employee, who was also charged with the same offense, was not discharged. After subsequent grievance proceedings pursuant to a collective-bargaining agreement between the company and respondent union and complaints filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) secured no relief, petitioners brought an action against respondents, alleging that in discharging petitioners, while retaining the Negro employee, respondent company had discriminated against petitioners on the basis of race, and that respondent union had acquiesced in this discrimination by failing properly to represent one of the petitioners in the grievance proceeding, all in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits the discharge of "any individual" because of "such individual's race," and of 42 U.S.C. 1981, which provides that "[a]ll persons . . . shall have the same right . . . to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens . . . ." The District Court dismissed the complaint on the pleadings, holding, inter alia, that 1981 is inapplicable to racial discrimination against whites, and that the facts alleged by petitioners failed to state a claim under Title VII. The Court of Appeals affirmed.


Held:

1. Title VII, whose terms are not limited to discrimination against members of any particular race, prohibits racial discrimination in private employment against white persons upon the same standards as racial discrimination against nonwhites. Pp. 278-285.

(a) Title VII has been so interpreted by the EEOC, whose interpretations are entitled to great deference, and its conclusion accords with uncontradicted legislative history. Pp. 279-280.
(b) That petitioners' dismissal was based upon the commission of a criminal offense does not preclude them from seeking relief under Title VII. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [427 U.S. 273, 274] Green, 411 U.S. 792 . While respondent employer may decide that participation in a theft of cargo may warrant not retaining a person in its employment, this criterion must be "applied alike to members of all races," or Title VII is violated. Crime or other misconduct may be a legitimate basis for discharge, but it is not a basis for racial discrimination. Pp. 281-284.
(c) Respondent union, as well as respondent company, is subject to liability under Title VII, since the same reasons that prohibit an employer from discriminating on the basis of race among culpable employees apply equally to the union, regardless of whether the union, under the circumstances, may find it necessary to compromise in securing retention of some of the affected employees. Whatever factors such a compromise may legitimately take into account in mitigating discipline of some employees, under Title VII race may not be included. Pp. 284-285.
2. Section 1981 prohibits racial discrimination in private employment against white persons as well as nonwhites, and this conclusion is supported both by the statute's language, which explicitly applies to "all persons," and by its legislative history. While the phrase "as is enjoyed by white persons" would seem to lend some support to the argument that the statute is limited to the protection of nonwhite persons against racial discrimination, the legislative history is clear that the addition of the phrase to the statute as finally enacted was not intended to eliminate the prohibition of racial discrimination against whites. Pp. 285-296.

If what you said were true, things like affirmative action wouldn't exist. Simple as that, boy.

[CFM]

It is easy. You are full of ..... You are simply wrong. The McDonald v Santa Fe is just one case. There have been others.

It is easy. You're a stupid motherfucking NL. There are others like you.

[Mott the Hoople]

These figures are worthless if they are not compared to and accompanied with the data that shows what percent of the entire population each group is.

So why does it even matter to you what race a person on public assistance is and why the double standard Republicans have that it’s ok to give public assistance to business interests and not an individual?