Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, November 01, 2017

The Democratic National Committee is hiring for some new positions in their Technology Team, including Chief Security Officer, IT Systems Administrator, and Product Manager. In the email soliciting job applications, it says that the DNC is looking for a "staff of diverse voices and life experiences."

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Unfortunately, according to the DNC's Data Service Manager Madeleine Leader, this desire for "diverse voices and life experiences" apparently doesn't extend to "cisgender straight white males." In the closing paragraph of the email, Leader said "I personally would prefer that you not forward to cisgender straight white males, as they are already in the majority."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Give us that ol' time Identity Politics, DNC!. Imagine if someone from the RNC had said "Don't forward this to any Mexicans, as there's already too many of them."

#1 | Posted by cookfish at 2017-11-01 06:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I guess in the DNC's eyes, white people who like the opposite sex don't offer any kind of diverse voices or life experiences. This philosophy should go over well in, say, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.

#2 | Posted by cookfish at 2017-11-01 06:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Wow.... asking for some minority candidates rather than adding to the majority.

That's deplorable.

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-01 06:29 PM | Reply

Wow,..excluding one group of people because you don't like their race and demographics.
That's...... exclusionary. So much for that "great big tent crap, huh, Cork?

#4 | Posted by cookfish at 2017-11-01 06:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

When one already has a pot full of rwing fish, say, one can be excused for not wanting more Cookfish.

Of course, diversity is a dirty word whitewing circles.

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-01 06:35 PM | Reply

A white male would have been smart enough to warn everyone not to forward a racist email in the first sentence, not the last paragraph. What a dumb ----.

Also, cisgender is a fancy word for "normal".

#6 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-01 06:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

"Also, cisgender is a fancy word for "normal".

Funny flag.

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-01 06:51 PM | Reply

Seriously, this is why the dems are such a pathetic lot.
It's hard enough to find a minority that wants to work, let alone a gay one...

#8 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-01 06:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If an email went out in my company saying anything remotely similar, they'd be facing EEOC charges and lawsuits.

And they'd lose.

#9 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-01 06:53 PM | Reply

Also, cisgender is a fancy word for "normal".

Yep.

Because if you were to call one group "normal", it would stand to reason everyone else is abnormal. So the term "cisgender" was created.

It's like when Crayons labeled their light peach color "flesh", which lead some to reason anyone who's skin tone wasn't a light peach was abnormal.

#10 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-01 07:11 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Here, you've got a Senior Manager of a Large Political Organization, supposedly known for its focus on diversity and equality, basically saying she will disqualify job candidates by their gender identification (Cisgender), sexual orientation (straight), and shin color (white). Disgusting.

#11 | Posted by cookfish at 2017-11-01 07:12 PM | Reply

It's hard enough to find a minority that wants to work, let alone a gay one...

Homosexuals tend to be employed and hard working.

#12 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-01 07:13 PM | Reply

Shack,
I know. Gays tend to also be above average income earners, as well as impeccably dressed.
Being factual was t my concern, I just wanted to be hateful.

#13 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-01 07:14 PM | Reply

Does anyone have Lamar Latrell's email address?
Sincerely,
Maddy Leader

#14 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-01 07:16 PM | Reply

I just wanted to be hateful.

I prefer it when your funny.

#15 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-01 08:28 PM | Reply

Town Hall a/k/a Angry White Guys reports.

#16 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-01 09:44 PM | Reply

aahhh red meat for the masses.

#17 | Posted by fresno500 at 2017-11-01 11:14 PM | Reply

Hmm. I think I might apply.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-01 11:35 PM | Reply

They are just looking to hire some chicks that the current nerd staff can ogle. Nerds deserve eye candy too.

#19 | Posted by bored at 2017-11-02 03:51 AM | Reply

Wow.... asking for some minority candidates rather than adding to the majority.
That's deplorable.

#3 | Posted by Corky

It's also a violation of federal law.

#20 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-02 07:49 AM | Reply

Is anybody going to actually defend this?

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-02 10:19 AM | Reply

"It's also a violation of federal law." - #20 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-02 07:49 AM

Asking recipients of an email message to not forward it to a certain group of people is a violation of federal law?

What federal law is that?

#22 | Posted by Hans at 2017-11-02 10:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Is anybody going to actually defend this?"

Sure, why not!

But first I need to know what I'm defending!

Are cisgender straight white males a protected class?

...

I'm kind of reminded of the Willy Wonka meme, "Looks like you're upset that whites are becoming a minority. Why, are minorities treated badly or something?"

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 12:28 PM | Reply

But first I need to know what I'm defending!

Discrimination.

#24 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-02 12:42 PM | Reply

Right, so I actually covered that...

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 12:47 PM | Reply

You're not that stupid, Hans. Don't be obtuse. She was directing her staff to violate The Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Public Law 88-352, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 253, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et. seq. states that prospective employers cannot discriminate based upon that employee's (or applicant's) race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Employment discrimination entails areas such as firing, hiring, promotions, transfer or wage practices and it is also illegal to discriminate in advertising, referral of job applicants, or classification.

#26 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-02 12:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Right, so I actually covered that...

#25 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

You did?

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-02 12:54 PM | Reply

"Are cisgender straight white males a protected class?"

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 12:58 PM | Reply

#27 It was all resolved in Willy Wonka vs. Oompa Loompa

#29 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-02 12:58 PM | Reply

"Are cisgender straight white males a protected class?"

#28 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Asking a question doesn't really address the issue.

To me, that question suggests you support this. But, I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'll await clarification.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-02 01:00 PM | Reply

I'm supportive of an organization's right to pursue diversity if they think that serves their mission. I'm pretty sure you are too, but perhaps you're not. Can never tell with you.

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 01:06 PM | Reply

"Wow.... asking for some minority candidates rather than adding to the majority.

That's deplorable."

Why does the left only see sexuality and skin color when it comes to diversity? The level of bigotry is amazing.

#32 | Posted by jamesgelliott at 2017-11-02 01:09 PM | Reply

Ok. So you support discrimination.

Thank you for answering honestly.

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-02 01:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Are cisgender straight white males a protected class?"

According to the EEOC they are. That description covers gender, sexual orientation, race, color, and sex.

#34 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-02 01:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm supportive of an organization's right to pursue diversity, by discriminating against other people based on their sex, race, and gender identification, if they think that serves their mission.

-Snuffy

#35 | Posted by cookfish at 2017-11-02 01:51 PM | Reply

The left certainly doesn't approve of diversity of thought. That's why anyone who disagrees with them is a Nazi, bigot, woman hating, homophobe.

#36 | Posted by jamesgelliott at 2017-11-02 01:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It is okay to be white

#37 | Posted by mutant at 2017-11-02 02:13 PM | Reply

It is okay to be white

Posted by mutant at 2017-11-02 02:13 PM | Reply

Not unless you're an albino. If you are white something is terribly wrong with your red blood cells. It's best to be pink.

#38 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-02 02:16 PM | Reply

"So you support discrimination.
Thank you for answering honestly."

Of course I support discrimination.

When you get 500 resumes for one job, you necessarily narrow down the field.

That's discrimination.

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 02:16 PM | Reply

I'm supportive of an organization's right to pursue diversity, by discriminating against other people based on their sex, race, and gender identification, if they think that serves their mission.

You forgot "provided it's legal to do so."

That's what every business does.

If you guys ever hired people you'd know this stuff.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 02:18 PM | Reply

"Why does the left only see sexuality and skin color when it comes to diversity?"

Because you're hogging all the fat chicks?

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 02:20 PM | Reply

When you get 500 resumes for one job, you necessarily narrow down the field.
That's discrimination.

#39 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Are you actually conflating qualifications and achievement with race and sex?

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-02 02:21 PM | Reply

Conflating?
I think people can generally hire who they like.
Do you think they can't?
Do you think they shouldn't be able to?

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 02:23 PM | Reply

#43 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

So, if a Republican were to send an email to his staff saying, "Only hire white, heterosexual men." you'd be cool with that?

#44 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-02 02:24 PM | Reply

No JeffJ. I'd surely pee my pants, just like you are.

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 02:25 PM | Reply

Just to be clear, it is perfectly legal to have a policy to advance diversity in the workplace but it is against the law to restrict applications based on any race, sexual orientation or gender during the process.

This email violates most state and federal employment laws and the sender should be fired.

#46 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-02 02:27 PM | Reply

Jeff isn't peeing his pants, Snoofy, he is just rubbing your nose, yet again, in the hypocrisy of the Left.

#47 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-02 02:29 PM | Reply

"This email violates most state and federal employment laws and the sender should be fired."

See #40.

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 02:31 PM | Reply

Conflating?
I think people can generally hire who they like.
Do you think they can't?
Do you think they shouldn't be able to?

#43 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Do you feel the same about cake bakers?

#49 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-02 02:32 PM | Reply

I already read that Snoofy.

It is against the law to tell your employees to not forward a job offering to anyone of a particular class, protected or otherwise.

This person is retarded and should be fired.

#50 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-02 02:34 PM | Reply

RoC:

"I personally would prefer" is actionable?

Also, it's in reference to forwarding the job description to personal acquaintances, as best I can tell, which is different from posting a Help Wanted ad.

It's certainly suspect to put that in an email. I would guess a big factor is: does the sender have hiring authority, and are they wearing that hat when they issue their personal opinion.

I'm completely fine with this being diversity pushed too far, but I'm not convinced it is. Hooters comes to mind.

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 02:37 PM | Reply

"Do you feel the same about cake bakers?"

A customer, you ought to serve, all things being equal.
But you ought not hire every applicant.
(You also can't hire everyone.)

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 02:41 PM | Reply

#52

If the sentence said "I personally would prefer no lesbian asian transgenders" that would actionable, just as "no straight white men" is. Since this came from the Data Services Manager asking for applicants, she not only had apparent authority but was speaking for management.

#53 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-02 05:23 PM | Reply

"just as "no straight white men""

What exactly is the protected class there? "White?"

Because absent the ERA I don't see how it's "men" and I don't see anything protecting "straight."

#54 | Posted by Snoofy at 2017-11-02 05:29 PM | Reply

I'm also wondering about "prefer.". That's not an outright rejection. Any wiggle room there?

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 05:32 PM | Reply

"It is against the law to tell your employees to not forward a job offering to anyone of a particular class, protected or otherwise."

I just noticed "Or otherwise."
That part is interesting.
Can I get some more details on that?

I have been approaching this from the angle that only discrimination against protected classes would run afoul of the law, but apparently there's more to it than that.

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 07:37 PM | Reply

What?

No preferred age?

Why stop there?

#57 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2017-11-02 10:04 PM | Reply

I guess that would be discrimination.

#58 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2017-11-02 10:05 PM | Reply

So it's illegal to say "Here at Starbucks, we're planning to hire 1000 Veterans?"

Because they said that.

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 10:35 PM | Reply

#59 You are clearly the worst kind of stupid - the kind that refuses to learn. I wish I could write this in crayon for you to help you: "Veteran" is not "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" and therefore giving hiring preferences to someone who served in the military (which is analogous to giving a hiring preference to someone with job experience in a given field) is not an EEOC violation. You need to stop posting before you sprain a synapse.

#60 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-03 09:20 AM | Reply

Liberals don't believe blacks can be racist so I doubt they will see this is discrimination.

#61 | Posted by Billjohnson at 2017-11-03 10:41 AM | Reply

Mustang, I learned that a long time ago.

#62 | Posted by jamesgelliott at 2017-11-03 04:51 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort