Democrat's Continued Assault On Whites

You're asking for explicitly racist policy or programs - like some legislative body wrote an explicitly racist bill and it became law. Systemic racism isn't like that.

Policing is an easy target for recognizing systemic racism. Read about the police force in Charlottesville. The Charlottesville politicians didn't write some law that requires the police to do what they are doing. But, there is absolutely NO question that there is profound racism there. And, there is significant political pressure to allow that to continue.

This issue of systems being structured in reasonably natural ways, yet resulting in outcomes that are detestable isn't unique to racism. We do that with women, too. In my high tech career I've almost never seem women that I could hire. They had all been pretty much weeded out by a system of education and socialization that has pushed women away from engineering careers. Does anybody really think women aren't just as capable of engineering as are men? In the end, we see average compensation for women being significantly lower than that of men, in part because of this systemic issue.

 

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

― John G. Roberts Jr.

IS RACE DISCRIMINATION ILLEGAL?

"Minneapolis teachers union contract calls for layoffs of white teachers first. That sounds like naked race discrimination by a government entity. A Minneapolis teachers union contract stipulates that white teachers will be laid off or reassigned before “educators of color” in the event Minneapolis Public Schools (MPS)"

"The agreement adds that non-white teachers, as well as those working in various programs, “may be exempted from district-wide layoff outside seniority order.” The agreement also prioritizes the reinstatement of teachers from “underrepresented populations” over white teachers."

Constitutional?

"This violates a well-known Supreme Court decision overturning the race-based layoff of a white teacher, and contradicts a well-known federal appeals court decision, which ruled that race-based layoffs of white teachers violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act."

They knew this was illegal, make the racist bastards pay and pay dearly as a lesson to others.

"It is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. When it comes to termination (as opposed to hiring or promotion under an affirmative-action plan), an employer can’t racially discriminate. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 1996 that an school district can’t consider race even as a tie-breaker, in deciding who to lay off, even to promote diversity, because that
(a) unduly trammels the disfavored colored teacher’s rights.
(b) the school district couldn’t consider race to promote diversity when black people weren’t seriously underrepresented in its workforce as a whole. That ruling was Taxman v. Board of Education of Piscataway, 91 F.3d 1547 (3d Cir. 1996)."

"Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (1986), the Supreme Court overturned race-based layoffs. The Court said a school district can’t lay off disfavored color teachers to remedy societal discrimination against blacks."

"The provision also appears to be unconstitutional because there does not appear to be a “strong basis in evidence” for the collective bargaining agreement’s claim that there are “continuing effects of past discrimination by the District.” The Supreme Court requires proponents of racial preferences to have a “strong basis in evidence” for the claim that blacks were subjected to discrimination by the institution giving them a preference, and that there are lingering effects of that discrimination. Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996)."

"The teachers’ union may share liability with the school district." Good!

"Since the teachers union supported the adoption of this discriminatory provision, it may also be liable for discrimination along with the school district. Unions are subject to liability for racial discrimination under Title VII, see, e.g., Woods v. Graphic Communications (1991), and the Supreme Court has ruled that people who conspire with the government to discriminate can sometimes be sued along with it, see Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co. (1971)."

This is a open example of a conspiracy to violate the civil rights of others because of their skin color and those that engage in this great evil need to pay a very stiff and unforgettably price.

Too many on the Left do not hesitate to violate "the rule of law, but they think nothing of engaging in race discrimination that is plainly illegal under federal court precedents. The Upper Midwest Law Center has already put out a call for injured teachers to contact the Law Center, whose work you can support here."

This is important work in the ongoing task of perfecting our Constitutional Liberal Democracy."

 

Yes it is.

 

Willing is irrelevant, it will be taken.

 

Besides my previous post in response to this, let me add another explicit example.

Republicans are using redistricting to reduce the possibility of minority representation.