Supreme Court Rules in Favor of New Haven Firefighter Frank Ricci

The Supreme Court just issued its eagerly anticipated ruling in Ricci v. Destefano, ruling that New Haven, Connecticut violated the rights of white firefighter Frank Ricci and his fellow plaintiffs by throwing out the results of an officer test where African American applicants scored poorly. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the 5-4 decision, with the Court splitting along conservative-liberal lines.

Decision here. Reason on Ricci here.

Comments

[P Brooks]

Where's the emathy?

*wrings hands*

[P Brooks]

p
[insert as needed]

stupid keyboard

[John C. Randolph]

So, four "justices" voted in favor of racial discrimination. FUCK THEM.

-jcr

[Xeones]

That's what you get for using up all your Ps typing your username, Brooks.

[John-David]

That can't look good for SotomayorgaRIIBBAARIBA!

[John-David]

Sorry, I seem to have suffered a mild seizure there.

[Chet Lewis]

Folks here might get a kick out of this Onion-style newspaper parody, which makes fun of Sotomayor's lower court decision, which the Supreme Court just reversed: "Lawyers Advise Fire Departments to Close Until Fires Destroy More Racially Proportionate Numbers of Homes": http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/04/lawyers-advise-fire-departments-to.html

[John]

"In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters "understandably attract this court's sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them."

Just because you work hard and play by the rules doesn't give you a right to anything if you have the wrong skin color.

[brotherben]

Of course some may see this ruling as evidence that we need a more racially diverse SCOTUS. A wise latina is exactly what we need.

[Peter]

Racists...

But which group might I be talking about?? Discuss!

[John-David]

Is "optoons" the new anonymity spam?

[P Brooks]

But they had no vested right to promotion.

Just fucking die, Ginsberg.

The "vested right" lies in demonstrated competence, not skin color or judicially defined "fairness".

[Nick]

What the hell bizarro world have we entered where the SCOTUS gets it right twice in the span of a week?

[Nick]

What is so disturbing about Ginsberg's dissent is that you know she never would have written it if the plaintiffs were not white males.

[The Angry Optimist]

wait a minute, if Ginsburg wrote that about a private corporation, you guys would be all over that.

they weren't entitled to a promotion. full stop. anyone here think they were?

[SugarFree]

Nick,

It sort of feels like they are buttering us up for something really freedom-killing. Probably a refuse to incorporate the individual right of the 2nd.

[Joe]

This is a travesty because the supreme court just legalized descrimination. It is not fair that more whites passed the test.

[Warren]

As much as I think New Haven is retarded, I don't see the constitutional mandate here. If the town doesn't want to promote based on competence, it's stupid, but what right has been violated?

[MrDubious]

@TheAngryOptimist

They were entitled to a promotion by virtue of the merit of their work, and by virtue of the scores they achieved on the tests put out before them by the agency offering the promotion. They passed the test. If they had been ethnic minorities who all passed, and the testing criteria were changed because no whites had passed, the inherent racism would be painfully clear.

The firefighters did not have inherent entitlement, they had meritorious entitlement, which is legitimate, and what we all strive for. Ginsberg is 100% wrong.

[The Angry Optimist]

"meritorious entitlement"? you're telling me that you believe that people are entitled to a job? that they have a right to it that forces the employer to hire them?

Something tells me that we're dumping the principles of federalism, negative rights and home rule in the interest of sticking it to affirmative action. come on now.

[Troy]

This is a travesty because the supreme court just legalized descrimination (sic) ..... at least against underperforming black men.

[creech]

What good are our laws when they are so ambiguous that nine learned judges keep splitting 5-4 over the constitutionality of said laws? How the hell is the layman supposed to know how to follow laws that can't be easily interpreted?

[domoarrigato]

TAO,

I think the issue is not whether they had a vested right to promotion, but the reasons for which the decision not to promote were made. That reason was racially discriminatory. Ginsburg's argument is a dangerous red herring which distracts from the core issue of discrimination.

[P Brooks]

The only solution to this thorny issue is to hold a lottery. No job-specific qualifications necessary.

[RBS]

I would say their right to promotion vested when they fulfilled all of the requirements set forth for promotion

[Peter]

"[T]he Government must treat citizens as individuals, not as simply components of a racial, reli-gious, sexual or national class." Miller v. Johnson, 515
U. S. 900, 911 (1995)

[brotherben]

"nine learned judges "

Ya know, I am not nearly as educated or smart as most posters here and that made me giggle.

[Peter]

The only solution to this thorny issue is to hold a lottery. No job-specific qualifications necessary.

The only solution is to give tests that are unquestionably job-related and then go with the results no matter who passed. Did that happen here? Who knows, noboy has seen the test questions.

[The Angry Optimist]

RBS - if you fulfill all of the requirements for a promotion at your private job, and you don't get it, do you believe you should have government recourse?

The real issue here is in the legislature: Under Title VII, New Haven was fucked coming and going. Bitching about either decision the SCOTUS made is the true red herring here. The problem is Title VII, not tiny little New Haven's attempt to comply with the law.

[SugarFree]

TAO,

There is some contract issues due to good faith, right? They were told "If you do A then B," not "if you do A and are the right color, Then B."

But it shouldn't be on a federal level.

[jhn]

Jeepers creepers, did any of you actually read the opinion? The Court didn't even consider any constitutional claims.

It's based pretty narrowly on Title 7 disparate impact law, the wisdom or legality of which was not discussed.

Under the law, which again was not up before the court for review, if there's a disparate impact in govt jobs, there has to a good job-related reason for it, or it gets thrown out.

Today's decision: The Plaintiffs showed that the test was job-related, and the City failed to show any good reasons why it wasn't.

The dissent saw the evidence another way.

Both the majority and the dissent, however, operated under the disparate impact framework, which is what most of you are bitching about and WHICH ISN'T DISCUSSED IN THIS CASE.

[R C Dean]

But they had no vested right to promotion.

So, if a fire department never promoted any blacks, that would be OK because they had no vested right to promotions, either?

Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them.

Clearly, though, the intent was to deny some of the qualifying whites their promotions in order to give those slots to minorities. Arguably, there is a ripeness issue here, but c'mon, would anyone say this case wasn't ripe if the people who passed the test and were denied promotion were black?

[Russ R.]

TAO,

"Something tells me that we're dumping the principles of federalism, negative rights and home rule in the interest of sticking it to affirmative action."

Agree entirely with your assessment, but since we can't have it both ways, what would you prefer?

Seems like this is the lesser of two evils (at least in the short run).

[domoarrigato]

TAO,

I see your point that New Haven got the shaft - that said this is a substantive issue. The fed's broke it with Title VII, now they own the problem.

[booya]

This is a tough one ... on one hand, the New Haven case demonstrates how stupidly affirmitave action is applied. It was patently unfair and discriminatory. On the other hand . . . we are talking, loosely, about federalism and negative rights.
Here is where I draw a line . . . equal protection under the law that extends to all Americans. Even though laws may be senseless or stupid, every American should have a reasonable expectation that he will be protected under them along with every other citizen. Ergo, discrimination is discrimination, be it against black or white.

[domoarrigato]

Both the majority and the dissent, however, operated under the disparate impact framework, which is what most of you are bitching about and WHICH ISN'T DISCUSSED IN THIS CASE.

Could you expand a bit? I don't get it... Not a legal eagle here...

[P Brooks]

If you are told promotions will be made from members of a "qualified" pool of candidates, and promotions are made from a completely different group of people, there is justification for dissatisfaction.

Should every single dissatisfied person seek recourse in the federal courts? I'll let you decide.

[The Angry Optimist]

domo - he's basically saying Title VII is the problem. And he's being dickish about it.

[Peter]

Seems like this is the lesser of two evils (at least in the short run).

That's the way I see it too. If it went the other way, where all that mattered in claims such as this are the results, then what is to stop a city from just asking what race every applicant associates with, and then picking an even number of each? The results aren't racially biased but the methods are. Personally I would rather worry about the methods than the results.

[domoarrigato]

yeah got that - just wondered if someone could provide a quick summary of the disparate impact framework and what the problem is...

[R C Dean]

I guess the majority was just showing its empathy with the firefighters who were denied promotion, and the minority didn't show any empathy at all.

Odd, then, that the empathy nominee got overturned by the empathy majority, no?

[Peter]

R C Dean, I guess we know who really has empathy then, no?

[alan]

Something tells me that we're dumping the principles of federalism, negative rights and home rule in the interest of sticking it to affirmative action. come on now.

It is a bit of a dodge to claim states rights when the reason for the township to throw out the test was to be in compliance to previous federal court coercion.

Entitled to a job? Of course not, but that is not a necessary condition to establish that discrimination occurred in regard to equal protection under the law. That too is a bit of a dodge from our lovely honor Ginsberg who was so right in last week's case.

Civil rights is one the most all encompassing areas of the Federal government's mandate. If the original Civil Rights Act is legitimate law than these fire fighters certainly have a case. It would be liberals engaged in pretzel logic not to recognize this to be the necessary outcome.

[John-David]

The only solution is to give tests that are unquestionably job-related and then go with the results no matter who passed. Did that happen here? Who knows, noboy has seen the test questions.

34) After breaking down the front door of a burning building, you see a bucket of delicious fried chicken on the counter. Which action is most appropriate?
A) Ignore the tasty goodness
B) Look for the biscuits and mashed potatoes
C) Look in the refrigerator for a Mickey's Big Mouth

[The Angry Optimist]

domo - think of it this way: adverse impact describes a hiring practice that is facially neutral but substantively discriminatory. Analogous to a poll tax or a literacy requirement like in Jim Crow-days.

Both sides evaluated this case from that framework, and like I was saying, New Haven was boned by adverse impact with either decision it made (If it went with the test, the test has an adverse impact on blacks. If it changes the requirements, the change has an adverse impact on whites).

[Peter]

Might an alternative examination process have identified the most qualified candidates without creating such significant racial imbalances?

Maybe someone could explain this quote from Ginsberg to me, but how can there be more than one set of "most qualified candidates"? If you change the test to not have such a disparate impact, then some of the candidates previously determined to be qualified will be rejected won't they? The only solution I see would be to expand the number of promotions so that everyone moved up a notch.

[domoarrigato]

TAO,

given a certain number of promotion slots, its a zero-sum game. therefore any action that would change the racial mix of promotions has an adverse impact. Are the intentions of the action not taken into account?

[Rich]

> What good are our laws when they are so ambiguous that nine learned judges keep splitting 5-4 over the constitutionality of said laws? How the hell is the layman supposed to know how to follow laws that can't be easily interpreted?

Ah HA!

[Peter]

34) After breaking down the front door of a burning building, you see a bucket of delicious fried chicken on the counter. Which action is most appropriate?
A) Ignore the tasty goodness
B) Look for the biscuits and mashed potatoes
C) Look in the refrigerator for a Mickey's Big Mouth

Exactly, if someone doesn't say ignore the tasty goodness they don't deserve to be a captain or lieutenant.

[hmm]

Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them.

That is something all cities do when there is an open case against them with regard to promotions. Filling the slot leaves them open to more attacks therefore they assign some poor bastard to operate in the position temporarily and never promote him. It's a pretty common tactic.

[kinnath]

There was a good summary of the test over at Slate last week. The test was written by a consulting firm that had been hired to ensure the creation of a race-neutral test.

Success on the test seemed to be driven in large part by detailed understanding of vast quantities of fire-fighting manuals -- as such it favored the "firebugs" -- the third and fourth generation firefighters that spent their free time reading manuals.

The opponents of the test said that it had no direct relationship to the ability of an individual to "lead" a group of firefighters through a real emergency, particularly the 50% or better of emergencies they get called to that have nothing to do with fires (i.e., extracting people from car wrecks).

Overall, it was a clusterfuck, but that didn't make the results of the test "racist" and there was no valid reason to throw out the results.

The city of New Haven will have to start over and make a better test next time around.

[SugarFree]

http://www.feministing.com/archives/016366.html,

D) Both B. and C.

[Nooge]

Of course some may see this ruling as evidence that we need a more racially diverse SCOTUS. A wise latina is exactly what we need.

Troll troll is troll.

[domoarrigato]

The only solution I see would be to expand the number of promotions so that everyone moved up a notch.

If everyone is promoted, then no body is. then its just a pay raise.

[jhn]

What, I'm being dickish to pontificating commenters who didn't even read the couple page syllabus before hitting "post"? Pardon me, I'm sick of the uninformed media, including this magazine, making a big deal out of really narrow Supreme Court decisions, and claiming they say things the most cursory glance will tell you they do not.

The law--Title 7--says that disparate impacts are illegal without good reason--you have to show that what causes them is job-related. In essence, the court ruled that the test WAS job-related (by saying that the city had failed to show that it wasn't). Thus, their actions in trying to comply with civil rights law in fact violated it, because those actions themselves were discriminatory without good reason.

The law is unchanged and non-job-related disparate impacts are still illegal. This case means that people challenging disparate impacts will need better evidence that what they're challenging is not job-related.

[RBS]

TAO- No I do not. I also would not have a problem if the firefighters were not promoted for reasons other than what actually happened. If the city had a better reason for denying promotion than not enough african americans passed so it must be unfair, then that would be fine. Anyway I was having some fun with Ginsburg's use of the term vest.

[SugarFree]

Bad cut n' paste, sorry guys. But that link is pretty funny in a WTF?!? sort of way.

[R C Dean]

The city of New Haven will have to start over and make a better test next time around.

Unfortunately, the definition of a "better test" seems to be one that somehow produces a Racially Appropriate outcome.

Because, what we are talking about here isn't making good promotions, its making promotions that won't get challenged in court.

[domoarrigato]

damn you SugarFree - another 20 minutes of eye gouging feministing reading...

[Nooge]

http://www.feministing.com/archives/016366.html

How do you peruse that site without destroying your keyboard? I can only find it funny in a weird, disturbing way.

Made it halfway through the comments and there wasn't one "WTF, why would anybody do this?" sort of comment.

[SugarFree]

Can they just not give the test and say "OK, the top five whites, five Hispanics, and five blacks get the fifteen promotions." It's upfront, clearly establishes the parameters of the now undefined quota, and disallows any shenanigans after the test.

[RBS]

SugarFree, isn't Pop generally associated with men? Like dads and granddads? I see this kid resenting his asshole parents in the near future.

[Peter]

Bad cut n' paste, sorry guys. But that link is pretty funny in a WTF?!? sort of way.

That makes me think of The Boy Called It from high school psychology. Their weird Swedish names make it hard for me to determine if by "feminist parents" they mean lesbian?

[kinnath]

Unfortunately, the definition of a "better test" seems to be one that somehow produces a Racially Appropriate outcome.

Another issue was the decision to promote the top 5 (or some another number) based solely on the test score. So the black guy that was a fraction of a percent behind the white guy above him was automatically excluded.

Potential remedies include usin the test to identify the pool of qualified candidate which are then narrowed down based upon other factors . . .

The bottom line is they took decision-making out of the process by using only numerical scores, and thereby, made the situation as bad or worse than actually interviewing candidates and making value judgements.

[hmm]

At every stage of the job analyses, IOS,
by deliberate choice, oversampled minority firefighters to
ensure that the results-which IOS would use to develop
the examinations-would not unintentionally favor white
candidates.

I wonder why no other court even considered this.

[alan]

Just a suggestion, Mr Root. Warn us when you are linking to pdf files. I'm back to using Firefox, and it handles them like Ziggy Stardust handles a fat chick.

[SugarFree]

RBS,

SugarFree, isn't Pop generally associated with men? Like dads and granddads? I see this kid resenting his asshole parents in the near future.

The parents are from Sweden, so I assume it means something non-gendered there.

Beside, why raise a kid without gender? Ryker's going to fuck them either way.

[SugarFree]

like Ziggy Stardust handles a fat chick

Like some cat from Japan?

[brotherben]

Nooge, I wasn't trolling, just making a snarky prediction. After reading her "wise latina" comment, I don't know that any other info is necessary to disallow her from the court.

[The Angry Optimist]

given a certain number of promotion slots, its a zero-sum game. therefore any action that would change the racial mix of promotions has an adverse impact. Are the intentions of the action not taken into account?

The intentions are taken into account. I haven't read the decision, but I would imagine that New Haven's version of Al Sharpton is what swung the case this way.

[hmm]

Sixty-six percent of the
panelists were minorities, and each of the nine three-member assessment panels contained two minority members.

Jesus it gets even more ridiculous. The only thing they didn't do is hire all minorities to do the testing.

[Peter]

SugarFree, isn't Pop generally associated with men? Like dads and granddads? I see this kid resenting his asshole parents in the near future.

If it's a boy and they teach him to pee sitting down, or worse yet, only take him in the women's bathroom with them way after he is too old then all that says to me is future sexual predator. It's like a "ticking-time-bomb", Obama should do something!

Maybe it's just me being sexist, but I don't see how "feminist" parents could want to hide their daughter's gender since women are obviously so much better than men, so it has to be a boy IMO.

[alan]

How do you peruse that site without destroying your keyboard? I can only find it funny in a weird, disturbing way.

Made it halfway through the comments and there wasn't one "WTF, why would anybody do this?" sort of comment.

My favorite was when SugarFree linked to the discussion of marriage ceremonies. It was seriously icky how these ladies went about describing the need for validation, and the people present, especially their parents, as mere props to be moved around in their bizarre fantasy.

[Peter]

My favorite was when SugarFree linked to the discussion of marriage ceremonies. It was seriously icky how these ladies went about describing the need for validation, and the people present, especially their parents, as mere props to be moved around in their bizarre fantasy.

Link? Link?? LINK!

[alan]

Like some cat from Japan?

Could have been describing a rather involved session of masturbation, it is Ziggy we are talking about, after all. Yanked his spine out after a post op, interesting twist.

[RBS]

Peter- My guess is the child is actually a boy or they probably would not be going to such great lengths to hide its gender. And yes this kid is on the fast track to a sex offender list.

[hmm]

Ude is a civil rights lawyer for a LBGT rights firm. Losing at that level has to a be a blow. I'm sure such views had no impact on his decision to persuade the civil board to toss out the tests.

[domoarrigato]

poor kid. no chance the kid will avoid a lifetime of psychotherapy.

[John C. Randolph]

they weren't entitled to a promotion. full stop. anyone here think they were?

Their employer told them that certain actions on their part would result in promotion. They performed those actions, and their employer reneged on that commitment on racially discriminatory grounds.

Sotomayor fucked up.

-jcr

[P Brooks]

The bottom line is they took decision-making out of the process by using only numerical scores, and thereby, made the situation as bad or worse than actually interviewing candidates and making value judgements.

This is the new paradigm; evade qualitative judgements (and, hence, responsibility) at all costs.

[hmm]

They were not entitled to be promoted. They did follow all the rules to acquire the top slots from which the promotions would be determined.

This is one of the major problems with Title VII bullshit. There will almost always be a disparate impact on a minority somewhere. Such a standard is a ludicrous (not the rapper). The city was fucked from the get go. The good part is they choose to fuck the white guys and those guys fought back and finally someone made it to the end of the line and showed how retarded such a standard is.

[John C. Randolph]

This is a travesty because the supreme court just legalized descrimination.

Joe, were you trying to make a lame joke, or did you not understand which side one?

The court struck down an attempt to discriminate on the basis of race.

-jcr

[Peter]

Sotomayor fucked up.

I still like to think that she BSed her decision in order to make the SCOUTS decide it instead, call me an optimist, but I almost want to like her, she reminds me of that South Park when Cartman makes "Hennifer Lopez" out of his hand.

[hmm]

he bottom line is they took decision-making out of the process by using only numerical scores, and thereby, made the situation as bad or worse than actually interviewing candidates and making value judgements.

Cities do this because many have a history of discrimination based on everything from nepotism to race.

[The Angry Optimist]

tacos! Taco-flavored kisses for my Beeeeen.

[domoarrigato]

JCR,

I think the joke is that a simpleminded version of "racial discrimination" is any outcome where the black person doesn't get a leg up.

[Bill]

"Entitled to promotion"?

In general terms, i.e., were they "entitled" because they has served as firefighters for a certain number of years, or had received good job reviews? No. Of course not.

But - they had been invited to apply, and given the opportunity to take the requisite test, all based on the understanding that those who met the criteria set forth - i.e., passing the test - would be promoted.

They did what was required. It's very much like a contract by performance. "If you meet these criteria and pass this test, we will promote you to lieutenant." So you do everything they ask - and in Ricci's case, making an extra effort and scoring much higher than most other candidates - and they say, "oops, sorry, yes, you passed, but too many of the wrong kind of people passed, so, sorry, no promotion for you." Or - "oops, sorry - those guys DIDN'T pass, so they don't get promoted - so even though you DID pass, you don't get promoted either.

[Peter]

Such a standard is a ludicrous (not the rapper).

Speaking of Ludacris, it's racist that there aren't more white rappers and black country singers. It's also racist that Adam Morrison didn't get to play at all in the NBA finals while Kobe played nearly the entire time.

[R C Dean]

Sotomayor fucked up.

Apparently, even the dissent agreed that it should not have been summarily dismissed. So, it was a 9-0 vote that their next colleague fucked up.

[domoarrigato]

RC Dean - see, even so, it seems that 4 justices agreed with her conclusion, so it's not really that bad for her. You are the lawyer here, though - does it make her confirmation any less assured?

[SugarFree]

Peter,

Adventures in Feminist Wedding Planning

[mitch]

interviewing candidates and making value judgements.

Come on, kinnath; in local government "value judgements" means "I gotta promote four guys, it'll be 1)my boss's nephew, 2)that guy the community organizers are pushing, 3)the son of the guy who donated all that money to the mayor's election campaign, and 4)someone from the same ethnic group as the head of the city council."

[Sean W. Malone]

TAO:

The way I've always looked at it is that public entities *do* need to be non-discriminatory.

Any government sponsored entity is paid by public money and therefore must reflect neutral hiring & firing practices. Private entities, on the other hand, which don't have the power to obtain funds by force can do whatever they wish. But if the city has a defined test used for hiring, they cannot be allowed to throw out the results simply because the right racial mix didn't manifest itself.

[domoarrigato]

[5+] Bethany replied to bifemmefatale :
my cousin walked down the aisle herself and had her husband meet her halfway. I thought that was really nice. They had other things in the ceremony for all four of their parents to do. If I get married, I think I'd like to do that.

Bethany could make the whole prospect that much more likely by taking morning walks and eating fewer carbs.

[Jonny Scrum-half]

Scalia's concurrence nails it. The problem is disparate-impact analysis, which he notes is not an easy issue to address in circumstances like this. That's why it was a 5-4 decision.

The solution is to get rid of "disparate impact" claims, and require employees to prove intentional discrimination.

[Peter]

Peter,

Adventures in Feminist Wedding Planning

My day just got sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much more interesting.

[hmm]

I think I said it here. When Sotomayor gets appointed she is going to be absolutely demolished in dissents by her fellow judges. I don't agree with what a lot of Scalia says, but I can't wait to see him wade into Sotomayor with the full force of an Italian with vocabulary and grammar skills. She is going to learn the meaning of baptism by fire.

[R C Dean]

You are the lawyer here, though - does it make her confirmation any less assured?

Not at all. Her confirmation is wired in because she was nominated by a popular President who has a large majority in the Senate. No decision or course of decisions she could possibly have made (other than voting to overturn Roe v. Wade) could possibly block her confirmation.

Confirmation is about politics, not competence.

[SugarFree]

Peter,

And since it hasn't been linked in a while, here's my absolute favorite thread ever from Feministing. Below is my favorite comment from it:

Aerik Knapp-Loomis said:

My first thoughts about Knocked Up always go to when the star of the movie "misinterprets" a whine of "Hurry up and do it" to skip putting on a condom on altogether instead of hurrying up with putting it on. As far as I'm concern, rape by negligence. She didn't want unprotected sex and he purposely made it into unsafe sex.

Of course, the best part is what's not there. Not one commenter disputes this comment. Not one.

[kinnath]

Cities do this because many have a history of discrimination based on everything from nepotism to race.

This is what I call the process of institutionzlized stupidity.

The government hires someone and puts that person in a decision making position (thinks judges, administrators, managers, so on, and so forth). A pattern of undesireable decisions arise (due to some combination ofdiscrimination, politics, incompentence, and in some cases, criminal intent). The government then institutes a rulebook that must be followed to the letter without interpretation or variation by a replacement decision maker. Hilarity ensues.

[JB]

I love all the racists who want easy tests for minorities. They think minorities are so stupid they can't get by on their merits. Awful racism.

[Peter]

rape[d] by negligence

I think this should be a song title.

[JB]

Sugarfree,

Do you date women? Reading Feministing can't be helpful in that regard.

[SugarFree]

Date women? I'm married to one. [shudder]

[hmm]

This is what I call the process of institutionzlized stupidity.

Five minutes in civil service and you quickly realize that stupidity crosses all boundaries and exists in all planes and dimensions. Something that has struck me as odd is that I can personally point to three local governments with entirely black departments in municipalities that are at least 50/50 for race composition, no one even bats an eye about it.

[JB]

Date women? I'm married to one. [shudder]

Ok, makes sense why you read that site then. It makes your wife look so much better in comparison. Why cheat when you know the grass isn't greener, but ugly, brittle, and bitter?

[Peter]

blatant, undisguised vagina hate

I seriously think I could make an entire tracklist for a CD out of quotes from that site. I just need an album name...

[Sean W. Malone]

"Ok, makes sense why you read that site then. It makes your wife look so much better in comparison. Why cheat when you know the grass isn't greener, but ugly, brittle, and bitter?"

ZING!

[SugarFree]

"Ok, makes sense why you read that site then. It makes your wife look so much better in comparison. Why cheat when you know the grass isn't greener, but ugly, brittle, and bitter?"

Yikes. Although I primarily read Feministing for the comedy. I've nominated it several times for Best Humor Site to the Bloggys.

[Nooge]

brotherben,

My bad.

My favorite was when SugarFree linked to the discussion of marriage ceremonies. It was seriously icky how these ladies went about describing the need for validation, and the people present, especially their parents, as mere props to be moved around in their bizarre fantasy.

I see that he posted the link to this, but I confess I just don't have the courage to read it.

Curious that whackos like the people who write at Feministing are one of the reasons my wife hesitates to call herself a "feminist." Direct quote from my wife reading Feministing: "Are these people insane, or are they retarded?"

[Peter]

Are these people insane, or are they retarded?

D) Both B. and C.

SugarFree answered that a few hours ago.

[JB]

Curious that whackos like the people who write at Feministing are one of the reasons my wife hesitates to call herself a "feminist."

I won't date a woman who calls herself a feminist. It's one of my early questions. That gets rid of a whole host of whackjobs.

[Peter]

I won't date a woman who calls herself a feminist. It's one of my early questions. That gets rid of a whole host of whackjobs.

Do you just walk away if they say yes? I think I would try to mess with them a little. Go to a nice restaurant and then order for them. "I'll have the 2 lb. stake, and a salad for the lady." Open the door and then when they try to walk through just jump in in front of them and drop it behind you. This sounds like an enjoyable game to play, see how long they last through the night.

[Jennifer]

There are a lot of horny and extremely lonely men on this comment thread.

[domoarrigato]

JB,

I won't date a woman who calls herself a feminist. It's one of my early questions.

Where do you live? here in nyc, almost all girls identify themselves thusly. The remaining question is whether they are from the Camille Paglia I'll-fuck-who-i-want school, or the NOW school of I'll-make-your-ears-bleed.

[libertymike]

The disparate impact doctrine itself is racist. To equate disparate impact with Jim Crow era practices such as the poll tax is just idiotic.

[wayne]

I followed the wedding link, and I have to say that reading about weddings is boring, even with the wacky feministing twists. I would rather talk about Ricci.

[R C Dean]

domo, is there an I'll-fuck-you-until-your-ears-bleed school of feminists? Because if there is, I may move to New York.

[HBD]

At some point, as the facts come in, people are going to have to choose between treating people as individuals or ensuring equal outcomes for racial groups. Which will it be?

[domoarrigato]

I'll-fuck-you-until-your-ears-bleed school of feminists

[domoarrigato]

Yes there is

SugarFree'd it.

[The Angry Optimist]

There are a lot of horny and extremely lonely men on this comment thread.

I can only assume that you're a frigid maneater.

Or do unwarranted, nasty assumptions only run one-way?

[bizarro]

The fact that Blacks are so over-represented in professional sports shows the racist criteria used in hiring players for the NBA, NFL and MLB. These organizations must be prosecuted and "race-neutral" criteria must be employed to hire players.

[NYC Cynic]

here in nyc, almost all girls identify themselves thusly

Not to the men they actually hope will call them after the one-night stand. 😉

Chicks in new york all act tough to their girlfriends with that feminism crap. It's an act.