Another affirmative action horror story from the democrats.

[ShootSpeeders]

The 14th amendment mandates equal protection under the law for everyone but obozo ignores that. Blacks, injuns, hispanics, perverts, women and disabled all get special treatment and the people who built america, the straight healthy white males, get persecuted.

The Capitol and White House are Racist Icons Because Diversity - Charting Course

oct 23 2014
Ryan Meryhew wanted to be an air traffic controller. He went to school for it, completed a College Initiative Training (CTI) degree, and applied with the FAA. The FAA wouldn’t even interview him. Because, diversity.

“In school I did very well. I graduated with a 3.8 GPA. I passed the AT-SAT exam with a 99.5 percent, a near perfect score on the test that the FAA said you’ve got to pass,” said Meryhew. “I knew I had a passion for the position. It’s something that I wanted to do. I dedicated and put everything I had into the program.”

It’s not just Meryhew. Thousands of other applicants have become “biographically ineligible”. The FAA chalks it up to a new “biographical assessment” process, which deals with life experiences among other factors. Because, diversity.

It has now become more important for an air traffic controller to fit the right ethnic profile, to be “biographically eligible”, than it is to keep our skies safe. No warm fuzzies for the flying public here.

In Michigan, a school district’s union contract gave preference to “women and/or minority defined as: Native American, Asian American, Latino, African American and those of the non-Christian faith.” Because, diversity.

Diversity dictates set-aside positions for every ethnic group, taking time to ensure that every last bit of Christianity has been expunged. Today, the religion of diversity is the chief value for every government agency, corporate boardroom, and media newshound looking for a cheap story.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Thanks for the info. We're going to see way more of this idiocy in the coming decades as the US is demographically transformed.

Already we're seeing the Feds suing counties because they don't elect enough Hispanics, because they they're too white in terms of population. There's going to be nowhere one can flee from glorious diversity. Once all avenues of escape have been blocked, that's when the game becomes more interesting and far more serious because now liberals are threatening people's children and personal lives.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

We all know blacks demand special treatment because of slavery, but what is the justification for special treatment for hispanics and all these other groups.?

 

[Rikurzhen]

We all know blacks demand special treatment because of slavery, but what is the justification for special treatment for hispanics and all these other groups.?

Diversity. The Supreme Court invented the notion that Diversity is a benefit. Out of thin air, poof, this idea came to them and they gave it life.

The rest of the benefits are actually just pure extortionate politics. One redistribution became acceptable then it didn't matter which group became the target and which became the beneficiary. Whites are the target and their pumped for cash to send to minorities.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
. The Supreme Court invented the notion that Diversity is a benefit. Out of thin air, poof, this idea came to them and they gave it life.

.

The SC approved of affirmative action but they didn't invent it. It came from the executive office which decided this was the way to implement The Civil Rights Act of 1965 even though the writers of the law said it absolutely would not lead to quotas!!!

 

[Rikurzhen]

[
. The Supreme Court invented the notion that Diversity is a benefit. Out of thin air, poof, this idea came to them and they gave it life.

.

The SC approved of affirmative action but they didn't invent it. It came from the executive office which decided this was the way to implement The Civil Rights Act of 1965 even though the writers of the law said it absolutely would not lead to quotas!!!

No, the Supreme Court invented the rationale that diversity was a benefit:

The judgment of the court was written by Justice Lewis Powell; two different blocs of four justices joined various parts of Powell's opinion. Finding diversity in the classroom to be a compelling state interest, Powell opined that affirmative action in general was allowed under the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.​

 

[ShootSpeeders]

No, the Supreme Court invented the rationale that diversity was a benefit:

The judgment of the court was written by Justice Lewis Powell; two different blocs of four justices joined various parts of Powell's opinion. Finding diversity in the classroom to be a compelling state interest, Powell opined that affirmative action in general was allowed under the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.​

So it's a benefit? If the constitution bans something then it can't be allowed whether it has benefits or not. And the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is clear that AA is banned. THINK

 

[Rikurzhen]

No, the Supreme Court invented the rationale that diversity was a benefit:

The judgment of the court was written by Justice Lewis Powell; two different blocs of four justices joined various parts of Powell's opinion. Finding diversity in the classroom to be a compelling state interest, Powell opined that affirmative action in general was allowed under the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.​

So it's a benefit? If the constitution bans something then it can't be allowed whether it has benefits or not. And the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is clear that AA is banned. THINK

Your "THINK" schtick works with liberals on this board because you're more intelligent than they but it doesn't work on me.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

No, the Supreme Court invented the rationale that diversity was a benefit:

The judgment of the court was written by Justice Lewis Powell; two different blocs of four justices joined various parts of Powell's opinion. Finding diversity in the classroom to be a compelling state interest, Powell opined that affirmative action in general was allowed under the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.​

So it's a benefit? If the constitution bans something then it can't be allowed whether it has benefits or not. And the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is clear that AA is banned. THINK

Your "THINK" schtick works with liberals on this board because you're more intelligent than they but it doesn't work on me.

Address the question i raised. Where does the SC get authority to defy the 14th amendment guarantee of equal protection.?