Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When they remove the "purportedly" then I will take it seriously. Until then just pure speculation. I hate when media outlets do that.
daily wire has a screenshot.
"In response to this email, an anonymous DNC source told The Daily Wire the following:
Clearly the DNC is doubling down on a failed strategy that has alienated staffers and voters alike. We want to be judged based on the quality of our work, not on identity politics. How can we trust the leadership of the DNC if they don’t even trust us?
The Daily Wire contacted Ms. Leader about the contents of her email, but she declined to comment."
I'm not sure that the ACLU would take such a case, as it stands. For one, someone must having standing, and ask that organization to do so.
Assuming the email is correct (which is not assured, but probably), it seems that the DNC is seeking people for the technology department.
If the technology department is made up of, say, 90 percent white males (the email refers to straight white males as 'being in the majority), is it blatantly wrong to seek a more diverse work force?
In other words, wouldn't the DNC be blasted by some herein if they continued to hire white males over other applications? Wouldn't some of you claim "The Democrats are hypocrites, calling for more jobs for women and minorities, but not hiring them for their own technology department"?
It seems that it would be difficult for a straight white male to claim discrimination, if the department he seeks to join is composed of a majority of straight white males.
We would need, I assume, some straight white male to apply for a position with the technology department of the DNC, and be refused, with the position being taken by another person (black, gay, what have you).
If such a person comes forward, then maybe the ACLU would take the case. Much of the case would hinge on whether this is a real captured email, or a fake (since we saw, with Wikileaks, that fake emails can certainly be created).
I am not saying that Ms. Leader is correct; indeed, I think she is potentially stepping into a hornet's nest. Here is a link to the 'prohibited practices' by the EEOC:
Whether asking the emails recipients to 'not forward' the email (regarding positions open) to a certain class is a question to be resolved by the courts. I rather assume that she meant not forwarding to individuals (white male) that are already employed by the DNC. If the actual applications make no reference to color, etc., then the claim of discrimination may not hold water.
Such questions are complicated. Rare is the case where a clear-cut case of discrimination can be proved. I know of one case where a white male was successful, because his employer (he was seeking a promotion) was told, to his face, that while the job was being advertised to all, he (said employer) had already decided to hire a black woman, and he was just 'following the rules'.
So because you personally (one individual) have not witnessed this, that means it never occurred? Wow, pretty elitist of you to be all knowing. I'm not saying it happened, but still.........
Guess you hang out at Garden of the GODS a lot, huh?
Sounds like the same thing conservatives like to throw out when talking about single payer healthcare. Just because one or two (I'm lookin' at you T310) who can afford all of their healthcare expenses out of pocket MUST mean that everyone else can too. That's their sole argument against the ACA and single payer.
The email was for the Tech Department at the DNC. And they are looking to make that specific department more diverse because they already have enough white males. They never said white males shouldn't work in tech anywhere in America. Way to twist what's being stated.
what if it was reversed and the majority was black men and the letter specified not to forward to black men because they are the majority?
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea
I'm not sure that the ACLU would take such a case, as it stands. For one, someone must having standing, and ask that organization to do so.
Assuming the email is correct (which is not assured, but probably), it seems that the DNC is seeking people for the technology department.
If the technology department is made up of, say, 90 percent white males (the email refers to straight white males as 'being in the majority), is it blatantly wrong to seek a more diverse work force?
In other words, wouldn't the DNC be blasted by some herein if they continued to hire white males over other applications? Wouldn't some of you claim "The Democrats are hypocrites, calling for more jobs for women and minorities, but not hiring them for their own technology department"?
It seems that it would be difficult for a straight white male to claim discrimination, if the department he seeks to join is composed of a majority of straight white males.
We would need, I assume, some straight white male to apply for a position with the technology department of the DNC, and be refused, with the position being taken by another person (black, gay, what have you).
If such a person comes forward, then maybe the ACLU would take the case. Much of the case would hinge on whether this is a real captured email, or a fake (since we saw, with Wikileaks, that fake emails can certainly be created).
I am not saying that Ms. Leader is correct; indeed, I think she is potentially stepping into a hornet's nest. Here is a link to the 'prohibited practices' by the EEOC:
Whether asking the emails recipients to 'not forward' the email (regarding positions open) to a certain class is a question to be resolved by the courts. I rather assume that she meant not forwarding to individuals (white male) that are already employed by the DNC. If the actual applications make no reference to color, etc., then the claim of discrimination may not hold water.
Such questions are complicated. Rare is the case where a clear-cut case of discrimination can be proved. I know of one case where a white male was successful, because his employer (he was seeking a promotion) was told, to his face, that while the job was being advertised to all, he (said employer) had already decided to hire a black woman, and he was just 'following the rules'.
so....its ok to discriminate? what if it were about black men?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8won6
The email was for the Tech Department at the DNC. And they are looking to make that specific department more diverse because they already have enough white males. They never said white males shouldn't work in tech anywhere in America. Way to twist what's being stated.
Sounds like the same thing conservatives like to throw out when talking about single payer healthcare. Just because one or two (I'm lookin' at you T310) who can afford all of their healthcare expenses out of pocket MUST mean that everyone else can too. That's their sole argument against the ACA and single payer.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,610,214 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by swilliamsny
My husband is a registered Democrat. Want to guess how he's voted the last two elections (presidential and local)? I'll give you a hint. It wasn't for a Democrat.
His loss, I'm a registered Democrat and VOTE Democrat. I'll never vote for a Republican as long as I live
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
