Tagged: reverse discrimination

NONE of the 10 attorneys on the COMMITTEE on ADMISSIONS AND GRIEVANCES for the SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS are OF COLOR!

The decision-makers are 100 percent white! Statistically, the “inexorable zero” creates an inference of racial discrimination…and this is not “due to chance” or “accidental.” If you believe there is not ONE “licensed” attorney of color in NEW YORK, CONNECTICUT OR VERMONT who is qualified to serve on this Committee, then you are RACIST!

I saw an article written by one member, who was against affirmative action and essentially stated that racism no longer existed in America, which was evident by the election of Barack H. Obama. This “prominent attorney” is a white male who once worked under George W. Bush’s administration and is a board member for an organization that represents white litigants who believe they are the victims of “reverse discrimination.” Smdh.  And I’m sure that he will be the first to claim that he is impartial and/or has high ethical standards…

Do you see the obstacles we have to face in our fight to eradicate institutionalized racism throughout Hollywood (and society) when you’re dealing with a white/”Jewish”-controlled judicial system that also harbors a deep-rooted bias against African Americans and people of color?!? If nothing happens to William Morris, Loeb & Loeb LLP, Michael P. Zweig, Christian Carbone and the others who have conspired to ensure that I was deprived of my full constitutional and statutory rights under the color of law, then that means, that no matter what the law states or how much evidence I present to prove my claims, I will never win. That constitutes fraud or in the alternative, global white supremacy (racism), in its purest form.

Source: http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/clerk/attorneys/attorney_discipline.html.

“Reverse discrimination is a myth. It is the product of whites’ and males’ misguided fears of a loss of privileged access to good jobs.”

Source: http://www.russellsage.org/blog/desegregation-private-sector-interview-kevin-stainback-and-donald-tomaskovic-devey.

Pre-Hiring Individual Disparate Treatment: Table Chart Demonstrating Disparate Qualifications Btw Only Af. American Agent Trainee (myself) and Similarly Situated White/”Jewish” Counterparts Hired By the William Morris Agency’s New York office in September 2008.

I have never made the Motions that were submitted for Summary Judgment public. Eventually, I will have to, but for the time being, here is a table chart I created to serve as an exhibit to the Reply of my Motion for Summary Judgment, submitted on January 31, 2013.

I have always argued that I — the only Af. American employed at any level of William Morris’ Agent Trainee program in New York City — was significantly more qualified than majority of the Whites/”Jews” that I worked with. Of course, Loeb & Loeb LLP argued the opposite in their November 6, 2012 Opp. for Summary Judgment…but they never submitted any evidence (e.g. resumes) to support their claims, thus failing to sufficiently meet their heightened burden of production and persuasion concerning this particular issue. As a result, I created this table chart to show the difference in qualifications between myself and my similarly situated white/”Jewish” counterparts that were also hired into the company’s Agent Trainee program in September of 2008 since we initially agreed that the case would be decided by Arbitrator David L. Gregory entirely by motions for summary judgment, without the need for discovery or an oral hearing.

It is clear that my qualifications are superior. Early on in my preparation for this case, I found case law, in which the Eleventh Circuit once stated that “pretext can be established through comparing qualifications only when ‘the disparity in qualifications is so apparent as virtually to jump off the page and slap you in the face.’” Although the Supreme Court rejected that standard in Ash v. Tyson Foods Inc., 126 S. Ct. 1195 (2006) as being “unhelpful and imprecise as an elaboration of the standard for inferring pretext from superior qualifications,” it doesn’t change the fact that you should still be able to feel the imaginary sting of five fingers hitting your face after looking at the disparities in our qualifications. Majority of those hired into the Agent Trainee program are recent college graduates, with little to no experience working in the entertainment industry. If the company is NOT conscious of race when making employment decisions or intentionally violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964, how could I have been the ONLY African American employed at any level of the Agent Trainee program in NEW YORK CITY…in the same year that our nation elected its first President of color?!?! Someone, please explain. I’m begging for insight and clarity.

Although I moved for summary judgment, the Defendants actually got to submit the last brief. They did not dispute anything stated in the chart, nor did they produce any evidence to disprove the fact that I was considerably over qualified to be hired as an Agent Trainee. Although William Morris claims they hire and promote based on merit, this is nothing more than a lie. African Americans and people of color do not have an equal opportunity to be hired and/or promoted to Agent or other meaningful positions throughout Hollywood. Just imagine if I were white/”Jewish” with the same qualifications. If the company’s hiring and promotion decisions weren’t already tainted with racial bias, do you think Human Resources — who are not required to be knowledgeable of antidiscrimination law upon being hired —  would have then been able to recognize that my qualifications were significantly greater than those historically hired into William Morris’ Agent Trainee program ? And should Loeb & Loeb LLP have been allowed to continue raising this frivolous argument when the resumes were exclusively in their possession and they intentionally chose not to meet their heightened burden of production and persuasion? Does this constitute scienter?

Also, if what I am saying is not true, why would William Morris’ New York office hire five African Americans in July 2010 — a month or two  after being notified that I’d filed a complaint with the EEOC — when in the first year of William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, they hired zero?  Is this “due to chance”? Without the need for a statistician, what does your intuition tell you?

Supreme Court issues 7 to 1 ruling remanding affirmative action case to lower court. Thomas likens AA to slavery and segregation. Ginsburg stands alone and acknowledges true reasons why affirmative action is necessary in Amerikkka.

WASHINGTON — Courts must take a skeptical look at affirmative-action programs at public colleges and universities, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, in a decision that is likely to set off a wave of challenges to race-conscious admissions policies nationwide.

Abigail Fisher, who was denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin, said her race was held against her.

The 7-to-1 decision avoided giving a direct answer about the constitutionality of the program used by the University of Texas at Austin that was before the court. The program will continue for now, but the justices ordered an appeals court to reconsider the case under a demanding standard that appears to jeopardize the program.

The ruling was simultaneously modest and significant, and its recalibration of how courts review the constitutionality of race-conscious decisions by the government will reverberate beyond higher education.

The brief decision, issued eight months after the case was argued, was almost surely the product of intense negotiations among the justices.

The compromise that the majority reached was at least a reprieve for affirmative action in higher education, and civil rights groups that had feared for the future of race-conscious admission programs were relieved. Conservatives and other opponents of the current version of affirmative action vowed to use the court’s ruling as a road map to bring future cases.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion,joined by the four members of the court’s conservative wing — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — and two of its liberals, Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

Only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, writing that lower courts were correct to uphold the Texas program. Justice Elena Kagan disqualified herself from the case, presumably because she had worked on it as solicitor general in the Obama administration.

The decision did not disturb the Supreme Court’s general approach to affirmative action in admissions decisions, saying that educational diversity is an in terest sufficient to overcome the general ban on racial classifications by the government. But the court added that public institutions must have good reasons for the particular methods they use to achieve that goal.

Colleges and universities, Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority, must demonstrate that “available, workable race-neutral alternatives do not suffice” before taking account of race in admissions decisions.

That requirement could endanger the Texas program when it is reconsidered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans. The university’s program admits most undergraduates under race-neutral criteria, accepting all Texas students who graduate near the top of their high school classes. But the university also uses a race-conscious system to choose the remaining students.

Courts reviewing government programs that make distinctions based on race subject them to a form of judicial review known as “strict scrutiny,” requiring the government to identify an important goal and a close fit between means and ends. Justice Kennedy’s opinion focused on and tightened the second part of the test.

“Strict scrutiny,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “does not permit a court to accept a school’s assertion that its admissions process uses race in a permissible way without a court giving close analysis to the evidence of how the process works in practice.”

Courts reviewing affirmative action programs must, he wrote, “verify that it is necessary for a university to use race to achieve the educational benefits of diversity.” That requires, he said, “a careful judicial inquiry into whether a university could achieve sufficient diversity without using racial classifications.”

Justice Ginsburg, who announced her dissent from the bench, said the race-neutral part of the Texas program worked only because of “de facto racial segregation in Texas’ neighborhoods and schools.”

They weren’t bold enough to say that affirmative action is unconstitutional…but that’s where things are headed if we (e.g. Whites) continue to ignore the realities of racism in America.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/us/affirmative-action-decision.html?hp&_r=1&. For commentary on Clarence Thomas’ — the only African American justice on Supreme Court that is adamantly against affirmative action — opinion on this issue, click here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/clarence-thomas-affirmative-action_n_3491433.html?utm_hp_ref=black-voices&ir=Black%20Voices. Thurgood Marshall is turning over in his grave right now! Thomas is a disgrace to all people of African descent.

“post-racial discrimination”

There has been a lot of talk about post-racialism since the 2008 election of Barack Obama as the first black President of the United States. Some have argued that the Obama election illustrates the evolution of the United States from its unfortunate racist past to a more admirable post-racial present in which the problem of invidious racial discrimination has largely been overcome. Others have argued that the Obama election illustrates only that an extraordinarily gifted, mixed-race, multiple Ivy League graduate, Harvard Law Review President was able to overcome the persistent discriminatory racial practices that continue to disadvantage the bulk of less fortunate racial minority group members in the United States.

However, both perspectives fail to engage the feature of race in the United States that I find most significant. Race is relentlessly relevant. Racial differences are so socially salient that racial considerations necessarily influence many of the decisions that we make. Even when racial considerations are tacit or unconscious, the influence of race is still exerted through the reflex habit of deferring to white interests in the belief that such deference is racially neutral. But it is not. The possibility of actual colorblind race neutrality is simply an option that does not exist.

Nevertheless, the culture remains committed to an abstract principle of racial equality, which would be offended by a frank recognition of the role that race inevitably plays in the allocation of societal benefits and burdens. Accordingly, the culture must find some way to mediate the tension that exists between its race-neutral rhetorical aspirations and its race-based operational behavior. The claim that United States culture has now achieved a post-racial status can best be understood as an effort to serve that function. By conceptualizing contemporary culture as post-racial, we can camouflage the role that race continues to play in the allocation of resources. However, masking the relevance of race does not serve to eliminate it. Rather, the post-racial claim ultimately serves to legitimate the practice of continued discrimination against racial minorities.

The Supreme Court has always been complicit in the practice of sacrificing racial minority interests for the benefit of the white majority. In its more infamous historical decisions, such as Dred Scott, Plessy, and Korematsu, the Court’s racial biases have been relatively transparent. More recently, however, the Court has invoked three tacit post-racial assumptions to justify the contemporary sacrifice of minority interests in the name of promoting equality for whites. First, current racial minorities are no longer the victims of significant discrimination. Second, as a result, race-conscious efforts to benefit racial minorities at the expense of whites constitute a form of reverse discrimination against whites that must be prevented in the name of racial equality. Third, because the post-racial playing field is now level, any disadvantages that racial minorities continue to suffer must be caused by their own shortcomings rather than by the lingering effects of now-dissipated past discrimination. I consider actions that are rooted in these assumptions, and that adversely affect the interests of racial minorities in order to advance the interests of whites, to constitute a form of contemporary discrimination that I refer to as “post-racial discrimination.”

Source: Girardeau A. Spann, “Disparate Impact,” The Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 98, p. 1133-1135 (2010). http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/98-4/Spann.PDF.