Savin' The White Man

[Howey]

Here's the latest right wing moment of rage:

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtontimes.com%2Fblog%2Fwatercooler%2F2011%2Fmar%2F18%2Fdoj-white-male-bullying-victims-tough-luck%2F&h=ccd27

The Civil Rights Division and the entire Justice Department are committed to ending bullying and harassment in schools, and the video highlights the Department’s authority to enforce federal laws that protect students from discrimination and harassment at school because of their race, national origin, disability, religion, and sex, including harassment based on nonconformity with gender stereotypes.

The statement later says:

The enforcement of the Equal Protection Clause, Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 in school districts is a top priority of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. Additional information is available at the Civil Rights Division’s Educational Opportunities Section website at www.justice.gov/crt/edo/.

Not in the Times article is this paragraph, which directly followed the above:

"The failure to address and prevent this kind of bullying and harassment violates Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in schools on the basis of a student’s sex, including his or her failure to conform to stereotypical notions about gender. It also reinforces intolerant and hateful behavior by allowing it to go unpunished."

Nowhere in there does it say anything about blacks.

Nowhere in there does it say that white men are exempt from protection under the Civil Rights Act. I'll bet some of the kids bullied are white. 

Isn't it funny that the white males denegrating the Civil Rights Act are the progeny of the white males whose actions created the need for Civil Rights Act?

[ekg]

I can't read that story-link.. but I think I found it anyway?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/mar/18/doj-white-male-bullying-victims-tough-luck/

I think the worry is, that since the DOJ says they only have the power to go after certain offenses..that whites who get beat will be SOL.... well no, local/state police can go still go after the offenders when it's a white kid, but the DOJ, since they are federal, can't..

Department’s authority to enforce federal laws that protect students from discrimination and harassment at school because of their race, national origin, disability, religion, and sex, including harassment based on nonconformity with gender stereotypes.

theoretical speaking, that does leave out 'white men'..

unless he is beaten/bullied by a group of blacks.. then it would be a race thing.... but if it was white on white.. the DOJ doesn't have the authority to do anything..

what I find funny is that this article and anyone making a stink are basically admitting that only whites can be bullies... Because like I said, if this was black on white, or all girls on one guy, it would fall under 'race' or 'sex'... so wtg  genius'! You're admitting that   bullies are  predominately white males..

[betteroffhere]

oh...i thought this was about...

someone else...and how obamalama was try'n to secure a solid source...

for an un named entertainer...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2014546915_obamasa20.html

or was try'n to shut down charlie's supplier....hmmm

[Howey]

I can't read that story-link.. but I think I found it anyway?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/mar/18/doj-white-male-bullying-victims-tough-luck/

That's it.

I can't read that story-link.. but I think I found it anyway?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/mar/18/doj-white-male-bullying-victims-tough-luck/

I think the worry is, that since the DOJ says they only have the power to go after certain offenses..that whites who get beat will be SOL....theoretical speaking, that does leave out 'white men'..

I respectfully disagree. The term "civil rights" is colorless and has been around since the days of Jefferson:

The term "rights" first appeared in the American political context in 1776 in the Declaration of Independence, which referred to rights as “unalienable” and applying to "all men," i.e., to all people (even though the founders didn't always practice what they preached), but the term "civil rights" did not appear until 1791, when it was used by Thomas Paine to whom it meant no less than what the term "unalienable rights" meant to Thomas Jefferson. "Civil rights", according to Paine, are based on the natural rights of every member of society. In his essay The Rights of Man, he states:

"Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, nor to have less rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured. His natural rights are the foundation of all of his civil rights. . . . Natural rights are those which always appertain to man in right of his existence. . . . Civil rights are those which appertain to man in right of his being a member of society. Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right pre-existing in the individual, but to which his individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently competent."

As I stated, this particular edict from the DOJ only deals with the bullying of children, some of whom may be gay or "different", some not.

The bully may be black or white, male or female - we don't know. The person bullied may be black or white, male or female - we don't know.

The law applies to everyone.

[lil mike]

That's it.

I respectfully disagree. The term "civil rights" is colorless and has been around since the days of Jefferson:

As I stated, this particular edict from the DOJ only deals with the bullying of children, some of whom may be gay or "different", some not.

The bully may be black or white, male or female - we don't know. The person bullied may be black or white, male or female - we don't know.

The law applies to everyone.

I'm afraid deputy assistant AG Julie Fernandes disagrees!