Justice Department: Schizophrenic, Intellectually Disabled? We Want You!

August 23, 2012 at 9:00 am (Affirmative Action, Department of Justice, Eric Holder, Fast and Furious, Intellectually Disabled, Justice Department, Mentally Disabled, Schizophrenic, War on Intelligence)

There’s politically correct hiring practices, and then there’s weapons grade stupidity.  Guess which side of the aisle Eric Holder’s Department of Justice falls on?

Yes, the same agency that brought you the bumbling effort known as Fast and Furious, has been actively engaged in a policy of ‘affirmatively recruiting’ people with ‘targeted disabilities’.  This means that they weren’t simply issuing directives against discriminatory hiring practices regarding disabled individuals, it means they actively sought out those very recruits.

So what types of disabilities were the Justice Department looking for in their attorneys and staff members (document embedded below)?

  • Severe Intellectual Disabilities
  • Psychiatric Disabilities
  • Other Current Severe Physical, Intellectual, or Mental Conditions
Because nothing restores confidence in the Justice Department like an attorney with a ‘severe intellectual disability’.
Additionally, recruits featuring these ‘targeted disabilities’ have the benefit of being hired via a ‘non-competitive’ appointment, and may be hired “before the position is advertised” and “before the positions closing date”, giving them a clear advantage over potentially more qualified, more mentally-abled individuals.
In other words, it actually benefited a person to have psychological, mental, or intellectual deficiencies when seeking a job in Eric Holder’s department.

The easy joke here is that this explains the incompetence of the Justice Department, but such a ridiculous method for affirmatively hiring disabled employees is no laughing matter.

Read the rest of the report here…

Be sure to check out the Justice Department documents below…

Targeted Disab

Advertisements

Permalink Leave a Comment

NY AG Files Brief In Support of Racially Discriminatory College Admissions Policies

August 16, 2012 at 7:46 am (Abigail Fisher, Affirmative Action, Attorney General, Brief, Eric Schneiderman, New York, Race, Supreme Court, University of Texas)

Some call it a backing of affirmative action policies, while others call it a full-throated endorsement of discrimination.  Regardless, 13 attorneys general, led by New York’s own Eric Schneiderman, have filed a brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold racial preferences in college admissions.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, on behalf of 14 states, is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold racial preferences in college admissions.

The court is scheduled to hear arguments Oct. 10 in a lawsuit by Abigail Fisher, a white student who was not admitted to the University of Texas in 2008. Fisher is challenging the university’s admissions policy as a violation of her civil and constitutional rights.

The court’s ruling will be its first on affirmative action in higher education since 2003.

“The states all share a strong interest in preserving the flexibility of their varied institutions to pursue a range of strategies to achieve the educational benefits of diversity in higher education,” Schneiderman and state Solicitor General Barbara Underwood said in a brief filed late Monday. They noted that public schools like the State University of New York, ranging from community colleges to research universities, enroll about 72 percent of post-secondary students nationally and play an especially important role for students with modest means.

Other states joining the brief were Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia, plus the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

The Justice Department has argued that a diverse college population is not only in the best interest of the university, but also the government’s.  But the tactics in which a college attains that diversity is what is in question, as the University of Texas had shifted from accepting students based on class rank, to finding other ways to diversify the student population.  In other words, some students who may have been accepted based on academic performance would now compete with others who may have been chosen based on better personal essays or on their extracurricular merits – and with race in mind.

The brief (provided below) is very similar to one filed in 2010 with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, also supporting the University of Texas’ use of racial preferences in their undergraduate admissions process. The brief had been filed by then solicitor general and current Justice, Elena Kagan, and stems from the same battle begun in the 2003 ruling that narrowly permitted race-conscious policies in public higher education.

Such blatant support for the exploitation of race in education was panned by the National Review’s Roger Clegg, when he described the brief as “a full-throated endorsement of such discrimination.”

The Supreme Court’s review of this affirmative action case may have political ramifications as well.  The review is expected to occur in October—placing it squarely in the minds of voters just weeks prior to the presidential election.

SCOTUS Brief Fisher v University of Texas

Permalink Leave a Comment