Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
11/20/2019 5:07:11 PM
Posted: 5/24/2005 7:35:49 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/24/2005 7:41:23 AM EST by SgtWhiting]
Just read this is my local paper today.

I thought we were past this, but I guess not.

www.bakersfield.com/local/story/5545695p-5523217c.html


White worker barred over race

Kern man to challenge actions by national group of black social workers

By GRETCHEN WENNER, Californian staff writer
e-mail: gwenner@bakersfield.com

Posted: Monday May 23rd, 2005, 11:20 PM
Last Updated: Monday May 23rd, 2005, 11:35 PM

Last month, at a conference registration table in New Orleans, local social worker Brian Parnell was told he couldn't get in because he's white.

"'This conference is only for black people,'" Parnell remembers being told when trying to check in for the annual conference of the National Association of Black Social Workers.
Stunned, he asked to talk to a higher-up. Parnell, a program director with Kern County's Child Protective Services unit, figured the polite volunteer at the registration table was simply mistaken.

But a conversation with one of the association's top staffers, Sandra Mitchell, was no different.

"She said: 'You're white. You can't attend this conference,'" Parnell recalled during a phone interview Monday.

Now Parnell has filed a civil rights claim with the federal government.

His bosses are angry over Parnell's exclusion.

"I was absolutely speechless," said Pat Cheadle, Kern's assistant director of child welfare services, when she heard the news by phone from one of Parnell's colleagues. "I have never heard of any conference in this day and age where (people) are excluded based on ethnicity."

County officials are trying to figure out if what happened is even legal.

"We're working to determine if this is something the organization has a right to do," Cheadle said. "At this point, we don't know if they do or they don't. While we're appalled by it, we are still waiting for a legal opinion."

Parnell's trip, as well as travel for five black colleagues who also went, was paid with county money -- taxpayer dollars, in other words.

Parnell's $475 registration fee was never collected because he was refused access. He and his bosses are trying to recover airfare and other expenses from the National Association of Black Social Workers.

The trip cost an average $1,500 for each Kern attendee, Cheadle said. Parnell's actual costs are lower because he flew home early. The conference ran April 5-9.

Through an assistant, the national association's Mitchell declined an interview request Monday, referring questions to association president Judith Jackson.

Jackson, through the assistant, requested contact by e-mail and did not respond to an interview request before press time.

While the event was the association's 37th annual conference, the April trip was apparently the first time Kern County sent employees, as far as memories and county financial records can figure.

Parnell was asked to go because he's currently helping put together a summit addressing why African-American children enter the child welfare system in disproportionately high numbers.

The high number of black children in the welfare system is a national issue, Cheadle said, and Kern is trying to figure out a way to improve.

"That was the main reason for sending him to this conference," she said.

Kern staffers learned of the New Orleans conference while at a different conference in Los Angeles last fall, one where the national association's Mitchell spoke about the disproportionality issue.

Nothing in the national association's conference application materials made it clear the event wasn't open to non-blacks, Parnell said.

Membership in the national association is restricted to blacks, according to information available on the Internet.

That's apparently in violation of federal rules granting the association tax-exempt status, according to Internal Revenue Service spokesman Bill Steiner. The national association files with the IRS as a so-called "501(c)3" charitable organization.

Tax-exempt status "has been denied to organizations ... that have a discriminatory policy," Steiner said.

If a group closed to all but African-Americans applied for tax-exempt standing, "they would not be granted status," Steiner said.

But what about a group already in existence?

"Unless we know about it ... (unless) somebody turns (the group) in through the referrals process," Steiner said, it's unlikely anything would be done. It's too hard to audit every tax-exempt charity, he said.

Regardless, Kern County won't be sending any more employees to the association's conferences.

"In the future, we will not send staff to this conference as long as they exclude anyone based on their ethnicity," Cheadle said, adding: "We are very much in support of Brian and whatever avenue he chooses to pursue in this matter."

Link Posted: 5/24/2005 7:37:07 AM EST
There's no such thing as reverse discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 7:39:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By lu380:
There's no such thing as reverse discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination.



Can I get an Amen!?
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 7:40:51 AM EST
Good point, I will amend the title.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 7:42:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By lu380:
There's no such thing as reverse discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination.



Exactly. To call it revers is to infer that only a minority can suffer from discrimination.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 7:44:11 AM EST
Doesn't surprise me at all.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 7:50:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Doesn't surprise me at all.




Me neither - it happens ALL the time... Apparantly, white middleclass men are the ONLY group that "can't" be discriminated against.... What a crock....



- georgestrings
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 7:51:12 AM EST
What would we be called if we started a whites only club?
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 7:59:15 AM EST
Do they wear black pointy hats?
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 8:04:39 AM EST
Parnell was asked to go because he's currently helping put together a summit addressing why African-American children enter the child welfare system in disproportionately high numbers.

The high number of black children in the welfare system is a national issue, Cheadle said, and Kern is trying to figure out a way to improve.

They really don't know why black children enter the welfare system at much higher rates than others children? It is because black adults use drugs at a higher rate, go to jail and prison at a higher rate, get murdered at a higher rate, are homeless at a higher rate.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 8:08:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By sum-rifle:
Parnell was asked to go because he's currently helping put together a summit addressing why African-American children enter the child welfare system in disproportionately high numbers.

The high number of black children in the welfare system is a national issue, Cheadle said, and Kern is trying to figure out a way to improve.

They really don't know why black children enter the welfare system at much higher rates than others children? It is because black adults use drugs at a higher rate, go to jail and prison at a higher rate, get murdered at a higher rate, are homeless at a higher rate.



300 years of slavery couldn't kill the black family but 40 years of 'liberalism' did. When daddy is replaced with a welfare check the family deteriorates rapidly.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 8:09:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By purplecheese:

Originally Posted By lu380:
There's no such thing as reverse discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination.



Can I get an Amen!?



AMEN!
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 8:09:55 AM EST
It's not called discrimination when whitey is excluded - it's called payback, therefore it's okay.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 8:27:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By Partisan:

300 years of slavery couldn't kill the black family but 40 years of 'liberalism' did. When daddy is replaced with a welfare check the family deteriorates rapidly.




ding ding ding ding!!

We have a winner!

357mag
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 8:34:46 AM EST
So can white chicks sue to be in the Miss Black America pageant?

Can guys sue because they are not allowed to compete in Women's Olympics events?

Can parapegics sue if race organizers refuse to enter them in a triathlon?

Can dumb people sue if they don't get into Harvard.

Can teenagers sue if they don't get a "senior discount" at Old Country Buffet?

Can I sue because I cannot buy rifles from the CMP?

Can women sue if a golf club does not allow women members?



Please remember that lots of "discrimination" is legal, even based on gender, age, physical disability, national orgin, etc.

This case is TOTALLY fucked up, and I agree that the conference organizers were complete goddamn ratards to do what they did. But I just wanted to point out that lots of "discrimination" is in fact legal in many arenas.


Link Posted: 5/24/2005 8:44:26 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 8:46:19 AM EST
Affirmative Action is also discrimination in my book
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 8:48:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
www.africancrisis.org/images/Racism.jpg



Who is that?
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 8:49:27 AM EST
LOL!

HA HA!
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 8:50:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By chaos4570:
Affirmative Action is also discrimination in my book



... but in a very mild form
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 8:56:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
www.africancrisis.org/images/Racism.jpg



Who is that?



Robert Mugabe maybe?...
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 9:04:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By chaos4570:
Affirmative Action is also discrimination in my book



Agreed.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 9:05:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By jmoffatt:
What would we be called if we started a whites only club?



Evil Racist's, what else??
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 9:19:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By jmoffatt:
What would we be called if we started a whites only club?



Nothing, you wouldnt exist for more than 12 hours. The ACLU would come down on your ass with the furry of 150 lawyers and shut you down.

When a white man gets discriminateed against do they see a problem? No, there are other problems more important, like the right of babies to die.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 10:03:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By chaos4570:
Affirmative Action is also discrimination in my book



... but in a very mild form



What is mild about giving preferential treatment to someone because of thier race?
Affirmative Action is by definition racist and un-Constitutional.

I can not believe it has not been outlawed by the Supreme Court yet.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 10:15:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By purplecheese:

Originally Posted By lu380:
There's no such thing as reverse discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination.



Can I get an Amen!?


Amen and double amen
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 10:24:04 AM EST
Now that's fugged up.



Link Posted: 5/24/2005 10:25:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By jmoffatt:
What would we be called if we started a whites only club?



Or the United Caucasian College Fund.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 10:34:04 AM EST
IBTL.

Seriously, I think discrimination towards ANYONE is wrong. No matter who it is, it's wrong.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 10:41:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By sum-rifle:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By chaos4570:
Affirmative Action is also discrimination in my book



... but in a very mild form



What is mild about giving preferential treatment to someone because of thier race?
Affirmative Action is by definition racist and un-Constitutional.

I can not believe it has not been outlawed by the Supreme Court yet.



My point is that the "preferential treatment" is pretty mild, since affimative action (as the law is written) only kicks in when a choice between two EQUALLY QUALIFIED job candiates has to be made. A lot of people seem to think that affirmative action says that UN-qualified or UNDER-qualified minorities can be given jobs preferentially over qualified whites. That is not true, and that would probably be illegal discrimination (but hard to prove). By the same token, quotas are illegal.

That's why I call it "mild" - if Affirmative Action was intended to give jobs to lesser qualified people, and deny qualified people jobs, because of race, then I agree that it is racist and inappropriate. But because it only deals with giving qualified people job, and giving the nod to the underrepresented minoroty (not just a minority - Afirmative action has no implication if you already have plenty of minorities in your work force, then you can ignore AA).


I'll agree with you that many people - particularly in local government, social agencies and universities - SHAMELESSLY discriminate, and DO hire underqualified people just because they are minorities - but that is a problem with those organizations, and is technically illegal - and is not so mucha problem with Affirmative Action iself, since it doesn't allow that kind of discimintation.

So ultimately, I am making a nitpicky technical point about what Affirmative Action actually says, and what it doesn't say.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 10:43:29 AM EST
Reversed or not.........Pay back is a Bitch.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 11:22:26 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/24/2005 11:24:15 AM EST by Dead_Nuts]

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
That's why I call it "mild" - if Affirmative Action was intended to give jobs to lesser qualified people, and deny qualified people jobs, because of race, then I agree that it is racist and inappropriate. But because it only deals with giving qualified people job, and giving the nod to the underrepresented minoroty (not just a minority - Afirmative action has no implication if you already have plenty of minorities in your work force, then you can ignore AA).

We all know that, in practice, AA does indeed give lesser qualified individuals positions (jobs, college admissions, etc.) based on race. You read about it all the time. If a minority slot at a university is unfilled, more qualified whites will be passed over to fill that position with a minority.

If AA only kicked in when everything else was equal, it wouldn't be hated as much as it is. But how do you know if AA is needed without some type of quota? Or do you never stop using AA in filling positions? The dirty little secret is that an integral part of AA is a quota telling someone when it's needed and when it's no longer necessary. So what should that quota be? What is fair?

A level playing field simply ensures that everyone has equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome always seems to involve discriminatory practices and quotas.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 11:29:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dead_Nuts:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
That's why I call it "mild" - if Affirmative Action was intended to give jobs to lesser qualified people, and deny qualified people jobs, because of race, then I agree that it is racist and inappropriate. But because it only deals with giving qualified people job, and giving the nod to the underrepresented minoroty (not just a minority - Afirmative action has no implication if you already have plenty of minorities in your work force, then you can ignore AA).


We all know that, in practice, AA does indeed give lesser qualified individuals positions (jobs, college admissions, etc.) based on race. You read about it all the time. If a minority slot at a university is unfilled, more qualified whites will be passed over to fill that position with a minority.

If AA only kicked in when everything else was equal, it wouldn't be hated as much as it is. But how do you know if AA is needed without some type of quota? Or do you never stop using AA in filling positions? The dirty little secret is that an integral part of AA is a quota telling someone when it's needed and when it's no longer necessary. So what should that quota be? What is fair?

A level playing field simply ensures that everyone has equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome always seems to involve discriminatory practices and quotas.



I agree - my point is just that those are expamples of people actually discriminating, and then using AA as the excuse/cover for their illegal discrimination. AA in itself, as intended is really not a particularly bad thing, as was quite reasonable when it was instituted.

I 100% agree with peoples' disgust and outrage over the discimination that is committed in the NAME of Affirmative Action, I'm merely pointing out that the problem is not technically one of AA, but of all these assholes who abuse it. I totally agree with you about the practical abuses. I GUARANTEE you that I would already have tenure by now, if I was a black woman - but I'll be lucky to squeak by when I go up for tenure in a couple of years (and might very possibly get fired). That kind of stuff makes my blood boil - but the people I am pissed at are the university administrators, not the guy who wrote the AA executive order.



Kind of in the same way that food stamps are not actually a bad idea, to give poor folks a temporary helping hand - but all those moochers who abuse the program, driving their lexuses and buying steaks, or selling the stamps for booze money, are the assholes that are giving it a bad name.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 11:53:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By Dead_Nuts:
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Kind of in the same way that food stamps are not actually a bad idea, to give poor folks a temporary helping hand - but all those moochers who abuse the program, driving their lexuses and buying steaks, or selling the stamps for booze money, are the assholes that are giving it a bad name.


I agree with that. It's the same with food pantries. I volunteer at my church's all the time. Theoretically, it's supposed to be there as an EMERGENCY source of food-but people come in all the time because its free-and there are some people that drive pretty nice cars too.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 12:08:38 PM EST
Kill whitey!

Yeah, I've often wondered how long a group of white, heterosexual males would exist as an association..

I think it would last all of 1 week..

And, IMHO, Affirmative Action is discrimination, and no different than how this man was treated while trying to attend a conference. No matter if it is "mild" or not..

Personally, I don't consider losing a job or college opportunity, based upon RACE to be "mild".


Link Posted: 5/24/2005 10:39:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By lu380:
There's no such thing as reverse discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination.



Gotta agree there.
Link Posted: 5/24/2005 11:10:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/24/2005 11:15:22 PM EST by parshooter]

Originally Posted By deej86:
IBTL.

Seriously, I think discrimination towards ANYONE is wrong. No matter who it is, it's wrong.







Please, don't DISSCRIMINATE.

Grab that ass.



Link Posted: 5/24/2005 11:34:52 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/24/2005 11:37:13 PM EST by 22bad]

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
My point is that the "preferential treatment" is pretty mild, since affimative action (as the law is written) only kicks in when a choice between two EQUALLY QUALIFIED job candiates has to be made. A lot of people seem to think that affirmative action says that UN-qualified or UNDER-qualified minorities can be given jobs preferentially over qualified whites. That is not true, and that would probably be illegal discrimination (but hard to prove). By the same token, quotas are illegal.

That's why I call it "mild" - if Affirmative Action was intended to give jobs to lesser qualified people, and deny qualified people jobs, because of race, then I agree that it is racist and inappropriate. But because it only deals with giving qualified people job, and giving the nod to the underrepresented minoroty (not just a minority - Afirmative action has no implication if you already have plenty of minorities in your work force, then you can ignore AA).



Here in Houston they tell Whites not to bother applying for lots of jobs, they will not be hired
And, if there are standards\testing required for positions they are waived\reduced for minorities

Maybe they do it different where you are, but here, more qualified whites are passed over for less qualified minorities. There are many DOCUMENTABLE cases of standards\testing being waived because they were unable to fill the positions with qualified minorities, must be different here.......

And criminal records too, minorities are hired\rented apartments with criminal records that would disqualify whites
Link Posted: 5/25/2005 8:59:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By 22bad:

Here in Houston they tell Whites not to bother applying for lots of jobs, they will not be hired
And, if there are standards\testing required for positions they are waived\reduced for minorities

Maybe they do it different where you are, but here, more qualified whites are passed over for less qualified minorities. There are many DOCUMENTABLE cases of standards\testing being waived because they were unable to fill the positions with qualified minorities, must be different here.......

And criminal records too, minorities are hired\rented apartments with criminal records that would disqualify whites



What? that would never happen!!
Link Posted: 5/25/2005 9:29:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By Phantom_Piney:
Reversed or not.........Pay back is a Bitch.



If they were paying back the people who did it, Yes. But they are not.
Link Posted: 5/25/2005 9:42:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
So can white chicks sue to be in the Miss Black America pageant?
Can guys sue because they are not allowed to compete in Women's Olympics events?
Can parapegics sue if race organizers refuse to enter them in a triathlon?
Can dumb people sue if they don't get into Harvard.
Can teenagers sue if they don't get a "senior discount" at Old Country Buffet?
Can I sue because I cannot buy rifles from the CMP?
Can women sue if a golf club does not allow women members?

Please remember that lots of "discrimination" is legal, even based on gender, age, physical disability, national orgin, etc.

This case is TOTALLY fucked up, and I agree that the conference organizers were complete goddamn ratards to do what they did. But I just wanted to point out that lots of "discrimination" is in fact legal in many arenas.



You forgot:
55+ neighborhoods
United Negro College Fund
and man... in my HS there were "clubs" for every race except poor, disenfranchised white kids.

An all white men's club would be called KKK in a heartbeat.

Link Posted: 5/25/2005 10:12:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By sum-rifle:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By chaos4570:
Affirmative Action is also discrimination in my book



... but in a very mild form



What is mild about giving preferential treatment to someone because of thier race?
Affirmative Action is by definition racist and un-Constitutional.

I can not believe it has not been outlawed by the Supreme Court yet.



My point is that the "preferential treatment" is pretty mild, since affimative action (as the law is written) only kicks in when a choice between two EQUALLY QUALIFIED job candiates has to be made. A lot of people seem to think that affirmative action says that UN-qualified or UNDER-qualified minorities can be given jobs preferentially over qualified whites. That is not true, and that would probably be illegal discrimination (but hard to prove). By the same token, quotas are illegal.

That's why I call it "mild" - if Affirmative Action was intended to give jobs to lesser qualified people, and deny qualified people jobs, because of race, then I agree that it is racist and inappropriate. But because it only deals with giving qualified people job, and giving the nod to the underrepresented minoroty (not just a minority - Afirmative action has no implication if you already have plenty of minorities in your work force, then you can ignore AA).


I'll agree with you that many people - particularly in local government, social agencies and universities - SHAMELESSLY discriminate, and DO hire underqualified people just because they are minorities - but that is a problem with those organizations, and is technically illegal - and is not so mucha problem with Affirmative Action iself, since it doesn't allow that kind of discimintation.

So ultimately, I am making a nitpicky technical point about what Affirmative Action actually says, and what it doesn't say.




I DO NOT CALL ADDING 10 To 15 POINTS ON A CIVIL SERVICE EXAM........... "MILD"
Link Posted: 5/25/2005 10:52:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By georgestrings:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Doesn't surprise me at all.




Me neither - it happens ALL the time... Apparantly, white middleclass men are the ONLY group that "can't" be discriminated against.... What a crock....



- georgestrings



Amen, brothers. Never mind everyone else rides on OUR backs!
Link Posted: 5/25/2005 11:33:59 AM EST
There is nothing wrong with discrimination. You discriminate between a good future spouse versus a poor future spouse when dating; between a cheeseburger or pizza for lunch; for what type of job you want to work in. To not discriminate is to turn a blind eye to everything.

RACISM, on the other hand, is bad, and THAT is what this is.
Link Posted: 5/25/2005 11:47:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By treemydawg:
Do they wear black pointy hats?



Link Posted: 5/25/2005 12:02:43 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/25/2005 12:03:18 PM EST by submoa1]
Have no fear gentlemen.
In a short time ,we,the white,english speeking middle class,males, WILL BE the minorities.

Then we can sponge of off them for awhile.We will be able to get funding,grants,loans, and finally be able to get a job we arent qualified for.
Top Top