VIDEO: How Can We Win?

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Of course. So statistically in a land of equal opportunity, they should be equal economically. But they AREN'T.

You are confusing opportunity with outcome.

Because of affirmative action, blacks have GREATER opportunity than any other group. Th lack of economic success is because far too few TAKE that opportunity.

White women have been the greatest benefactor of affirmative action according to the agency that tracks these statics for the U.S. Labor Department

​

"...white women as a group have benefited at a higher percentage than other groups. That means​

1. white women have benefited more than any other group from Affirmative Action
   1. if white women are the largest benefactors then it's not possible that the legislation does what many racist whites claim it does - takes jobs from qualified whites and gives them to unqualified blacks
   2. that our claims that the affirmation action law is "race neutral" are true and a perusal of the text itself will reveal that it makes no mention of any particular race nor does it elevate any one race over another

As far as where the data came from (Affirmative action, helpful or harmful?)​

​

Enforcement of civil rights law in private workplaces: The effects of compliance reviews and lawsuits over time (Kalev & Dobbin 2006)

... Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are forbidden from discriminating against their employees on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, or national origin. The law prohibits discrimination in terms, compensation, working conditions, and other aspects of employment; mandates enforcement by courts, rather than juries; and provides civil penalties for violations, including mandatory remedial hiring policies for employers and reinstatement with back pay awards to victims. It also created the EEOC to bring class action litigation against employers for discrimination. The Civil Rights Act initially applied to private sector employers with more than 25 employees; since 1972, it has applied to those with more than 15 employees.

Affirmative action Executive Order 11246, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, reinforced prohibitions in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and earlier executive orders against discrimination based on race, color, religion, and national origin; subsequent orders and revisions have added sex (1967) and sexual orientation and gender identity (2014) as protected classes. Order 11246 required the federal government and federal contractors with 50 or more employees or $50,000 in contracts to develop written affirmative action plans and ensure equal opportunities for all workers. The order authorized the Secretary of Labor to establish the OFCCP to enforce federal contractors’ compliance. The OFCCP targets for compliance reviews those employers whose EEO-1 reports indicate relatively low employment of women and minorities. The authors noted that the nature of compliance reviews differed over time. Relative to later reviews, reviews in the 1970s were less frequent but more intrusive and more likely to lead to sanctions.

Findings
The study found that compliance reviews initiated against an establishment in the 1970s significantly increased the share of women and African Americans it employed as managers, not only in the 1970s but also through the 1980s and 1990s. A first compliance review in the 1970s increased the odds of white women in management by an estimated 34 percent, of African American women by 18 percent, and of African American men by 28 percent.

Compliance reviews initiated in the 1970s led to significantly greater increases in female and African American employment shares than did reviews conducted in the 1980s.

Larger numbers of lawsuits significantly increased employment shares for women and African Americans.

Clearinghouse for Labor Evaluation and Research (CLEAR)"​

 

[OldLady]

I don't know why blacks underachieve on average.

Maybe because when you're playing that Monopoly game she talked about, blacks never get enough of a "bank" to buy anything but Baltic Avenue; never Boardwalk or Park Place.
It matters.

We are actually playing the game of life and each of us have different starting points regardless of race. Malia and Sasha Obama for example have much more starting the game of life than 99.9% of whites. One rule of the game of life is that it isn't fair. All the whining in the world isn't going to change that rule.

That's very true, and in the case of individuals, that's just how things are. People keep asking why anyone thinks things aren't fair, though, so I tell 'em, economically they're not. It's just a fact, but if it's that way for a whole racial group in this country, not just lucky and unlucky individuals, then it's an indicator something ain't right.

Blacks are not a monolithic racial group. There is plenty of diversity of black people.

Of course. So statistically in a land of equal opportunity, they should be equal economically. But they AREN'T.

No, it doesn't mean that.
People are not all equal...... that isn't how the world works.

No, of course not. But when we are talking about groups with millions of people in them, those factors average out--your smart ones, your dumb ones, your insane ones, your disabled ones. Two groups that large with no legal reason for them to be "different" can be compared.

 

[freyasman]

I know a lot of Black people who have worked hard and become successful. How did they do that being held down and oppressed with their skin color?

They didnt give up or they got lucky. Its common knowledge that a Black person has to be 10x better at something than a white person does just to get the job with less pay.

I brought this up in another thread. I think everyone agrees that racism created a massive problem. My question is what now? I think if you completely eliminated all racism, you'd still have a huge problem. Racism got us into the mess, but I don't think getting out of the mess has anything to do with race. The people in the Ivory Towers and the social workers are saying that nothing is anybody's fault, great. Now what. Most seem to want the government to step in more than it already has, but using money to prop up poverty just creates more poverty. Everyone should have hope and opportunities, I'm curious if any of our justice warriors have a plan for the next step.

That is an interesting distinction...what are your thoughts on how to get out of it? (I do not see any easy answers)

I don't know why blacks underachieve on average.

Maybe because when you're playing that Monopoly game she talked about, blacks never get enough of a "bank" to buy anything but Baltic Avenue; never Boardwalk or Park Place.
It matters.

We are actually playing the game of life and each of us have different starting points regardless of race. Malia and Sasha Obama for example have much more starting the game of life than 99.9% of whites. One rule of the game of life is that it isn't fair. All the whining in the world isn't going to change that rule.

That's very true, and in the case of individuals, that's just how things are. People keep asking why anyone thinks things aren't fair, though, so I tell 'em, economically they're not. It's just a fact, but if it's that way for a whole racial group in this country, not just lucky and unlucky individuals, then it's an indicator something ain't right.

Blacks are not a monolithic racial group. There is plenty of diversity of black people.

Of course. So statistically in a land of equal opportunity, they should be equal economically. But they AREN'T.

Eventually, fair or not, don't people need to better their own lives? If it is assumed people in poverty can't improve their lives, that is a major problem. That is saying life isn't fair so I'll throw my hands in the air and give up.

I never said they couldn't. They have. But numbers don't lie. They aren't having equal outcomes yet, as a group, and since there is no legal reason why not, it must be because they aren't being treated equally, laws or no.

Or it could be because they are not performing equally, as a group.

 

[freyasman]

I don't know why blacks underachieve on average.

Maybe because when you're playing that Monopoly game she talked about, blacks never get enough of a "bank" to buy anything but Baltic Avenue; never Boardwalk or Park Place.
It matters.

We are actually playing the game of life and each of us have different starting points regardless of race. Malia and Sasha Obama for example have much more starting the game of life than 99.9% of whites. One rule of the game of life is that it isn't fair. All the whining in the world isn't going to change that rule.

That's very true, and in the case of individuals, that's just how things are. People keep asking why anyone thinks things aren't fair, though, so I tell 'em, economically they're not. It's just a fact, but if it's that way for a whole racial group in this country, not just lucky and unlucky individuals, then it's an indicator something ain't right.

Blacks are not a monolithic racial group. There is plenty of diversity of black people.

Of course. So statistically in a land of equal opportunity, they should be equal economically. But they AREN'T.

No, it doesn't mean that.
People are not all equal...... that isn't how the world works.

No, of course not. But when we are talking about groups with millions of people in them, those factors average out--your smart ones, your dumb ones, your insane ones, your disabled ones. Two groups that large with no legal reason for them to be "different" can be compared.

If one culture is better suited to the environment, people from that culture, or people who adopt that culture, will usually get better results.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Of course. So statistically in a land of equal opportunity, they should be equal economically. But they AREN'T.

You are confusing opportunity with outcome.

Because of affirmative action, blacks have GREATER opportunity than any other group. Th lack of economic success is because far too few TAKE that opportunity.

White women have been the greatest benefactor of affirmative action according to the agency that tracks these statics for the U.S. Labor Department

​

"...white women as a group have benefited at a higher percentage than other groups. That means​

1. white women have benefited more than any other group from Affirmative Action
   1. if white women are the largest benefactors then it's not possible that the legislation does what many racist whites claim it does - takes jobs from qualified whites and gives them to unqualified blacks
   2. that our claims that the affirmation action law is "race neutral" are true and a perusal of the text itself will reveal that it makes no mention of any particular race nor does it elevate any one race over another

As far as where the data came from (Affirmative action, helpful or harmful?)​

​

Enforcement of civil rights law in private workplaces: The effects of compliance reviews and lawsuits over time (Kalev & Dobbin 2006)​

​

... Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are forbidden from discriminating against their employees on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, or national origin. The law prohibits discrimination in terms, compensation, working conditions, and other aspects of employment; mandates enforcement by courts, rather than juries; and provides civil penalties for violations, including mandatory remedial hiring policies for employers and reinstatement with back pay awards to victims. It also created the EEOC to bring class action litigation against employers for discrimination. The Civil Rights Act initially applied to private sector employers with more than 25 employees; since 1972, it has applied to those with more than 15 employees.​

​

Affirmative action Executive Order 11246, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, reinforced prohibitions in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and earlier executive orders against discrimination based on race, color, religion, and national origin; subsequent orders and revisions have added sex (1967) and sexual orientation and gender identity (2014) as protected classes. Order 11246 required the federal government and federal contractors with 50 or more employees or $50,000 in contracts to develop written affirmative action plans and ensure equal opportunities for all workers. The order authorized the Secretary of Labor to establish the OFCCP to enforce federal contractors’ compliance. The OFCCP targets for compliance reviews those employers whose EEO-1 reports indicate relatively low employment of women and minorities. The authors noted that the nature of compliance reviews differed over time. Relative to later reviews, reviews in the 1970s were less frequent but more intrusive and more likely to lead to sanctions.​

​

Findings​

The study found that compliance reviews initiated against an establishment in the 1970s significantly increased the share of women and African Americans it employed as managers, not only in the 1970s but also through the 1980s and 1990s. A first compliance review in the 1970s increased the odds of white women in management by an estimated 34 percent, of African American women by 18 percent, and of African American men by 28 percent.​

​

Compliance reviews initiated in the 1970s led to significantly greater increases in female and African American employment shares than did reviews conducted in the 1980s.​

​

Larger numbers of lawsuits significantly increased employment shares for women and African Americans.​

​

Clearinghouse for Labor Evaluation and Research (CLEAR)"​

You do not confusing opportunity and outcome.

Thanks for pointing out that you have every opportunity imaginable but do not take advantage of it because of shitty attitude.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I know a lot of Black people who have worked hard and become successful. How did they do that being held down and oppressed with their skin color?

Because there are always exceptions to everything. But what we want are the same opportunites for everyone else, not just those of us who were fortunate.

Did you even listen to her explain how our econmics are managed and destroyed by a system of institutional racism?

She is talking about things that happened 100 years ago, Tulsa and Rosewood, not about today. That's because she can't point to anything today that is preventing black people from improving their economic lot in America today except for ignorant, brain washed people like her to try to convince young black people that they can't do it. All that is needed for a black person to rise out of poverty is a decent education and a commitment to work hard.

I think you keep missing the point. Blacks shouldnt have to work 10x harder than whites just to be on the same level.

They don't. They just have to get a decent education and work hard, just as white people who earn a decent living do, and many black people do just that.

I know a lot of Black people who have worked hard and become successful. How did they do that being held down and oppressed with their skin color?

Because there are always exceptions to everything. But what we want are the same opportunites for everyone else, not just those of us who were fortunate.

Did you even listen to her explain how our econmics are managed and destroyed by a system of institutional racism?

She is talking about things that happened 100 years ago, Tulsa and Rosewood, not about today. That's because she can't point to anything today that is preventing black people from improving their economic lot in America today except for ignorant, brain washed people like her to try to convince young black people that they can't do it. All that is needed for a black person to rise out of poverty is a decent education and a commitment to work hard.

I think you keep missing the point. Blacks shouldnt have to work 10x harder than whites just to be on the same level.

They don't. All they have to do is get a decent education and work hard just as white people who earn a decent living have to do. All that is holding them back is the belief espoused in this video and championed by people like you that they are helpless. There is no institutionalized racism in America anymore and there is no white privilege anymore. All that is holding black people down today is this culture of "I can't" that you and the woman in this video are espousing.

Thats some bullshit. The only thing holding Black people back is giving up because whites put plenty of obstacles in their way.

lol Name one.

One was already mentioned in this thread. If your name gives a hint that you are Black you wont even get called for a interview.

I wouldn't have thought anyone could stupid and ignorant enough to say that today. That would be a violation of the person's civil rights and make the company liable for fines and vulnerable to lawsuits. Any supervisor who did such a thing would lose his own job. Have you been in a coma for the last fifty years?

Hopefully they would be dumb enough to say it. However, the laws are not in our favor. Unless they openly admit they didnt interview you because of your name they cant be sued. However, the study that was done submitted the exact same resume with a anglo sounding name and the person got a call for an interview.

You just keep making up more and more bullshit to support your bizarre lies. There are no recent studies that show wide spread discrimination in hiring. The only thing holding young black people down are people like you who tell them it is hopeless when it clearly is not.

He's not making up bullshit. The following is less than 10% of the entries on the page which is hyperlinked at the bottom of quoted text"

"E-RACE AND OTHER EEOC INITIATIVES
Systemic

• In December 2017, Laquila Group Inc., a Brooklyn-based construction company, paid $625,000 into a class settlement fund and took measures to eliminate race bias and retaliation against black construction laborers. In its lawsuit, EEOC alleged that Laquila engaged in systemic discrimination against black employees as a class by subjecting them to racial harassment, including referring to them using the N-word, "gorilla," and similar epithets. The Commission also alleged that the company fired an employee who complained about the harassment. The consent decree also requires Laquila to set up a hotline for employees to report illegal discrimination, provide anti-discrimination training to its managers, adopt revised anti-discrimination policies and employee complaint procedures and report all worker harassment and retaliation complaints to the EEOC for the 42-month duration of the agreement. EEOC v. The Laquila Grp., Inc., No. 1:16-cv-05194 (E.D.N.Y. consent decree approved Dec. 1, 2017).
• In November 2017, after an extensive five-year, complicated systemic investigation and settlement efforts, the EEOC reached an agreement with Lone Star Community College covering recruitment, hiring and mentoring of African-American and Hispanic applicants and employees. The terms of the agreement were designed to enhance the College's commitment to the recruitment of African-American and Hispanics and to engage in meaningful monitoring of the College's efforts to reach its recruitment and hiring goals. The agreement included some novel relief, such as: implementation of a new applicant tracking system; establishing an advisory committee focused on the recruitment, development and retention of minority groups; hiring of recruitment firms; developing new interview protocol training; establishing a mentoring program for recently hired minority employees; and updating job descriptions for all college manager positions to require as a job component the diversity of its workforce.
• In August 2017, Ford Motor Company agreed to pay nearly $10.125 million to settle sex and race harassment investigation by the EEOC at two Ford plants in Chicago area. In its investigation, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that personnel at two Ford facilities in the Chicago area, the Chicago Assembly Plant and the Chicago Stamping Plant, had subjected female and African-American employees to sexual and racial harassment. The EEOC also found that the company retaliated against employees who complained about the harassment or discrimination. In addition to the monetary relief, the conciliation agreement provides ensures that during the next five years, Ford will conduct regular training at the two Chicago-area facilities; continue to disseminate its anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies and procedures to employees and new hires; report to EEOC regarding complaints of harassment and/or related discrimination; and monitor its workforce regarding issues of alleged sexual or racial harassment and related discrimination.
• In July 2017, Bass Pro Outdoor World LLC agreed, without admitting wrongdoing, to pay $10.5 million to a class of African-American and Hispanic workers the EEOC alleged it discriminated against by failing to hire because of their race and/or national origin in violation of Title VII. According to the consent decree, Bass Pro will engage in good faith efforts to increase diversity by reaching out to minority colleges and technical schools, participating in job fairs in communities with large minority populations and post job openings in publications popular among Black and Hispanic communities. Additionally, every six months for the next 42 months, Bass Pro is to report to the EEOC its hiring rates on a store-by-store basis. EEOC v. Bass Pro Outdoor World LLC, Case No. 4:11-cv-03425 (S.D. Tex. consent decree filed July 24, 2017).
• In June 2017, the EEOC investigated a restaurant operating over 100 facilities in the Eastern U.S. involving issues of hiring discrimination against African Americans. The restaurant agreed to pay $9.6 million to class members as part of a conciliation agreement. Additionally, the restaurant will overhaul its hiring procedures and has agreed to institute practices aimed at meeting hiring targets consistent with the labor market in each of the locations in which it has facilities. The new hiring procedures include implementation of an extensive applicant tracking system that will better enable the EEOC and the company to assess whether the company is meeting the targeted hiring levels. The restaurant will also provide an annual report to EEOC detailing the company's efforts in complying with the agreement and its objectives over the term of the five-year agreement, including detailed hiring assessments for each facility covered by the agreement.
• In May 2017, Rosebud Restaurants agreed to pay $1.9 million to resolve a race discrimination lawsuit brought by the EEOC against 13 restaurants in the Chicago area. The chain was charged with refusing to hire African-American applicants and having managers who used racial slurs to refer to African-Americans. The monetary award will be paid to African-American applicants who were denied jobs. Pursuant to a consent decree, the chain also agreed to hiring goals with the aim of having 11 percent of its future workforce be African American. Rosebud is also required to recruit African-American applicants as well as train employees and managers about race discrimination. EEOC v. Rosebud Rest., No. 1:13-cv-06656 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2017).
• In April 2017, Sealy of Minnesota paid $175,000 to resolve a charge of racial harassment filed with the EEOC. An investigation by the EEOC's Minneapolis Area Office revealed that the mattress and box spring manufacturing company in St. Paul, Minn. subjected its Black and Hispanic employees to severe racial harassment in the form of KKK hoods, nooses, and racial slurs and jokes. The agency also found that the company discriminated against black and Hispanic employees in the selection of lead positions at the St. Paul facility. EEOC v. Sealy of Minn., (D. Minn. Apr. 20, 2017).
• In December 2016, Crothall Services Group, Inc., a nationwide provider of janitorial and facilities management services, settled an EEOC lawsuit by adopting significant changes to its record-keeping practices related to the use of criminal background checks. According to the EEOC's complaint, Crothall used criminal background checks to make hiring decisions without making and keeping required records that disclose the impact criminal history assessments have on persons identifiable by race, sex, or ethnic group, a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965. EEOC v. Crothall Servs. Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-03812-AB (E.D. Pa. Dec. 16, 2016).
• In August 2016, a magistrate judge reaffirmed that "African" has long been recognized as an acceptable class entitled to protection under Title VII. The EEOC alleged that the Defendants, a health care management system and nursing home discriminated against African employees, specifically employees from Ethiopia and Sudan, when it terminated four personal care providers all on the same day, allegedly for failing to pass a newly instituted written exam. The EEOC brought disparate impact and treatment claims based on race and national origin, and a retaliation claim for a white supervisor who stood up for the African workers and was fired several months before the test was instituted. Defendants moved for dismissal arguing (1) Africa is not a nation and so cannot serve as the basis of a national origin claim, (2) EEOC failed to allege any shared cultural or linguistic characteristics between the aggrieved individuals so they could not constitute a protected class; and (3) the EEOC's retaliation claim must be dismissed because EEOC failed to allege protected activity or the Defendants had knowledge of the white supervisor's motivations. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion be denied in total. EEOC v. Columbine Health Sys. & New Mercer Commons, Civ. Action No. 15-cv-01597-MSK-CBS (D. Colo. Aug. 19, 2016).
• In June 2016, the EEOC obtained a $350,000 settlement in its race discrimination lawsuit against defendant FAPS, Inc., a company located at Port Newark, N.J., involved in the processing for final sale of shipped automobiles. In this case, the Commission alleged that the company engaged in a pattern-or-practice of race discrimination by relying on word-of-mouth hiring which resulted in a predominantly white workforce despite the substantial African-American available workforce in the Newark area. The agency further alleged that FAPS refused to hire qualified African-American candidates, including by telling them that no positions were available when in fact FAPS was hiring. Finally, the EEOC alleged that FAPS' employment application contained improper pre-employment medical inquiries in violation of the ADA. Besides the monetary compensation, the five year consent decree requires FAPS to meet substantial hiring goals for African-Americans; give hiring priority to rejected class members who are interested in working at the company; use recruiting methods designed to increase the African-American applicant pool; and hire an EEO coordinator to ensure compliance with Title VII. EEOC v. FAPS, Inc., C.A. No. No. 2:10-cv-03095 (D.N.J. June 15, 2016).
• In April 2015, Local 25 of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association and its associated apprenticeship school agreed to create a back pay fund for a group of minority sheet metal workers in partial settlement of race discrimination claims against the local union. Pursuant to the settlement, it is estimated that the union will pay approximately $12.7 million over the next five years and provide substantial remedial relief to partially resolve claims made against the union in 1991-2002. The trade union, which is responsible for sheet metal journeypersons in northern New Jersey, allegedly discriminated against black and Hispanic journeypersons over a multi-year period in hiring and job assignments. An analysis of hours and wages showed African-American and Hispanic workers received fewer hours of work than their white co-workers during most of this same timeframe. This particular agreement covers from April 1991 through December 2002. EEOC v. Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, Case No. 71 Civ. 2887 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. April 2, 2015).
• In December 2015, Hillshire Brands (formerly known as Sara Lee Corporation) agreed to pay $4 million to 74 workers at the now-shuttered Paris, Texas, plant, including the dozens of people who sought EEOC charges against Hillshire and other aggrieved workers identified by the EEOC and the plaintiffs. This resolution settles claims that the company subjected a class of Black employees to a hostile work environment that included racist graffiti and comments, that included the N-word and "boy." The company also agreed to implement training at all of its plants in a bid to end consolidated suits from the EEOC and former worker Stanley Beaty. The consent decree also requires Hillshire to implement anti-racism training and create a mechanism for employees at its existing plants to confidentially report instances of harassment, discrimination and retaliation. The settlement also requires Hillshire to designate one employee to serve as a point-of-contact for those who feel they've been treated improperly and to punish workers with suspensions and even termination who are found "by reasonable evidence" to have engaged in racial bias or behavior related to it. EEOC v. Hillshire Brands Co. f/k/a Sara Lee Corp., No. 2:15-cv-01347 (E.D. Tex. consent decree filed 12/18/15) and Beaty et al v. The Hillshire Brands Co. et al., No. 2:14-cv-00058 (E.D. Tex. consent decree filed 12/18/15).
• In October 2015, a federal judge held that the operators of an Indianapolis Hampton Inn in contempt for failing to comply with five different conditions settling the EEOC's class race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against the companies. The judge faulted Noble Management LLC and New Indianapolis Hotels for failing to: (1) properly post notices; (2) properly train management employees; (3) keep employment records; (4) institute a new hiring procedure for housekeeping employees; and (5) reinstate three former housekeeping employees. The judge also faulted Noble and New Indianapolis Hotels for comingling of medical records in employee personnel files. As background, the EEOC filed suit against operators New Indianapolis Hotels LLC and Noble Management LLC in September 2010, alleging that their Hampton Inn fired African-American housekeepers because of their race and in retaliation for complaints about race discrimination. The agency also charged that the hotel paid lower wages to Black housekeepers, excluded Black housekeeping applicants on a systemic basis, and failed to maintain records required by law in violation of Title VII. In September 2012, the judge entered a five-year consent decree resolving the EEOC's litigation against the hotel operators. The decree provided $355,000 in monetary relief to approximately 75 African-American former housekeeping employees and applicants and required training, notice posting, reinstatement of three former housekeeping employees, a new hiring procedure for housekeeping employees and ordered that the defendants maintain employment-related records. The court also enjoined the operators from race discrimination and retaliation in the future. In March 2014, following the filing of the EEOC's contempt motion, Judge Lawrence ruled that the defendants violated the terms of the 2012 decree and ordered Defendants to pay more than $50,000 in back wages to the three former housekeepers whose reinstatement was delayed. Defendants were also ordered to: (1) provide monthly reporting to the EEOC on compliance with the new hiring procedure, recordkeeping and posting; (2) pay fines for late reporting; (3) allow random inspections by the EEOC subject to a fine, for failure to grant access; (4) pay fines for failure to post, destroying records or failing to distribute employment applications; (5) provide EEOC with any requested employment records within 15 days of a request; (6) cease comingling medical records; and (7) train management employees. The posting and training provisions of the Decree were also extended by two years. In November 2015, the judge awarded $50,515 in fees and $6,733.76 in costs to the EEOC because the "Defendants willfully violated the explicit terms of the Consent Decree and repeatedly failed to comply with it [.]" EEOC v. New Indianapolis Hotels LLC and Noble Management LLC, C.A. No. 1:10-CV-01234-WTL-DKL (N.D. Ind. Nov. 9, 2015) (fee ruling).
• In September 2015, BMW Manufacturing Co. settled for $1.6 million and other relief an EEOC lawsuit alleging that the company's criminal background check policy disproportionately affects black logistics workers at a South Carolina plant. Specifically, the EEOC alleged that after learning the results of the criminal background checks around July 2008, BMW denied plant access to 88 logistics employees, resulting in their termination from the previous logistics provider and denial of hire by the new logistics services provider for work at BMW. Of those 88 employees, 70 were Black. Some of the logistics employees had been employed at BMW for several years, working for the various logistics services providers utilized by BMW since the opening of the plant in 1994. Under the terms of a consent decree signed by Judge Henry M. Herlong of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, the $1.6 million will be shared by 56 known claimants and other black applicants the EEOC said were shut out of BMW's Spartanburg, S.C., plant when the company switched to a new logistics contractor. In addition to the monetary relief, the company will provide each claimant who wishes to return to the facility an opportunity to apply for a logistics position. BMW will also notify other applicants who have previously expressed interest in a logistics position at the facility of their right to apply for work, the decree states. BMW has implemented a new criminal background check policy and will continue to operate under that policy throughout the three-year term of the decree. The company is expressly enjoined from "utilizing the criminal background check guidelines" challenged by the EEOC in its lawsuit, the decree states. The agreement also imposes on BMW notice-posting, training, record-keeping, reporting and other requirements. EEOC v. BMW Mfg. Co., No. 7:13-cv-01583 (D.S.C. consent decree filed Sep. 8, 2015).
• In August 2015, Target Corp. settled for $2.8 million an EEOC charge that the retailer's former tests for hiring for professional jobs discriminated against applicants based on race, sex and disability. Three assessments used by Target disproportionately screened out female and racial minority applicants, and a separate psychological assessment was a pre-employment medical examination that violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the EEOC had charged. Target also violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by failing to maintain the records sufficient to gauge the impact of its hiring procedures. Under the three-year conciliation agreement, reached before any lawsuit was filed, Target has discontinued the use of the tests and made changes to its applicant tracking system, the EEOC said. About 4,500 unsuccessful applicants affected by the alleged discriminatory tests now are eligible to file claims for monetary relief.
• In March 2015, a Texas-based oil and gas drilling company agreed to settle for $12.26 million the EEOC's lawsuit alleging discrimination, harassment and retaliation against racial minorities nationwide. According to a complaint filed by the EEOC the same day as the proposed decree, Patterson-UTI had engaged in patterns or practices of hostile work environment harassment, disparate treatment discrimination and retaliation against Hispanic, Latino, Black, American Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander and other minority workers at its facilities in Colorado and other states. Under the proposed four-year consent decree, the drilling company also will create a new vice president position to be filled by a "qualified EEO professional" who will facilitate, monitor and report on the company's compliance with certain training, management evaluation, minority outreach, and other remedial measures. EEOC v. Patterson-UTI Drilling Co., No. 1:15-cv-00600 (D. Colo. consent decree filed Mar. 24, 2015).
• In January 2015, Skanska USA Building, Inc., a building contractor headquartered in Parsippany, N.J., paid $95,000 to settle a racial harassment and retaliation lawsuit brought by the EEOC. According to the EEOC's suit, Skanska violated federal law by allowing workers to subject a class of Black employees who were working as buck hoist operators to racial harassment, and by firing them for complaining to Skanska about the misconduct. Skanska served as the general contractor on the Methodist Le Bonheur Children's Hospital in Memphis, where the incidents in this lawsuit took place. The class of Black employees worked for C-1, Inc. Construction Company, a minority-owned subcontractor for Skanska. Skanska awarded a subcontract to C-1 to provide buck hoist operations for the construction site and thereafter supervised all C-1 employees while at the work site. The EEOC charged that Skanska failed to properly investigate complaints from the buck hoist operators that white employees subjected them to racially offensive comments and physical assault. EEOC v. Shanska USA Building, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-02717 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 29, 2015).
• In December 2014, two Memphis-based affiliates of Select Staffing, employment companies doing business in Tennessee, agreed to pay $580,000 to settle allegations they engaged in race and national origin discrimination. The EEOC's lawsuit charged that the staffing firms had discriminated against four Black temporary employees and a class of Black and non-Hispanic job applicants by failing to place or refer them for employment. The four temporary employees said while seeking employment through the company's Memphis area facilities, they witnessed Hispanic applicants getting preferential treatment in hiring and placement. EEOC v. New Koosharem Corp., No. 2:13-cv-2761 (W.D. Tenn. consent decree filed Dec. 5, 2014).
• In December 2014, three related well-servicing companies agreed to pay $1.2 million to settle allegations by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of verbal abuse of minority employees. The EEOC complaint alleged that J&R employees regularly used racial slurs to refer to Black, Hispanic and Native American employees. Employees of these racial groups on company rigs regularly heard racist terms and demeaning remarks about green cards and deportation, the EEOC complaint said. Several individuals complained to management, but their complaints were minimized or ignored, the complaint alleged. For example, an area supervisor responded to employee complaints by telling the complainants they could quit or by saying that he was sick of everyone coming to him and that everyone simply needed to do their jobs. In addition, the complaint stated that several men were demoted or fired after taking their complaints of discrimination to the Wyoming Department of Workforce Services' Labor Standards Division. EEOC v. Dart Energy Corp., No. 13-cv-00198 (D. Wyo. consent decree filed Dec. 1, 2014).
• In November 2014, a Rockville, Md.-based environmental remediation services contractor paid $415,000 and provide various other relief to settle a class lawsuit alleging that the company engaged in a pattern or practice of race and sex discrimination in its recruitment and hiring of field laborers. Under a three-year consent decree signed Nov. 10 by Judge Paul W. Grimm of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, ACM Services Inc. will pay a combined $110,000 to the two Hispanic female workers who first brought the allegations to the EEOC's attention and will establish a class fund of $305,000 for other potential claimants to be identified by the agency. According to the EEOC, the company has relied exclusively on "word-of-mouth recruitment practices" for field laborer positions, with the intent and effect of restricting the recruitment of Black and female applicants. ACM also subjected the two charging parties to harassment based on sex, national origin and race, and it retaliated against them for opposing the mistreatment-and against one of them based on her association with Black people-by firing them, the commission alleged. The agreement applies to all ACM facilities and locations nationwide and has extra-territorial application to the extent permitted by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In addition to the monetary relief, the decree requires the company to set numerical hiring goals for its field laborer positions, recruit Black and female applicants via print and Internet advertisements and report to the EEOC regarding its attainment of the numerical hiring goals and other settlement terms. EEOC v. ACM Servs., Inc., No. 8:14-cv-02997 (D. Md. consent decree filed Nov. 10, 2014).
• In November 2014, Battaglia Distributing Corporation paid $735,000 to a group of current and former African-American employees. In this case, the EEOC alleged that the Battaglia tolerated an egregious race-based hostile work environment, requiring African-American dock workers to endure harassment that included racial slurs (including the "N" word). Among other relief provided under the decree, Battaglia also will provide its managers with training on Title VII and report regularly to the EEOC on any complaints it has received, as well as provide other data to demonstrate that it has not retaliated against any of the participants in the litigation. EEOC v. Battaglia Distrib. Corp., No. 13-cv-5789 (N.D. Ill. consent decree entered Nov. 10, 2014).
• In October 2014, Prestige Transportation Service L.L.C., a Miami company that provides transportation services to airline personnel to and from Miami International Airport, paid $200,000 to settle a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit, in connection with actions allegedly committed under different ownership. The EEOC charged in its suit that Prestige's predecessor company, Airbus Alliance Inc., repeatedly instructed its human resource manager to not hire African-American applicants because they were "trouble" and "would sue the company." EEOC v. Prestige Transp. Service L.L.C., No. 1:13-cv-20684(JEM) (S.D. Fla. consent decree filed Sept. 26, 2014)."

The listing is continued here:
Significant EEOC Race/Color Cases(Covering Private and Federal Sectors) | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

As you have just demonstrated, there is no institutionalized racism in America anymore, and when racism is found in individual companies, the DoJ roots it out and the company is forced to reform, so you have just answered the question raised by the black woman in the video who claimed the only way she could ever have a TV was to steal it from Target, How Can We Win: according to you, apply for a job and if a particular company discriminates against you because you are black, the DoJ will force that company to stop. The proof of this is that there is a large and growing black middle class and the greatest obstacle young black people face as they try to move from poverty to the middle class is people like you who foster a culture of defeat that is no longer appropriate in the US.

Well you're mistaken if you believe that institutionalized racism no longer exists in America. Like all laws, the Civil Rights of 1964 don't magically prevent people from violating them, they only provide a statutory remedy when they are violated, however that's only the beginning. You might be surprised to find out how difficult it is to enforce your rights particularly if you're part of the disenfranchised population via a lawsuit.

Racism and discrimination was woven into the very fabric of American society by design, both legislatively and socially and the mere passage of a law that finally after 171 gave black people an avenue for redress hardly dismantled the system, particularly when you have so many people lying and fighting to maintain it.

Obviously, you don't understand what the term, institutionalized racism means. Institutionalized racism means racism is embedded in the laws or in accepted practices, and that is no longer true in the US. What you seem to be saying is that you believe racism in the US is widespread, and while the attitude may be widespread, discrimination on the basis of race is no longer widespread in substantial matters such as housing, education or employment. If you believe you have been discriminated against on the basis or race in such substantial matters, you file a complaint with the DoJ and they will investigate and if they find it is true, DoJ will fine the company or person responsible, demand they accept monitoring by DoJ and where appropriate, order compensation for any damages you may have suffered. If you should want to pursue the matter further, the DoJ findings provide a solid basis for a lawsuit.

Young black people are not being held back by racism. They are being held back by people like you who want to convince they have no path forward. The fact is that black students have the lowest graduation rates from both high school and college of any minority other than Native Americans and that makes them less employable and and causes them to earn less.

Similarly, the justice system does not discriminate on the basis of race but on the basis of wealth. Top notch legal defense lawyers are expensive, so most poor offenders get a public defender of low end private attorney, but wealthier offenders can afford better representation and get better outcomes. For example, if George Floyd had lived and gone to trial for passing counterfeit money, he probably wouldn't have been able to afford a good attorney, but now that he is dead, his family will get top notch lawyers for their civil suit against the city. Black people with money do well in the justice system but poor people, black or white, don't do well.

You are not a victim of white racism, but of your own racism.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I don't know why blacks underachieve on average.

Maybe because when you're playing that Monopoly game she talked about, blacks never get enough of a "bank" to buy anything but Baltic Avenue; never Boardwalk or Park Place.
It matters.

We are actually playing the game of life and each of us have different starting points regardless of race. Malia and Sasha Obama for example have much more starting the game of life than 99.9% of whites. One rule of the game of life is that it isn't fair. All the whining in the world isn't going to change that rule.

That's very true, and in the case of individuals, that's just how things are. People keep asking why anyone thinks things aren't fair, though, so I tell 'em, economically they're not. It's just a fact, but if it's that way for a whole racial group in this country, not just lucky and unlucky individuals, then it's an indicator something ain't right.

Blacks are not a monolithic racial group. There is plenty of diversity of black people.

Of course. So statistically in a land of equal opportunity, they should be equal economically. But they AREN'T.

Why aren't they? Because black people have the lowest graduation rates from high school and college of any minority other than Native Americans. This is a situation that could be remedied if everyone were not trying to convince them they are poor because of their skin color.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I know a lot of Black people who have worked hard and become successful. How did they do that being held down and oppressed with their skin color?

They didnt give up or they got lucky. Its common knowledge that a Black person has to be 10x better at something than a white person does just to get the job with less pay.

I brought this up in another thread. I think everyone agrees that racism created a massive problem. My question is what now? I think if you completely eliminated all racism, you'd still have a huge problem. Racism got us into the mess, but I don't think getting out of the mess has anything to do with race. The people in the Ivory Towers and the social workers are saying that nothing is anybody's fault, great. Now what. Most seem to want the government to step in more than it already has, but using money to prop up poverty just creates more poverty. Everyone should have hope and opportunities, I'm curious if any of our justice warriors have a plan for the next step.

That is an interesting distinction...what are your thoughts on how to get out of it? (I do not see any easy answers)

I don't know why blacks underachieve on average.

Maybe because when you're playing that Monopoly game she talked about, blacks never get enough of a "bank" to buy anything but Baltic Avenue; never Boardwalk or Park Place.
It matters.

We are actually playing the game of life and each of us have different starting points regardless of race. Malia and Sasha Obama for example have much more starting the game of life than 99.9% of whites. One rule of the game of life is that it isn't fair. All the whining in the world isn't going to change that rule.

That's very true, and in the case of individuals, that's just how things are. People keep asking why anyone thinks things aren't fair, though, so I tell 'em, economically they're not. It's just a fact, but if it's that way for a whole racial group in this country, not just lucky and unlucky individuals, then it's an indicator something ain't right.

Blacks are not a monolithic racial group. There is plenty of diversity of black people.

Of course. So statistically in a land of equal opportunity, they should be equal economically. But they AREN'T.

Eventually, fair or not, don't people need to better their own lives? If it is assumed people in poverty can't improve their lives, that is a major problem. That is saying life isn't fair so I'll throw my hands in the air and give up.

I never said they couldn't. They have. But numbers don't lie. They aren't having equal outcomes yet, as a group, and since there is no legal reason why not, it must be because they aren't being treated equally, laws or no.

No, this is why.

The 6-year graduation rate for first-time, full-time undergraduate students who began their pursuit of a bachelor’s degree at a 4-year degree-granting institution in fall 2010 was highest for Asian students (74 percent), followed by White students (64 percent), students of Two or more races (60 percent), Hispanic students (54 percent), Pacific Islander students (51 percent), Black students (40 percent), and American Indian/Alaska Native students (39 percent).

Indicator 23: Postsecondary Graduation Rates

.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Of course. So statistically in a land of equal opportunity, they should be equal economically. But they AREN'T.

You are confusing opportunity with outcome.

Because of affirmative action, blacks have GREATER opportunity than any other group. Th lack of economic success is because far too few TAKE that opportunity.

White women have been the greatest benefactor of affirmative action according to the agency that tracks these statics for the U.S. Labor Department

​

"...white women as a group have benefited at a higher percentage than other groups. That means​

1. white women have benefited more than any other group from Affirmative Action
   1. if white women are the largest benefactors then it's not possible that the legislation does what many racist whites claim it does - takes jobs from qualified whites and gives them to unqualified blacks
   2. that our claims that the affirmation action law is "race neutral" are true and a perusal of the text itself will reveal that it makes no mention of any particular race nor does it elevate any one race over another

As far as where the data came from (Affirmative action, helpful or harmful?)​

​

Enforcement of civil rights law in private workplaces: The effects of compliance reviews and lawsuits over time (Kalev & Dobbin 2006)​

​

... Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are forbidden from discriminating against their employees on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, or national origin. The law prohibits discrimination in terms, compensation, working conditions, and other aspects of employment; mandates enforcement by courts, rather than juries; and provides civil penalties for violations, including mandatory remedial hiring policies for employers and reinstatement with back pay awards to victims. It also created the EEOC to bring class action litigation against employers for discrimination. The Civil Rights Act initially applied to private sector employers with more than 25 employees; since 1972, it has applied to those with more than 15 employees.​

​

Affirmative action Executive Order 11246, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, reinforced prohibitions in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and earlier executive orders against discrimination based on race, color, religion, and national origin; subsequent orders and revisions have added sex (1967) and sexual orientation and gender identity (2014) as protected classes. Order 11246 required the federal government and federal contractors with 50 or more employees or $50,000 in contracts to develop written affirmative action plans and ensure equal opportunities for all workers. The order authorized the Secretary of Labor to establish the OFCCP to enforce federal contractors’ compliance. The OFCCP targets for compliance reviews those employers whose EEO-1 reports indicate relatively low employment of women and minorities. The authors noted that the nature of compliance reviews differed over time. Relative to later reviews, reviews in the 1970s were less frequent but more intrusive and more likely to lead to sanctions.​

​

Findings​

The study found that compliance reviews initiated against an establishment in the 1970s significantly increased the share of women and African Americans it employed as managers, not only in the 1970s but also through the 1980s and 1990s. A first compliance review in the 1970s increased the odds of white women in management by an estimated 34 percent, of African American women by 18 percent, and of African American men by 28 percent.​

​

Compliance reviews initiated in the 1970s led to significantly greater increases in female and African American employment shares than did reviews conducted in the 1980s.​

​

Larger numbers of lawsuits significantly increased employment shares for women and African Americans.​

​

Clearinghouse for Labor Evaluation and Research (CLEAR)"​

You do not confusing opportunity and outcome.

Thanks for pointing out that you have every opportunity imaginable but do not take advantage of it because of shitty attitude.

Your statement was that affirmative action benefits black people moreso than any other group which is patently false and the documentation I provided shows that the government agency which tracks this information has records which indicate that white women have benefited most from affirmative action:

Because of affirmative action, blacks have GREATER opportunity than any other group

​

What in your opinion is so shitty about my attitude? You're the one who is mistaken about affirmative action. Was I not supposed to correct your misconception? Is that what you find objectionable?

 

[yidnar]

I know a lot of Black people who have worked hard and become successful. How did they do that being held down and oppressed with their skin color?

They didnt give up or they got lucky. Its common knowledge that a Black person has to be 10x better at something than a white person does just to get the job with less pay.

i guess you never heard of affirmative action idiot !

 

[yidnar]

Very eloquently stated

CDC: Genital Herpes Among Black Women High

A new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says black women have the highest rates of herpes infection at 48 percent. Nationally, about 16 percent of Americans between the ages of 14 and 49 are infected with genital herpes. Hilda Hutcherson, clinical professor of obstetrics...

www.npr.org

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I know a lot of Black people who have worked hard and become successful. How did they do that being held down and oppressed with their skin color?

Because there are always exceptions to everything. But what we want are the same opportunites for everyone else, not just those of us who were fortunate.

Did you even listen to her explain how our econmics are managed and destroyed by a system of institutional racism?

She is talking about things that happened 100 years ago, Tulsa and Rosewood, not about today. That's because she can't point to anything today that is preventing black people from improving their economic lot in America today except for ignorant, brain washed people like her to try to convince young black people that they can't do it. All that is needed for a black person to rise out of poverty is a decent education and a commitment to work hard.

I think you keep missing the point. Blacks shouldnt have to work 10x harder than whites just to be on the same level.

They don't. They just have to get a decent education and work hard, just as white people who earn a decent living do, and many black people do just that.

I know a lot of Black people who have worked hard and become successful. How did they do that being held down and oppressed with their skin color?

Because there are always exceptions to everything. But what we want are the same opportunites for everyone else, not just those of us who were fortunate.

Did you even listen to her explain how our econmics are managed and destroyed by a system of institutional racism?

She is talking about things that happened 100 years ago, Tulsa and Rosewood, not about today. That's because she can't point to anything today that is preventing black people from improving their economic lot in America today except for ignorant, brain washed people like her to try to convince young black people that they can't do it. All that is needed for a black person to rise out of poverty is a decent education and a commitment to work hard.

I think you keep missing the point. Blacks shouldnt have to work 10x harder than whites just to be on the same level.

They don't. All they have to do is get a decent education and work hard just as white people who earn a decent living have to do. All that is holding them back is the belief espoused in this video and championed by people like you that they are helpless. There is no institutionalized racism in America anymore and there is no white privilege anymore. All that is holding black people down today is this culture of "I can't" that you and the woman in this video are espousing.

Thats some bullshit. The only thing holding Black people back is giving up because whites put plenty of obstacles in their way.

lol Name one.

One was already mentioned in this thread. If your name gives a hint that you are Black you wont even get called for a interview.

I wouldn't have thought anyone could stupid and ignorant enough to say that today. That would be a violation of the person's civil rights and make the company liable for fines and vulnerable to lawsuits. Any supervisor who did such a thing would lose his own job. Have you been in a coma for the last fifty years?

Hopefully they would be dumb enough to say it. However, the laws are not in our favor. Unless they openly admit they didnt interview you because of your name they cant be sued. However, the study that was done submitted the exact same resume with a anglo sounding name and the person got a call for an interview.

You just keep making up more and more bullshit to support your bizarre lies. There are no recent studies that show wide spread discrimination in hiring. The only thing holding young black people down are people like you who tell them it is hopeless when it clearly is not.

He's not making up bullshit. The following is less than 10% of the entries on the page which is hyperlinked at the bottom of quoted text"

"E-RACE AND OTHER EEOC INITIATIVES
Systemic

• In December 2017, Laquila Group Inc., a Brooklyn-based construction company, paid $625,000 into a class settlement fund and took measures to eliminate race bias and retaliation against black construction laborers. In its lawsuit, EEOC alleged that Laquila engaged in systemic discrimination against black employees as a class by subjecting them to racial harassment, including referring to them using the N-word, "gorilla," and similar epithets. The Commission also alleged that the company fired an employee who complained about the harassment. The consent decree also requires Laquila to set up a hotline for employees to report illegal discrimination, provide anti-discrimination training to its managers, adopt revised anti-discrimination policies and employee complaint procedures and report all worker harassment and retaliation complaints to the EEOC for the 42-month duration of the agreement. EEOC v. The Laquila Grp., Inc., No. 1:16-cv-05194 (E.D.N.Y. consent decree approved Dec. 1, 2017).
• In November 2017, after an extensive five-year, complicated systemic investigation and settlement efforts, the EEOC reached an agreement with Lone Star Community College covering recruitment, hiring and mentoring of African-American and Hispanic applicants and employees. The terms of the agreement were designed to enhance the College's commitment to the recruitment of African-American and Hispanics and to engage in meaningful monitoring of the College's efforts to reach its recruitment and hiring goals. The agreement included some novel relief, such as: implementation of a new applicant tracking system; establishing an advisory committee focused on the recruitment, development and retention of minority groups; hiring of recruitment firms; developing new interview protocol training; establishing a mentoring program for recently hired minority employees; and updating job descriptions for all college manager positions to require as a job component the diversity of its workforce.
• In August 2017, Ford Motor Company agreed to pay nearly $10.125 million to settle sex and race harassment investigation by the EEOC at two Ford plants in Chicago area. In its investigation, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that personnel at two Ford facilities in the Chicago area, the Chicago Assembly Plant and the Chicago Stamping Plant, had subjected female and African-American employees to sexual and racial harassment. The EEOC also found that the company retaliated against employees who complained about the harassment or discrimination. In addition to the monetary relief, the conciliation agreement provides ensures that during the next five years, Ford will conduct regular training at the two Chicago-area facilities; continue to disseminate its anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies and procedures to employees and new hires; report to EEOC regarding complaints of harassment and/or related discrimination; and monitor its workforce regarding issues of alleged sexual or racial harassment and related discrimination.
• In July 2017, Bass Pro Outdoor World LLC agreed, without admitting wrongdoing, to pay $10.5 million to a class of African-American and Hispanic workers the EEOC alleged it discriminated against by failing to hire because of their race and/or national origin in violation of Title VII. According to the consent decree, Bass Pro will engage in good faith efforts to increase diversity by reaching out to minority colleges and technical schools, participating in job fairs in communities with large minority populations and post job openings in publications popular among Black and Hispanic communities. Additionally, every six months for the next 42 months, Bass Pro is to report to the EEOC its hiring rates on a store-by-store basis. EEOC v. Bass Pro Outdoor World LLC, Case No. 4:11-cv-03425 (S.D. Tex. consent decree filed July 24, 2017).
• In June 2017, the EEOC investigated a restaurant operating over 100 facilities in the Eastern U.S. involving issues of hiring discrimination against African Americans. The restaurant agreed to pay $9.6 million to class members as part of a conciliation agreement. Additionally, the restaurant will overhaul its hiring procedures and has agreed to institute practices aimed at meeting hiring targets consistent with the labor market in each of the locations in which it has facilities. The new hiring procedures include implementation of an extensive applicant tracking system that will better enable the EEOC and the company to assess whether the company is meeting the targeted hiring levels. The restaurant will also provide an annual report to EEOC detailing the company's efforts in complying with the agreement and its objectives over the term of the five-year agreement, including detailed hiring assessments for each facility covered by the agreement.
• In May 2017, Rosebud Restaurants agreed to pay $1.9 million to resolve a race discrimination lawsuit brought by the EEOC against 13 restaurants in the Chicago area. The chain was charged with refusing to hire African-American applicants and having managers who used racial slurs to refer to African-Americans. The monetary award will be paid to African-American applicants who were denied jobs. Pursuant to a consent decree, the chain also agreed to hiring goals with the aim of having 11 percent of its future workforce be African American. Rosebud is also required to recruit African-American applicants as well as train employees and managers about race discrimination. EEOC v. Rosebud Rest., No. 1:13-cv-06656 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2017).
• In April 2017, Sealy of Minnesota paid $175,000 to resolve a charge of racial harassment filed with the EEOC. An investigation by the EEOC's Minneapolis Area Office revealed that the mattress and box spring manufacturing company in St. Paul, Minn. subjected its Black and Hispanic employees to severe racial harassment in the form of KKK hoods, nooses, and racial slurs and jokes. The agency also found that the company discriminated against black and Hispanic employees in the selection of lead positions at the St. Paul facility. EEOC v. Sealy of Minn., (D. Minn. Apr. 20, 2017).
• In December 2016, Crothall Services Group, Inc., a nationwide provider of janitorial and facilities management services, settled an EEOC lawsuit by adopting significant changes to its record-keeping practices related to the use of criminal background checks. According to the EEOC's complaint, Crothall used criminal background checks to make hiring decisions without making and keeping required records that disclose the impact criminal history assessments have on persons identifiable by race, sex, or ethnic group, a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965. EEOC v. Crothall Servs. Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-03812-AB (E.D. Pa. Dec. 16, 2016).
• In August 2016, a magistrate judge reaffirmed that "African" has long been recognized as an acceptable class entitled to protection under Title VII. The EEOC alleged that the Defendants, a health care management system and nursing home discriminated against African employees, specifically employees from Ethiopia and Sudan, when it terminated four personal care providers all on the same day, allegedly for failing to pass a newly instituted written exam. The EEOC brought disparate impact and treatment claims based on race and national origin, and a retaliation claim for a white supervisor who stood up for the African workers and was fired several months before the test was instituted. Defendants moved for dismissal arguing (1) Africa is not a nation and so cannot serve as the basis of a national origin claim, (2) EEOC failed to allege any shared cultural or linguistic characteristics between the aggrieved individuals so they could not constitute a protected class; and (3) the EEOC's retaliation claim must be dismissed because EEOC failed to allege protected activity or the Defendants had knowledge of the white supervisor's motivations. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion be denied in total. EEOC v. Columbine Health Sys. & New Mercer Commons, Civ. Action No. 15-cv-01597-MSK-CBS (D. Colo. Aug. 19, 2016).
• In June 2016, the EEOC obtained a $350,000 settlement in its race discrimination lawsuit against defendant FAPS, Inc., a company located at Port Newark, N.J., involved in the processing for final sale of shipped automobiles. In this case, the Commission alleged that the company engaged in a pattern-or-practice of race discrimination by relying on word-of-mouth hiring which resulted in a predominantly white workforce despite the substantial African-American available workforce in the Newark area. The agency further alleged that FAPS refused to hire qualified African-American candidates, including by telling them that no positions were available when in fact FAPS was hiring. Finally, the EEOC alleged that FAPS' employment application contained improper pre-employment medical inquiries in violation of the ADA. Besides the monetary compensation, the five year consent decree requires FAPS to meet substantial hiring goals for African-Americans; give hiring priority to rejected class members who are interested in working at the company; use recruiting methods designed to increase the African-American applicant pool; and hire an EEO coordinator to ensure compliance with Title VII. EEOC v. FAPS, Inc., C.A. No. No. 2:10-cv-03095 (D.N.J. June 15, 2016).
• In April 2015, Local 25 of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association and its associated apprenticeship school agreed to create a back pay fund for a group of minority sheet metal workers in partial settlement of race discrimination claims against the local union. Pursuant to the settlement, it is estimated that the union will pay approximately $12.7 million over the next five years and provide substantial remedial relief to partially resolve claims made against the union in 1991-2002. The trade union, which is responsible for sheet metal journeypersons in northern New Jersey, allegedly discriminated against black and Hispanic journeypersons over a multi-year period in hiring and job assignments. An analysis of hours and wages showed African-American and Hispanic workers received fewer hours of work than their white co-workers during most of this same timeframe. This particular agreement covers from April 1991 through December 2002. EEOC v. Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, Case No. 71 Civ. 2887 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. April 2, 2015).
• In December 2015, Hillshire Brands (formerly known as Sara Lee Corporation) agreed to pay $4 million to 74 workers at the now-shuttered Paris, Texas, plant, including the dozens of people who sought EEOC charges against Hillshire and other aggrieved workers identified by the EEOC and the plaintiffs. This resolution settles claims that the company subjected a class of Black employees to a hostile work environment that included racist graffiti and comments, that included the N-word and "boy." The company also agreed to implement training at all of its plants in a bid to end consolidated suits from the EEOC and former worker Stanley Beaty. The consent decree also requires Hillshire to implement anti-racism training and create a mechanism for employees at its existing plants to confidentially report instances of harassment, discrimination and retaliation. The settlement also requires Hillshire to designate one employee to serve as a point-of-contact for those who feel they've been treated improperly and to punish workers with suspensions and even termination who are found "by reasonable evidence" to have engaged in racial bias or behavior related to it. EEOC v. Hillshire Brands Co. f/k/a Sara Lee Corp., No. 2:15-cv-01347 (E.D. Tex. consent decree filed 12/18/15) and Beaty et al v. The Hillshire Brands Co. et al., No. 2:14-cv-00058 (E.D. Tex. consent decree filed 12/18/15).
• In October 2015, a federal judge held that the operators of an Indianapolis Hampton Inn in contempt for failing to comply with five different conditions settling the EEOC's class race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against the companies. The judge faulted Noble Management LLC and New Indianapolis Hotels for failing to: (1) properly post notices; (2) properly train management employees; (3) keep employment records; (4) institute a new hiring procedure for housekeeping employees; and (5) reinstate three former housekeeping employees. The judge also faulted Noble and New Indianapolis Hotels for comingling of medical records in employee personnel files. As background, the EEOC filed suit against operators New Indianapolis Hotels LLC and Noble Management LLC in September 2010, alleging that their Hampton Inn fired African-American housekeepers because of their race and in retaliation for complaints about race discrimination. The agency also charged that the hotel paid lower wages to Black housekeepers, excluded Black housekeeping applicants on a systemic basis, and failed to maintain records required by law in violation of Title VII. In September 2012, the judge entered a five-year consent decree resolving the EEOC's litigation against the hotel operators. The decree provided $355,000 in monetary relief to approximately 75 African-American former housekeeping employees and applicants and required training, notice posting, reinstatement of three former housekeeping employees, a new hiring procedure for housekeeping employees and ordered that the defendants maintain employment-related records. The court also enjoined the operators from race discrimination and retaliation in the future. In March 2014, following the filing of the EEOC's contempt motion, Judge Lawrence ruled that the defendants violated the terms of the 2012 decree and ordered Defendants to pay more than $50,000 in back wages to the three former housekeepers whose reinstatement was delayed. Defendants were also ordered to: (1) provide monthly reporting to the EEOC on compliance with the new hiring procedure, recordkeeping and posting; (2) pay fines for late reporting; (3) allow random inspections by the EEOC subject to a fine, for failure to grant access; (4) pay fines for failure to post, destroying records or failing to distribute employment applications; (5) provide EEOC with any requested employment records within 15 days of a request; (6) cease comingling medical records; and (7) train management employees. The posting and training provisions of the Decree were also extended by two years. In November 2015, the judge awarded $50,515 in fees and $6,733.76 in costs to the EEOC because the "Defendants willfully violated the explicit terms of the Consent Decree and repeatedly failed to comply with it [.]" EEOC v. New Indianapolis Hotels LLC and Noble Management LLC, C.A. No. 1:10-CV-01234-WTL-DKL (N.D. Ind. Nov. 9, 2015) (fee ruling).
• In September 2015, BMW Manufacturing Co. settled for $1.6 million and other relief an EEOC lawsuit alleging that the company's criminal background check policy disproportionately affects black logistics workers at a South Carolina plant. Specifically, the EEOC alleged that after learning the results of the criminal background checks around July 2008, BMW denied plant access to 88 logistics employees, resulting in their termination from the previous logistics provider and denial of hire by the new logistics services provider for work at BMW. Of those 88 employees, 70 were Black. Some of the logistics employees had been employed at BMW for several years, working for the various logistics services providers utilized by BMW since the opening of the plant in 1994. Under the terms of a consent decree signed by Judge Henry M. Herlong of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, the $1.6 million will be shared by 56 known claimants and other black applicants the EEOC said were shut out of BMW's Spartanburg, S.C., plant when the company switched to a new logistics contractor. In addition to the monetary relief, the company will provide each claimant who wishes to return to the facility an opportunity to apply for a logistics position. BMW will also notify other applicants who have previously expressed interest in a logistics position at the facility of their right to apply for work, the decree states. BMW has implemented a new criminal background check policy and will continue to operate under that policy throughout the three-year term of the decree. The company is expressly enjoined from "utilizing the criminal background check guidelines" challenged by the EEOC in its lawsuit, the decree states. The agreement also imposes on BMW notice-posting, training, record-keeping, reporting and other requirements. EEOC v. BMW Mfg. Co., No. 7:13-cv-01583 (D.S.C. consent decree filed Sep. 8, 2015).
• In August 2015, Target Corp. settled for $2.8 million an EEOC charge that the retailer's former tests for hiring for professional jobs discriminated against applicants based on race, sex and disability. Three assessments used by Target disproportionately screened out female and racial minority applicants, and a separate psychological assessment was a pre-employment medical examination that violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the EEOC had charged. Target also violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by failing to maintain the records sufficient to gauge the impact of its hiring procedures. Under the three-year conciliation agreement, reached before any lawsuit was filed, Target has discontinued the use of the tests and made changes to its applicant tracking system, the EEOC said. About 4,500 unsuccessful applicants affected by the alleged discriminatory tests now are eligible to file claims for monetary relief.
• In March 2015, a Texas-based oil and gas drilling company agreed to settle for $12.26 million the EEOC's lawsuit alleging discrimination, harassment and retaliation against racial minorities nationwide. According to a complaint filed by the EEOC the same day as the proposed decree, Patterson-UTI had engaged in patterns or practices of hostile work environment harassment, disparate treatment discrimination and retaliation against Hispanic, Latino, Black, American Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander and other minority workers at its facilities in Colorado and other states. Under the proposed four-year consent decree, the drilling company also will create a new vice president position to be filled by a "qualified EEO professional" who will facilitate, monitor and report on the company's compliance with certain training, management evaluation, minority outreach, and other remedial measures. EEOC v. Patterson-UTI Drilling Co., No. 1:15-cv-00600 (D. Colo. consent decree filed Mar. 24, 2015).
• In January 2015, Skanska USA Building, Inc., a building contractor headquartered in Parsippany, N.J., paid $95,000 to settle a racial harassment and retaliation lawsuit brought by the EEOC. According to the EEOC's suit, Skanska violated federal law by allowing workers to subject a class of Black employees who were working as buck hoist operators to racial harassment, and by firing them for complaining to Skanska about the misconduct. Skanska served as the general contractor on the Methodist Le Bonheur Children's Hospital in Memphis, where the incidents in this lawsuit took place. The class of Black employees worked for C-1, Inc. Construction Company, a minority-owned subcontractor for Skanska. Skanska awarded a subcontract to C-1 to provide buck hoist operations for the construction site and thereafter supervised all C-1 employees while at the work site. The EEOC charged that Skanska failed to properly investigate complaints from the buck hoist operators that white employees subjected them to racially offensive comments and physical assault. EEOC v. Shanska USA Building, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-02717 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 29, 2015).
• In December 2014, two Memphis-based affiliates of Select Staffing, employment companies doing business in Tennessee, agreed to pay $580,000 to settle allegations they engaged in race and national origin discrimination. The EEOC's lawsuit charged that the staffing firms had discriminated against four Black temporary employees and a class of Black and non-Hispanic job applicants by failing to place or refer them for employment. The four temporary employees said while seeking employment through the company's Memphis area facilities, they witnessed Hispanic applicants getting preferential treatment in hiring and placement. EEOC v. New Koosharem Corp., No. 2:13-cv-2761 (W.D. Tenn. consent decree filed Dec. 5, 2014).
• In December 2014, three related well-servicing companies agreed to pay $1.2 million to settle allegations by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of verbal abuse of minority employees. The EEOC complaint alleged that J&R employees regularly used racial slurs to refer to Black, Hispanic and Native American employees. Employees of these racial groups on company rigs regularly heard racist terms and demeaning remarks about green cards and deportation, the EEOC complaint said. Several individuals complained to management, but their complaints were minimized or ignored, the complaint alleged. For example, an area supervisor responded to employee complaints by telling the complainants they could quit or by saying that he was sick of everyone coming to him and that everyone simply needed to do their jobs. In addition, the complaint stated that several men were demoted or fired after taking their complaints of discrimination to the Wyoming Department of Workforce Services' Labor Standards Division. EEOC v. Dart Energy Corp., No. 13-cv-00198 (D. Wyo. consent decree filed Dec. 1, 2014).
• In November 2014, a Rockville, Md.-based environmental remediation services contractor paid $415,000 and provide various other relief to settle a class lawsuit alleging that the company engaged in a pattern or practice of race and sex discrimination in its recruitment and hiring of field laborers. Under a three-year consent decree signed Nov. 10 by Judge Paul W. Grimm of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, ACM Services Inc. will pay a combined $110,000 to the two Hispanic female workers who first brought the allegations to the EEOC's attention and will establish a class fund of $305,000 for other potential claimants to be identified by the agency. According to the EEOC, the company has relied exclusively on "word-of-mouth recruitment practices" for field laborer positions, with the intent and effect of restricting the recruitment of Black and female applicants. ACM also subjected the two charging parties to harassment based on sex, national origin and race, and it retaliated against them for opposing the mistreatment-and against one of them based on her association with Black people-by firing them, the commission alleged. The agreement applies to all ACM facilities and locations nationwide and has extra-territorial application to the extent permitted by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In addition to the monetary relief, the decree requires the company to set numerical hiring goals for its field laborer positions, recruit Black and female applicants via print and Internet advertisements and report to the EEOC regarding its attainment of the numerical hiring goals and other settlement terms. EEOC v. ACM Servs., Inc., No. 8:14-cv-02997 (D. Md. consent decree filed Nov. 10, 2014).
• In November 2014, Battaglia Distributing Corporation paid $735,000 to a group of current and former African-American employees. In this case, the EEOC alleged that the Battaglia tolerated an egregious race-based hostile work environment, requiring African-American dock workers to endure harassment that included racial slurs (including the "N" word). Among other relief provided under the decree, Battaglia also will provide its managers with training on Title VII and report regularly to the EEOC on any complaints it has received, as well as provide other data to demonstrate that it has not retaliated against any of the participants in the litigation. EEOC v. Battaglia Distrib. Corp., No. 13-cv-5789 (N.D. Ill. consent decree entered Nov. 10, 2014).
• In October 2014, Prestige Transportation Service L.L.C., a Miami company that provides transportation services to airline personnel to and from Miami International Airport, paid $200,000 to settle a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit, in connection with actions allegedly committed under different ownership. The EEOC charged in its suit that Prestige's predecessor company, Airbus Alliance Inc., repeatedly instructed its human resource manager to not hire African-American applicants because they were "trouble" and "would sue the company." EEOC v. Prestige Transp. Service L.L.C., No. 1:13-cv-20684(JEM) (S.D. Fla. consent decree filed Sept. 26, 2014)."

The listing is continued here:
Significant EEOC Race/Color Cases(Covering Private and Federal Sectors) | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

As you have just demonstrated, there is no institutionalized racism in America anymore, and when racism is found in individual companies, the DoJ roots it out and the company is forced to reform, so you have just answered the question raised by the black woman in the video who claimed the only way she could ever have a TV was to steal it from Target, How Can We Win: according to you, apply for a job and if a particular company discriminates against you because you are black, the DoJ will force that company to stop. The proof of this is that there is a large and growing black middle class and the greatest obstacle young black people face as they try to move from poverty to the middle class is people like you who foster a culture of defeat that is no longer appropriate in the US.

Well you're mistaken if you believe that institutionalized racism no longer exists in America. Like all laws, the Civil Rights of 1964 don't magically prevent people from violating them, they only provide a statutory remedy when they are violated, however that's only the beginning. You might be surprised to find out how difficult it is to enforce your rights particularly if you're part of the disenfranchised population via a lawsuit.

Racism and discrimination was woven into the very fabric of American society by design, both legislatively and socially and the mere passage of a law that finally after 171 gave black people an avenue for redress hardly dismantled the system, particularly when you have so many people lying and fighting to maintain it.

Obviously, you don't understand what the term, institutionalized racism means. Institutionalized racism means racism is embedded in the laws or in accepted practices, and that is no longer true in the US. What you seem to be saying is that you believe racism in the US is widespread, and while the attitude may be widespread, discrimination on the basis of race is no longer widespread in substantial matters such as housing, education or employment. If you believe you have been discriminated against on the basis or race in such substantial matters, you file a complaint with the DoJ and they will investigate and if they find it is true, DoJ will fine the company or person responsible, demand they accept monitoring by DoJ and where appropriate, order compensation for any damages you may have suffered. If you should want to pursue the matter further, the DoJ findings provide a solid basis for a lawsuit.

Young black people are not being held back by racism. They are being held back by people like you who want to convince they have no path forward. The fact is that black students have the lowest graduation rates from both high school and college of any minority other than Native Americans and that makes them less employable and and causes them to earn less.

Similarly, the justice system does not discriminate on the basis of race but on the basis of wealth. Top notch legal defense lawyers are expensive, so most poor offenders get a public defender of low end private attorney, but wealthier offenders can afford better representation and get better outcomes. For example, if George Floyd had lived and gone to trial for passing counterfeit money, he probably wouldn't have been able to afford a good attorney, but now that he is dead, his family will get top notch lawyers for their civil suit against the city. Black people with money do well in the justice system but poor people, black or white, don't do well.

You are not a victim of white racism, but of your own racism.

First of all, the Department of Justice does not file lawsuits on behalf of indivual citizens. If you file a complaint for a color of law abuse against a specific police officer(s) IF they open an investigation, they don't investigate the individual officers, they investigate the agency for patterns and practices of discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights laws.

When it comes to housing, that's a separate government agency (HUD) and the same for employment (EEOC) but none of this is the slam dunk done deal that you seem to believe it is, partially due to everyone involved believing as you do, that racism no longer exists in the United States since 1964 and therefore far too often than not, in spite of what may be presented to them, they won't find a violation. There are also state and local agencies that are tasked with enforcing their own version of the federal civil rights laws.

Also, the right to a free attorney. also knwn as public defenders ("you have the right to an attorney and if you cannot afford one, one will be assigned to you") only applies to indigent individuals who have been charged with a crime. If you're indigent and your employer, or landlord, or bank or whomever, is discriminating against you then you have to pay money to have your rights enforced and protected. If the amount of damages is not sufficient to attract an attorney who will take your case on contingency or pro bono then your rights remain violated with no redress. And believe it or not there are people in the legal profession who are hard core racists as well that will run inference and damage your case in support of your adversaries. There are two members who post to U.S. Message who claim to be attorneys and have had no qualms about posting their white supremacist believes in violation of Rule 8.4 (g) entitled "Misconduct" of the American Bar Associations Code of Ethics prohibiting discrimination or harassment based on protected class status

"Rule 8.4: Misconduct​

​

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:​

(g) engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law. This paragraph does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16. This paragraph does not preclude legitimate advice or advocacy consistent with these Rules.​

As for your blanket statement that I am not a victim of white racism, it's not possible for you to know anything about any rights violations I have suffered nor am I a racist by any of the legal or dictionary definitions.

You might want to get a little more information on your subject matter before you began defaming others.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Very eloquently stated

CDC: Genital Herpes Among Black Women High

A new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says black women have the highest rates of herpes infection at 48 percent. Nationally, about 16 percent of Americans between the ages of 14 and 49 are infected with genital herpes. Hilda Hutcherson, clinical professor of obstetrics...

www.npr.org

And this is all you have huh?

 

[yidnar]

Very eloquently stated

CDC: Genital Herpes Among Black Women High

A new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says black women have the highest rates of herpes infection at 48 percent. Nationally, about 16 percent of Americans between the ages of 14 and 49 are infected with genital herpes. Hilda Hutcherson, clinical professor of obstetrics...

www.npr.org

And this is all you have huh?

not me ....... i wonder if she is angry because of herpes ?

 

[toomuchtime_]

I know a lot of Black people who have worked hard and become successful. How did they do that being held down and oppressed with their skin color?

Because there are always exceptions to everything. But what we want are the same opportunites for everyone else, not just those of us who were fortunate.

Did you even listen to her explain how our econmics are managed and destroyed by a system of institutional racism?

She is talking about things that happened 100 years ago, Tulsa and Rosewood, not about today. That's because she can't point to anything today that is preventing black people from improving their economic lot in America today except for ignorant, brain washed people like her to try to convince young black people that they can't do it. All that is needed for a black person to rise out of poverty is a decent education and a commitment to work hard.

I think you keep missing the point. Blacks shouldnt have to work 10x harder than whites just to be on the same level.

They don't. They just have to get a decent education and work hard, just as white people who earn a decent living do, and many black people do just that.

I know a lot of Black people who have worked hard and become successful. How did they do that being held down and oppressed with their skin color?

Because there are always exceptions to everything. But what we want are the same opportunites for everyone else, not just those of us who were fortunate.

Did you even listen to her explain how our econmics are managed and destroyed by a system of institutional racism?

She is talking about things that happened 100 years ago, Tulsa and Rosewood, not about today. That's because she can't point to anything today that is preventing black people from improving their economic lot in America today except for ignorant, brain washed people like her to try to convince young black people that they can't do it. All that is needed for a black person to rise out of poverty is a decent education and a commitment to work hard.

I think you keep missing the point. Blacks shouldnt have to work 10x harder than whites just to be on the same level.

They don't. All they have to do is get a decent education and work hard just as white people who earn a decent living have to do. All that is holding them back is the belief espoused in this video and championed by people like you that they are helpless. There is no institutionalized racism in America anymore and there is no white privilege anymore. All that is holding black people down today is this culture of "I can't" that you and the woman in this video are espousing.

Thats some bullshit. The only thing holding Black people back is giving up because whites put plenty of obstacles in their way.

lol Name one.

One was already mentioned in this thread. If your name gives a hint that you are Black you wont even get called for a interview.

I wouldn't have thought anyone could stupid and ignorant enough to say that today. That would be a violation of the person's civil rights and make the company liable for fines and vulnerable to lawsuits. Any supervisor who did such a thing would lose his own job. Have you been in a coma for the last fifty years?

Hopefully they would be dumb enough to say it. However, the laws are not in our favor. Unless they openly admit they didnt interview you because of your name they cant be sued. However, the study that was done submitted the exact same resume with a anglo sounding name and the person got a call for an interview.

You just keep making up more and more bullshit to support your bizarre lies. There are no recent studies that show wide spread discrimination in hiring. The only thing holding young black people down are people like you who tell them it is hopeless when it clearly is not.

He's not making up bullshit. The following is less than 10% of the entries on the page which is hyperlinked at the bottom of quoted text"

"E-RACE AND OTHER EEOC INITIATIVES
Systemic

• In December 2017, Laquila Group Inc., a Brooklyn-based construction company, paid $625,000 into a class settlement fund and took measures to eliminate race bias and retaliation against black construction laborers. In its lawsuit, EEOC alleged that Laquila engaged in systemic discrimination against black employees as a class by subjecting them to racial harassment, including referring to them using the N-word, "gorilla," and similar epithets. The Commission also alleged that the company fired an employee who complained about the harassment. The consent decree also requires Laquila to set up a hotline for employees to report illegal discrimination, provide anti-discrimination training to its managers, adopt revised anti-discrimination policies and employee complaint procedures and report all worker harassment and retaliation complaints to the EEOC for the 42-month duration of the agreement. EEOC v. The Laquila Grp., Inc., No. 1:16-cv-05194 (E.D.N.Y. consent decree approved Dec. 1, 2017).
• In November 2017, after an extensive five-year, complicated systemic investigation and settlement efforts, the EEOC reached an agreement with Lone Star Community College covering recruitment, hiring and mentoring of African-American and Hispanic applicants and employees. The terms of the agreement were designed to enhance the College's commitment to the recruitment of African-American and Hispanics and to engage in meaningful monitoring of the College's efforts to reach its recruitment and hiring goals. The agreement included some novel relief, such as: implementation of a new applicant tracking system; establishing an advisory committee focused on the recruitment, development and retention of minority groups; hiring of recruitment firms; developing new interview protocol training; establishing a mentoring program for recently hired minority employees; and updating job descriptions for all college manager positions to require as a job component the diversity of its workforce.
• In August 2017, Ford Motor Company agreed to pay nearly $10.125 million to settle sex and race harassment investigation by the EEOC at two Ford plants in Chicago area. In its investigation, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that personnel at two Ford facilities in the Chicago area, the Chicago Assembly Plant and the Chicago Stamping Plant, had subjected female and African-American employees to sexual and racial harassment. The EEOC also found that the company retaliated against employees who complained about the harassment or discrimination. In addition to the monetary relief, the conciliation agreement provides ensures that during the next five years, Ford will conduct regular training at the two Chicago-area facilities; continue to disseminate its anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies and procedures to employees and new hires; report to EEOC regarding complaints of harassment and/or related discrimination; and monitor its workforce regarding issues of alleged sexual or racial harassment and related discrimination.
• In July 2017, Bass Pro Outdoor World LLC agreed, without admitting wrongdoing, to pay $10.5 million to a class of African-American and Hispanic workers the EEOC alleged it discriminated against by failing to hire because of their race and/or national origin in violation of Title VII. According to the consent decree, Bass Pro will engage in good faith efforts to increase diversity by reaching out to minority colleges and technical schools, participating in job fairs in communities with large minority populations and post job openings in publications popular among Black and Hispanic communities. Additionally, every six months for the next 42 months, Bass Pro is to report to the EEOC its hiring rates on a store-by-store basis. EEOC v. Bass Pro Outdoor World LLC, Case No. 4:11-cv-03425 (S.D. Tex. consent decree filed July 24, 2017).
• In June 2017, the EEOC investigated a restaurant operating over 100 facilities in the Eastern U.S. involving issues of hiring discrimination against African Americans. The restaurant agreed to pay $9.6 million to class members as part of a conciliation agreement. Additionally, the restaurant will overhaul its hiring procedures and has agreed to institute practices aimed at meeting hiring targets consistent with the labor market in each of the locations in which it has facilities. The new hiring procedures include implementation of an extensive applicant tracking system that will better enable the EEOC and the company to assess whether the company is meeting the targeted hiring levels. The restaurant will also provide an annual report to EEOC detailing the company's efforts in complying with the agreement and its objectives over the term of the five-year agreement, including detailed hiring assessments for each facility covered by the agreement.
• In May 2017, Rosebud Restaurants agreed to pay $1.9 million to resolve a race discrimination lawsuit brought by the EEOC against 13 restaurants in the Chicago area. The chain was charged with refusing to hire African-American applicants and having managers who used racial slurs to refer to African-Americans. The monetary award will be paid to African-American applicants who were denied jobs. Pursuant to a consent decree, the chain also agreed to hiring goals with the aim of having 11 percent of its future workforce be African American. Rosebud is also required to recruit African-American applicants as well as train employees and managers about race discrimination. EEOC v. Rosebud Rest., No. 1:13-cv-06656 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2017).
• In April 2017, Sealy of Minnesota paid $175,000 to resolve a charge of racial harassment filed with the EEOC. An investigation by the EEOC's Minneapolis Area Office revealed that the mattress and box spring manufacturing company in St. Paul, Minn. subjected its Black and Hispanic employees to severe racial harassment in the form of KKK hoods, nooses, and racial slurs and jokes. The agency also found that the company discriminated against black and Hispanic employees in the selection of lead positions at the St. Paul facility. EEOC v. Sealy of Minn., (D. Minn. Apr. 20, 2017).
• In December 2016, Crothall Services Group, Inc., a nationwide provider of janitorial and facilities management services, settled an EEOC lawsuit by adopting significant changes to its record-keeping practices related to the use of criminal background checks. According to the EEOC's complaint, Crothall used criminal background checks to make hiring decisions without making and keeping required records that disclose the impact criminal history assessments have on persons identifiable by race, sex, or ethnic group, a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965. EEOC v. Crothall Servs. Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-03812-AB (E.D. Pa. Dec. 16, 2016).
• In August 2016, a magistrate judge reaffirmed that "African" has long been recognized as an acceptable class entitled to protection under Title VII. The EEOC alleged that the Defendants, a health care management system and nursing home discriminated against African employees, specifically employees from Ethiopia and Sudan, when it terminated four personal care providers all on the same day, allegedly for failing to pass a newly instituted written exam. The EEOC brought disparate impact and treatment claims based on race and national origin, and a retaliation claim for a white supervisor who stood up for the African workers and was fired several months before the test was instituted. Defendants moved for dismissal arguing (1) Africa is not a nation and so cannot serve as the basis of a national origin claim, (2) EEOC failed to allege any shared cultural or linguistic characteristics between the aggrieved individuals so they could not constitute a protected class; and (3) the EEOC's retaliation claim must be dismissed because EEOC failed to allege protected activity or the Defendants had knowledge of the white supervisor's motivations. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion be denied in total. EEOC v. Columbine Health Sys. & New Mercer Commons, Civ. Action No. 15-cv-01597-MSK-CBS (D. Colo. Aug. 19, 2016).
• In June 2016, the EEOC obtained a $350,000 settlement in its race discrimination lawsuit against defendant FAPS, Inc., a company located at Port Newark, N.J., involved in the processing for final sale of shipped automobiles. In this case, the Commission alleged that the company engaged in a pattern-or-practice of race discrimination by relying on word-of-mouth hiring which resulted in a predominantly white workforce despite the substantial African-American available workforce in the Newark area. The agency further alleged that FAPS refused to hire qualified African-American candidates, including by telling them that no positions were available when in fact FAPS was hiring. Finally, the EEOC alleged that FAPS' employment application contained improper pre-employment medical inquiries in violation of the ADA. Besides the monetary compensation, the five year consent decree requires FAPS to meet substantial hiring goals for African-Americans; give hiring priority to rejected class members who are interested in working at the company; use recruiting methods designed to increase the African-American applicant pool; and hire an EEO coordinator to ensure compliance with Title VII. EEOC v. FAPS, Inc., C.A. No. No. 2:10-cv-03095 (D.N.J. June 15, 2016).
• In April 2015, Local 25 of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association and its associated apprenticeship school agreed to create a back pay fund for a group of minority sheet metal workers in partial settlement of race discrimination claims against the local union. Pursuant to the settlement, it is estimated that the union will pay approximately $12.7 million over the next five years and provide substantial remedial relief to partially resolve claims made against the union in 1991-2002. The trade union, which is responsible for sheet metal journeypersons in northern New Jersey, allegedly discriminated against black and Hispanic journeypersons over a multi-year period in hiring and job assignments. An analysis of hours and wages showed African-American and Hispanic workers received fewer hours of work than their white co-workers during most of this same timeframe. This particular agreement covers from April 1991 through December 2002. EEOC v. Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, Case No. 71 Civ. 2887 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. April 2, 2015).
• In December 2015, Hillshire Brands (formerly known as Sara Lee Corporation) agreed to pay $4 million to 74 workers at the now-shuttered Paris, Texas, plant, including the dozens of people who sought EEOC charges against Hillshire and other aggrieved workers identified by the EEOC and the plaintiffs. This resolution settles claims that the company subjected a class of Black employees to a hostile work environment that included racist graffiti and comments, that included the N-word and "boy." The company also agreed to implement training at all of its plants in a bid to end consolidated suits from the EEOC and former worker Stanley Beaty. The consent decree also requires Hillshire to implement anti-racism training and create a mechanism for employees at its existing plants to confidentially report instances of harassment, discrimination and retaliation. The settlement also requires Hillshire to designate one employee to serve as a point-of-contact for those who feel they've been treated improperly and to punish workers with suspensions and even termination who are found "by reasonable evidence" to have engaged in racial bias or behavior related to it. EEOC v. Hillshire Brands Co. f/k/a Sara Lee Corp., No. 2:15-cv-01347 (E.D. Tex. consent decree filed 12/18/15) and Beaty et al v. The Hillshire Brands Co. et al., No. 2:14-cv-00058 (E.D. Tex. consent decree filed 12/18/15).
• In October 2015, a federal judge held that the operators of an Indianapolis Hampton Inn in contempt for failing to comply with five different conditions settling the EEOC's class race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against the companies. The judge faulted Noble Management LLC and New Indianapolis Hotels for failing to: (1) properly post notices; (2) properly train management employees; (3) keep employment records; (4) institute a new hiring procedure for housekeeping employees; and (5) reinstate three former housekeeping employees. The judge also faulted Noble and New Indianapolis Hotels for comingling of medical records in employee personnel files. As background, the EEOC filed suit against operators New Indianapolis Hotels LLC and Noble Management LLC in September 2010, alleging that their Hampton Inn fired African-American housekeepers because of their race and in retaliation for complaints about race discrimination. The agency also charged that the hotel paid lower wages to Black housekeepers, excluded Black housekeeping applicants on a systemic basis, and failed to maintain records required by law in violation of Title VII. In September 2012, the judge entered a five-year consent decree resolving the EEOC's litigation against the hotel operators. The decree provided $355,000 in monetary relief to approximately 75 African-American former housekeeping employees and applicants and required training, notice posting, reinstatement of three former housekeeping employees, a new hiring procedure for housekeeping employees and ordered that the defendants maintain employment-related records. The court also enjoined the operators from race discrimination and retaliation in the future. In March 2014, following the filing of the EEOC's contempt motion, Judge Lawrence ruled that the defendants violated the terms of the 2012 decree and ordered Defendants to pay more than $50,000 in back wages to the three former housekeepers whose reinstatement was delayed. Defendants were also ordered to: (1) provide monthly reporting to the EEOC on compliance with the new hiring procedure, recordkeeping and posting; (2) pay fines for late reporting; (3) allow random inspections by the EEOC subject to a fine, for failure to grant access; (4) pay fines for failure to post, destroying records or failing to distribute employment applications; (5) provide EEOC with any requested employment records within 15 days of a request; (6) cease comingling medical records; and (7) train management employees. The posting and training provisions of the Decree were also extended by two years. In November 2015, the judge awarded $50,515 in fees and $6,733.76 in costs to the EEOC because the "Defendants willfully violated the explicit terms of the Consent Decree and repeatedly failed to comply with it [.]" EEOC v. New Indianapolis Hotels LLC and Noble Management LLC, C.A. No. 1:10-CV-01234-WTL-DKL (N.D. Ind. Nov. 9, 2015) (fee ruling).
• In September 2015, BMW Manufacturing Co. settled for $1.6 million and other relief an EEOC lawsuit alleging that the company's criminal background check policy disproportionately affects black logistics workers at a South Carolina plant. Specifically, the EEOC alleged that after learning the results of the criminal background checks around July 2008, BMW denied plant access to 88 logistics employees, resulting in their termination from the previous logistics provider and denial of hire by the new logistics services provider for work at BMW. Of those 88 employees, 70 were Black. Some of the logistics employees had been employed at BMW for several years, working for the various logistics services providers utilized by BMW since the opening of the plant in 1994. Under the terms of a consent decree signed by Judge Henry M. Herlong of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, the $1.6 million will be shared by 56 known claimants and other black applicants the EEOC said were shut out of BMW's Spartanburg, S.C., plant when the company switched to a new logistics contractor. In addition to the monetary relief, the company will provide each claimant who wishes to return to the facility an opportunity to apply for a logistics position. BMW will also notify other applicants who have previously expressed interest in a logistics position at the facility of their right to apply for work, the decree states. BMW has implemented a new criminal background check policy and will continue to operate under that policy throughout the three-year term of the decree. The company is expressly enjoined from "utilizing the criminal background check guidelines" challenged by the EEOC in its lawsuit, the decree states. The agreement also imposes on BMW notice-posting, training, record-keeping, reporting and other requirements. EEOC v. BMW Mfg. Co., No. 7:13-cv-01583 (D.S.C. consent decree filed Sep. 8, 2015).
• In August 2015, Target Corp. settled for $2.8 million an EEOC charge that the retailer's former tests for hiring for professional jobs discriminated against applicants based on race, sex and disability. Three assessments used by Target disproportionately screened out female and racial minority applicants, and a separate psychological assessment was a pre-employment medical examination that violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the EEOC had charged. Target also violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by failing to maintain the records sufficient to gauge the impact of its hiring procedures. Under the three-year conciliation agreement, reached before any lawsuit was filed, Target has discontinued the use of the tests and made changes to its applicant tracking system, the EEOC said. About 4,500 unsuccessful applicants affected by the alleged discriminatory tests now are eligible to file claims for monetary relief.
• In March 2015, a Texas-based oil and gas drilling company agreed to settle for $12.26 million the EEOC's lawsuit alleging discrimination, harassment and retaliation against racial minorities nationwide. According to a complaint filed by the EEOC the same day as the proposed decree, Patterson-UTI had engaged in patterns or practices of hostile work environment harassment, disparate treatment discrimination and retaliation against Hispanic, Latino, Black, American Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander and other minority workers at its facilities in Colorado and other states. Under the proposed four-year consent decree, the drilling company also will create a new vice president position to be filled by a "qualified EEO professional" who will facilitate, monitor and report on the company's compliance with certain training, management evaluation, minority outreach, and other remedial measures. EEOC v. Patterson-UTI Drilling Co., No. 1:15-cv-00600 (D. Colo. consent decree filed Mar. 24, 2015).
• In January 2015, Skanska USA Building, Inc., a building contractor headquartered in Parsippany, N.J., paid $95,000 to settle a racial harassment and retaliation lawsuit brought by the EEOC. According to the EEOC's suit, Skanska violated federal law by allowing workers to subject a class of Black employees who were working as buck hoist operators to racial harassment, and by firing them for complaining to Skanska about the misconduct. Skanska served as the general contractor on the Methodist Le Bonheur Children's Hospital in Memphis, where the incidents in this lawsuit took place. The class of Black employees worked for C-1, Inc. Construction Company, a minority-owned subcontractor for Skanska. Skanska awarded a subcontract to C-1 to provide buck hoist operations for the construction site and thereafter supervised all C-1 employees while at the work site. The EEOC charged that Skanska failed to properly investigate complaints from the buck hoist operators that white employees subjected them to racially offensive comments and physical assault. EEOC v. Shanska USA Building, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-02717 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 29, 2015).
• In December 2014, two Memphis-based affiliates of Select Staffing, employment companies doing business in Tennessee, agreed to pay $580,000 to settle allegations they engaged in race and national origin discrimination. The EEOC's lawsuit charged that the staffing firms had discriminated against four Black temporary employees and a class of Black and non-Hispanic job applicants by failing to place or refer them for employment. The four temporary employees said while seeking employment through the company's Memphis area facilities, they witnessed Hispanic applicants getting preferential treatment in hiring and placement. EEOC v. New Koosharem Corp., No. 2:13-cv-2761 (W.D. Tenn. consent decree filed Dec. 5, 2014).
• In December 2014, three related well-servicing companies agreed to pay $1.2 million to settle allegations by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of verbal abuse of minority employees. The EEOC complaint alleged that J&R employees regularly used racial slurs to refer to Black, Hispanic and Native American employees. Employees of these racial groups on company rigs regularly heard racist terms and demeaning remarks about green cards and deportation, the EEOC complaint said. Several individuals complained to management, but their complaints were minimized or ignored, the complaint alleged. For example, an area supervisor responded to employee complaints by telling the complainants they could quit or by saying that he was sick of everyone coming to him and that everyone simply needed to do their jobs. In addition, the complaint stated that several men were demoted or fired after taking their complaints of discrimination to the Wyoming Department of Workforce Services' Labor Standards Division. EEOC v. Dart Energy Corp., No. 13-cv-00198 (D. Wyo. consent decree filed Dec. 1, 2014).
• In November 2014, a Rockville, Md.-based environmental remediation services contractor paid $415,000 and provide various other relief to settle a class lawsuit alleging that the company engaged in a pattern or practice of race and sex discrimination in its recruitment and hiring of field laborers. Under a three-year consent decree signed Nov. 10 by Judge Paul W. Grimm of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, ACM Services Inc. will pay a combined $110,000 to the two Hispanic female workers who first brought the allegations to the EEOC's attention and will establish a class fund of $305,000 for other potential claimants to be identified by the agency. According to the EEOC, the company has relied exclusively on "word-of-mouth recruitment practices" for field laborer positions, with the intent and effect of restricting the recruitment of Black and female applicants. ACM also subjected the two charging parties to harassment based on sex, national origin and race, and it retaliated against them for opposing the mistreatment-and against one of them based on her association with Black people-by firing them, the commission alleged. The agreement applies to all ACM facilities and locations nationwide and has extra-territorial application to the extent permitted by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In addition to the monetary relief, the decree requires the company to set numerical hiring goals for its field laborer positions, recruit Black and female applicants via print and Internet advertisements and report to the EEOC regarding its attainment of the numerical hiring goals and other settlement terms. EEOC v. ACM Servs., Inc., No. 8:14-cv-02997 (D. Md. consent decree filed Nov. 10, 2014).
• In November 2014, Battaglia Distributing Corporation paid $735,000 to a group of current and former African-American employees. In this case, the EEOC alleged that the Battaglia tolerated an egregious race-based hostile work environment, requiring African-American dock workers to endure harassment that included racial slurs (including the "N" word). Among other relief provided under the decree, Battaglia also will provide its managers with training on Title VII and report regularly to the EEOC on any complaints it has received, as well as provide other data to demonstrate that it has not retaliated against any of the participants in the litigation. EEOC v. Battaglia Distrib. Corp., No. 13-cv-5789 (N.D. Ill. consent decree entered Nov. 10, 2014).
• In October 2014, Prestige Transportation Service L.L.C., a Miami company that provides transportation services to airline personnel to and from Miami International Airport, paid $200,000 to settle a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit, in connection with actions allegedly committed under different ownership. The EEOC charged in its suit that Prestige's predecessor company, Airbus Alliance Inc., repeatedly instructed its human resource manager to not hire African-American applicants because they were "trouble" and "would sue the company." EEOC v. Prestige Transp. Service L.L.C., No. 1:13-cv-20684(JEM) (S.D. Fla. consent decree filed Sept. 26, 2014)."

The listing is continued here:
Significant EEOC Race/Color Cases(Covering Private and Federal Sectors) | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

As you have just demonstrated, there is no institutionalized racism in America anymore, and when racism is found in individual companies, the DoJ roots it out and the company is forced to reform, so you have just answered the question raised by the black woman in the video who claimed the only way she could ever have a TV was to steal it from Target, How Can We Win: according to you, apply for a job and if a particular company discriminates against you because you are black, the DoJ will force that company to stop. The proof of this is that there is a large and growing black middle class and the greatest obstacle young black people face as they try to move from poverty to the middle class is people like you who foster a culture of defeat that is no longer appropriate in the US.

Well you're mistaken if you believe that institutionalized racism no longer exists in America. Like all laws, the Civil Rights of 1964 don't magically prevent people from violating them, they only provide a statutory remedy when they are violated, however that's only the beginning. You might be surprised to find out how difficult it is to enforce your rights particularly if you're part of the disenfranchised population via a lawsuit.

Racism and discrimination was woven into the very fabric of American society by design, both legislatively and socially and the mere passage of a law that finally after 171 gave black people an avenue for redress hardly dismantled the system, particularly when you have so many people lying and fighting to maintain it.

Obviously, you don't understand what the term, institutionalized racism means. Institutionalized racism means racism is embedded in the laws or in accepted practices, and that is no longer true in the US. What you seem to be saying is that you believe racism in the US is widespread, and while the attitude may be widespread, discrimination on the basis of race is no longer widespread in substantial matters such as housing, education or employment. If you believe you have been discriminated against on the basis or race in such substantial matters, you file a complaint with the DoJ and they will investigate and if they find it is true, DoJ will fine the company or person responsible, demand they accept monitoring by DoJ and where appropriate, order compensation for any damages you may have suffered. If you should want to pursue the matter further, the DoJ findings provide a solid basis for a lawsuit.

Young black people are not being held back by racism. They are being held back by people like you who want to convince they have no path forward. The fact is that black students have the lowest graduation rates from both high school and college of any minority other than Native Americans and that makes them less employable and and causes them to earn less.

Similarly, the justice system does not discriminate on the basis of race but on the basis of wealth. Top notch legal defense lawyers are expensive, so most poor offenders get a public defender of low end private attorney, but wealthier offenders can afford better representation and get better outcomes. For example, if George Floyd had lived and gone to trial for passing counterfeit money, he probably wouldn't have been able to afford a good attorney, but now that he is dead, his family will get top notch lawyers for their civil suit against the city. Black people with money do well in the justice system but poor people, black or white, don't do well.

You are not a victim of white racism, but of your own racism.

First of all, the Department of Justice does not file lawsuits on behalf of indivual citizens. If you file a complaint for a color of law abuse against a specific police officer(s) IF they open an investigation, they don't investigate the individual officers, they investigate the agency for patterns and practices of discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights laws.

When it comes to housing, that's a separate government agency (HUD) and the same for employment (EEOC) but none of this is the slam dunk done deal that you seem to believe it is, partially due to everyone involved believing as you do, that racism no longer exists in the United States since 1964 and therefore far too often than not, in spite of what may be presented to them, they won't find a violation. There are also state and local agencies that are tasked with enforcing their own version of the federal civil rights laws.

Also, the right to a free attorney. also knwn as public defenders ("you have the right to an attorney and if you cannot afford one, one will be assigned to you") only applies to indigent individuals who have been charged with a crime. If you're indigent and your employer, or landlord, or bank or whomever, is discriminating against you then you have to pay money to have your rights enforced and protected. If the amount of damages is not sufficient to attract an attorney who will take your case on contingency or pro bono then your rights remain violated with no redress. And believe it or not there are people in the legal profession who are hard core racists as well that will run inference and damage your case in support of your adversaries. There are two members who post to U.S. Message who claim to be attorneys and have had no qualms about posting their white supremacist believes in violation of Rule 8.4 (g) entitled "Misconduct" of the American Bar Associations Code of Ethics prohibiting discrimination or harassment based on protected class status

"Rule 8.4: Misconduct​

​

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:​

​

(g) engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law. This paragraph does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16. This paragraph does not preclude legitimate advice or advocacy consistent with these Rules.​

As for your blanket statement that I am not a victim of white racism, it's not possible for you to know anything about any rights violations I have suffered nor am I a racist by any of the legal or dictionary definitions.

You might want to get a little more information on your subject matter before you began defaming others.

If you file a complaint with DoJ, they will investigate and if they find a civil rights violation they will issue fines, monitor the company or agency in the future and sometimes order compensation to the victims of the violations. If you want to pursue the issue on your own to try to collect damages, the DoJ report will provide a solid basis for your lawsuit. DoJ does an excellent job of investigating civil rights complaints and it will bring charges against individuals as well as companies and government agencies where appropriate.

Everyone knows racism exists in America and everywhere else on Earth, and it is your right to be a racist whether you are black or white but you do not have the right to violate someone else's civil rights because of your feelings or attitudes, and such violations are not ignored by DoJ.

A racist is someone who sees everything in term of race, and that is certainly you. Stop whining about imaginary wrongs and start taking advantage of the opportunities in front of you and then maybe you won't have to steal TV's from Target, if that was you in the OP video.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Very eloquently stated

CDC: Genital Herpes Among Black Women High

A new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says black women have the highest rates of herpes infection at 48 percent. Nationally, about 16 percent of Americans between the ages of 14 and 49 are infected with genital herpes. Hilda Hutcherson, clinical professor of obstetrics...

www.npr.org

And this is all you have huh?

not me ....... i wonder if she is angry because of herpes ?

So is that why you're a racist and bitter towards black people, because someone infected you with a veneral "infection" (I hear they no longer refer to it as a disease - too many guys must have been contracting it)

Or is it simply because you have no way to rebut what she's said and you decided to throw out a red herring just to be nasty and attempt to further denigrate black women?

I didn't get the impression that she's an angry person, passionate yes, and perhaps angry about the centuries long mistreatment of black people in America but I would not categorize her as an angry person. But then again I'm not afraid of black people or view them as inherently threatening. As I stated in my OP I felt that her message was very eloquently stated dispate the coarse language, including her parting statement that white society should be glad that black people want equality and not revenge even though we know that's something that whites have always generally worried about. And before you object, think about how much white society has acomplished and how many rights have been violated in the name of keeping them and theirs safe and secure.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

A racist is someone who sees everything in term of race, and that is certainly you. Stop whining about imaginary wrongs and start taking advantage of the opportunities in front of you and then maybe you won't have to steal TV's from Target, if that was you in the OP video.

Oh so NOW I'm the person in the video? And you just accused me of enaging in criminal activity in obtain a T.V.? Why do you all think that just because I engage in these types of fact finding missions that it means I'm poor, a criminal, uneducated, etc.? Why do you all do that? Do you seriously believe that a black person cannot be at the same level or higher as the worse the white race has to offer?

Your definition of race is still incorrect and it' doesn't meet the dictionary definition nor the legal one, as I've already pointed out. Making up your own definitions is what children do.

And back to the DOJ. They do not conduct investigations and represent single private citizens. There has to be a large or large enough group of people impacted by the violations for them to act.

If you're the first person to have something happen to you and the first person to file a complain about it they may consider it not a problem other than a personal one, such as it must be something specifically about this person that made them treat her this way but it was not racism. I see it all the time.

And one of the reasons I know this is because I have filed a complaint with a state agency regarding a violation of my rights by a company and the first investigator who got the complaint said he interviewed the parties I named and they denied having done any of the things alleged. That was the extent of his investigation.

Fortunately I lucked out because a different investigator somehow saw my complaint and contacted me to see if I still had the audio recording of the message they left and if so would I send it to them. I did and because they used the evidence I provided to them in the charging papers against the individuals and company the second investigator directed me to where I could read the charging documents online. Apparently the same people who had been threatening me had threatened over 50 other people who also filed a complaint but I was the only one that had in my possession actual evidence that could prove our allegations.

Their offenses violated serveral state civil laws however some of their behavior was a violation of the criminal code as well, including stalking across state lines.

Then there are the agencies who can't comply with your subpoenas or public records request because there is an open investigation that goes on indefinitely and when it finally closes, they reveal they never conducted one, well after all of the damage that comes from withholding needed evidence has been done.

More?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Of course. So statistically in a land of equal opportunity, they should be equal economically. But they AREN'T.

You are confusing opportunity with outcome.

Because of affirmative action, blacks have GREATER opportunity than any other group. Th lack of economic success is because far too few TAKE that opportunity.

White women have been the greatest benefactor of affirmative action according to the agency that tracks these statics for the U.S. Labor Department

​

"...white women as a group have benefited at a higher percentage than other groups. That means​

1. white women have benefited more than any other group from Affirmative Action
   1. if white women are the largest benefactors then it's not possible that the legislation does what many racist whites claim it does - takes jobs from qualified whites and gives them to unqualified blacks
   2. that our claims that the affirmation action law is "race neutral" are true and a perusal of the text itself will reveal that it makes no mention of any particular race nor does it elevate any one race over another

As far as where the data came from (Affirmative action, helpful or harmful?)​

​

Enforcement of civil rights law in private workplaces: The effects of compliance reviews and lawsuits over time (Kalev & Dobbin 2006)​

​

... Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are forbidden from discriminating against their employees on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, or national origin. The law prohibits discrimination in terms, compensation, working conditions, and other aspects of employment; mandates enforcement by courts, rather than juries; and provides civil penalties for violations, including mandatory remedial hiring policies for employers and reinstatement with back pay awards to victims. It also created the EEOC to bring class action litigation against employers for discrimination. The Civil Rights Act initially applied to private sector employers with more than 25 employees; since 1972, it has applied to those with more than 15 employees.​

​

Affirmative action Executive Order 11246, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, reinforced prohibitions in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and earlier executive orders against discrimination based on race, color, religion, and national origin; subsequent orders and revisions have added sex (1967) and sexual orientation and gender identity (2014) as protected classes. Order 11246 required the federal government and federal contractors with 50 or more employees or $50,000 in contracts to develop written affirmative action plans and ensure equal opportunities for all workers. The order authorized the Secretary of Labor to establish the OFCCP to enforce federal contractors’ compliance. The OFCCP targets for compliance reviews those employers whose EEO-1 reports indicate relatively low employment of women and minorities. The authors noted that the nature of compliance reviews differed over time. Relative to later reviews, reviews in the 1970s were less frequent but more intrusive and more likely to lead to sanctions.​

​

Findings​

The study found that compliance reviews initiated against an establishment in the 1970s significantly increased the share of women and African Americans it employed as managers, not only in the 1970s but also through the 1980s and 1990s. A first compliance review in the 1970s increased the odds of white women in management by an estimated 34 percent, of African American women by 18 percent, and of African American men by 28 percent.​

​

Compliance reviews initiated in the 1970s led to significantly greater increases in female and African American employment shares than did reviews conducted in the 1980s.​

​

Larger numbers of lawsuits significantly increased employment shares for women and African Americans.​

​

Clearinghouse for Labor Evaluation and Research (CLEAR)"​

You do not confusing opportunity and outcome.

Thanks for pointing out that you have every opportunity imaginable but do not take advantage of it because of shitty attitude.

Your statement was that affirmative action benefits black people moreso than any other group which is patently false and the documentation I provided shows that the government agency which tracks this information has records which indicate that white women have benefited most from affirmative action:

Because of affirmative action, blacks have GREATER opportunity than any other group

​

What in your opinion is so shitty about my attitude? You're the one who is mistaken about affirmative action. Was I not supposed to correct your misconception? Is that what you find objectionable?

I often wonder with various posters whether I am simply dealing with abject stupidity or complete dishonesty.

One again you are confused as to the difference between opportunity and outcome. The system places blacks above all others in terms of opportunity. All your statistics prove is that blacks are not TAKING THAT opportunity. Too many blacks are like you in that they are racist, sullen and too busy excusing their own shortcomings on imaginary racism even as the system, itself, is holding the door wide open for their success should they WANT to succeed. Too many don't and that is the real problem in the black community. You pass these dysfunctional attitudes from generation to generation and all you are doing by it is enslaving yourselves by creating excuses instead of taking advantage of opportunities.

 

[toomuchtime_]

A racist is someone who sees everything in term of race, and that is certainly you. Stop whining about imaginary wrongs and start taking advantage of the opportunities in front of you and then maybe you won't have to steal TV's from Target, if that was you in the OP video.

Oh so NOW I'm the person in the video? And you just accused me of enaging in criminal activity in obtain a T.V.? Why do you all think that just because I engage in these types of fact finding missions that it means I'm poor, a criminal, uneducated, etc.? Why do you all do that? Do you seriously believe that a black person cannot be at the same level or higher as the worse the white race has to offer?

Your definition of race is still incorrect and it' doesn't meet the dictionary definition nor the legal one, as I've already pointed out. Making up your own definitions is what children do.

And back to the DOJ. They do not conduct investigations and represent single private citizens. There has to be a large or large enough group of people impacted by the violations for them to act.

If you're the first person to have something happen to you and the first person to file a complain about it they may consider it not a problem other than a personal one, such as it must be something specifically about this person that made them treat her this way but it was not racism. I see it all the time.

And one of the reasons I know this is because I have filed a complaint with a state agency regarding a violation of my rights by a company and the first investigator who got the complaint said he interviewed the parties I named and they denied having done any of the things alleged. That was the extent of his investigation.

Fortunately I lucked out because a different investigator somehow saw my complaint and contacted me to see if I still had the audio recording of the message they left and if so would I send it to them. I did and because they used the evidence I provided to them in the charging papers against the individuals and company the second investigator directed me to where I could read the charging documents online. Apparently the same people who had been threatening me had threatened over 50 other people who also filed a complaint but I was the only one that had in my possession actual evidence that could prove our allegations.

Their offenses violated serveral state civil laws however some of their behavior was a violation of the criminal code as well, including stalking across state lines.

Then there are the agencies who can't comply with your subpoenas or public records request because there is an open investigation that goes on indefinitely and when it finally closes, they reveal they never conducted one, well after all of the damage that comes from withholding needed evidence has been done.

More?

There you go again, seeing everything, even yourself, only in terms of race. That makes you a racist. You posted the video in the OP in which the woman argues that it is impossible for a black person to prosper in America because some very bad things that happened to black people 100 years ago in Tulsa and Rosewood, so she has a right to steal TV's from Target and you endorsed her bizarre argument by echoing her question, how can we win, and called her racist rant "eloquent" so if you are not the woman in the video, you have certainly endorsed her criminal acts and her bizarre racist justifications for them.

Now, instead of accepting personal responsibility for posting and endorsing such nonsense, you claim that any criticism of the video or of you is evidence of racism.

In support of your false statements about the Civil Rights division of DoJ, you cite your experience with a state agency, not DoJ, making it obvious that your disparaging comments about DoJ are just products of your own bigotry.

The larger point is that you are making the same ridiculous argument as made in the video, that it is impossible for black people to get ahead in America because of racism, which is an obvious lie since we already have a large and growing black middle class in America; the video even begins by saying it is in response to criticisms from rich black people, which probably means black people with good jobs. What does held some black people down is not white racism but poisonous messages from black racists like you.

MLK jr. famously said, "learn baby learn so you can earn baby earn", but sadly too many young black people have have forgotten this message and young black people have the lowest graduation rates from college of any minority group other than Native Americans.

"The 6-year graduation rate for first-time, full-time undergraduate students who began their pursuit of a bachelor’s degree at a 4-year degree-granting institution in fall 2010 was highest for Asian students (74 percent), followed by White students (64 percent), students of Two or more races (60 percent), Hispanic students (54 percent), Pacific Islander students (51 percent), Black students (40 percent), and American Indian/Alaska Native students (39 percent)."

Indicator 23: Postsecondary Graduation Rates