In the video below, Megyn Kelly of reputable Fox News dissects the "good little socialists" hullaballoo in Seattle.
But before the analysis of Kelly's reporting, a short history outlining the situation follows. First, on the bedrock of U.S. data, the Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI) was implemented in Seattle in 2005 to, among other goals, "eliminate race-based disparities in our communities."
Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn stated recently on his Website the all-too-true American dictum that "race is still a leading indicator of our health, income, education, and every other indicator of success." "If we want to end racial inequities, then we need to be specific about the problem so we can develop meaningful strategies for change."
Next, Seattle Police Officer Steve Pomper wrote an editorial in the police guild's December 2010 issue of the Guardian newsletter. In it, he laments the socialization of America via the introduction of the RSJI being integrated into all county government departments, including the vaunted Seattle Police Department.
Then, the Stranger, a progressive weekly in Seattle, broke the story, because Pomper's article was just another in a litany of articles: "However, editorials relating to police conduct often contain incendiary themes: disdain for civilian oversight, the idea that city hall is too liberal for its own good, and an insistence that city-sponsored programs pushing for racial and social justice must be stopped."
Finally, Megyn Kelly thinks this is a great weapon to use against all enemies, imagined or resuscitated from the dead, and begins to report an inordinate number of things falsely.
First, she states that Pomper wrote "that his department stopped enforcing laws that impact minorities more than the average Joe." What Pomper actually wrote was that "employing the RSJI, the City of Seattle is actually deciding on which people do or do not 'merit punishment' for a crime, based upon their race, ethnic heritage, and/or socio-economic status."
Because Kelly invokes the Constitution (and so does Pomper), then one must realize, as do these two, that the judicial branch metes out "punishment", not the police force! Thus, the police will continue to "enforce" laws, but in terms of what individual police officers do, this is precisely what eventually creates a "spirit of laws," as opposed to the "letter of the law." Many people have been stopped for moving violations such as speeding and instead of being cited were just warned. Is not this also an interpretation by the individual police officer?
Second, Megyn Kelly states that "the city's Web site in Seattle claims that jobs that require college degrees are racist." Again, what the RSJI states is:
"Institutional racism is when organizational programs or policies work to the benefit of white people and to the detriment of people of color, usually unintentionally or inadvertently. For example, job requirements that put undue emphasis on college degrees over work experience may eliminate qualified candidates of color, who face institutional barriers to higher education."
The RSJI was introduced for the primary purpose of eradicating the fact of institutionalized racism; hence, the operative phrase is "undue emphasis", not simply whether a job requires a degree.
This makes sense, too. As a guideline for public employment—not private—in which all qualified members of a community can seek employment and not be disbarred from gainful employment or promotions because of what is quite often the moot and unnecessary hoop of a degree requirement, is appealing--both because of one's feeling of fairness and access to equal opportunity and also because oftentimes the person, whose experience has more than excellently fulfilled the actual job requirements as opposed to the hoop requirements, will not be denied a position, based on failure to jump through a hoop.
Moreover, as data show, it is quite evident how requiring a college degree is a form--unintentional, inadvertent, or not--of institutionalized racism. But Megyn Kelly articulates with panache her rebuttal to this example: "Well, i-i-it also may just institute candidates who are white who just couldn't go to college." (Whatever that means)
Third, she says City Prosecutors have "stopped enforcing traffic and drug laws." As Pomper himself notes, "so far this only applies to DWLS3." In a sleight of hand, Kelly has managed to turn the same issue into two separate issues. Of course, that is to be understood when her first attack of it was false. This issue for Kelly, alas, is a little more complex.
A DWLS3 (or driving with a license suspended)Â "is considered the least serious [of DWLS] and generally occurs when your license was suspended because of unpaid tickets. A conviction for a DWLS 3 will often result in a simple fine."
According to City Attorney Pete Holmes, though, "the disproportionate number of blacks being charged is a direct result of economic inequalities," and furthermore "it's a waste of city resources to prosecute those cases."
Fourth, Kelly then states her most outrageous falsehood yet: "they're also, openly admitting to, requesting less jail time for illegal immigrants who are arrested for crimes because they want to prevent the feds from deporting them." In bold is the bold-faced lie Kelly spouts. In fact, Holmes is "considering a one-day reduction in the minimum sentence for misdemeanor crimes so as to not trigger the deportation of legal immigrants convicted of crimes in the city."
Although Fox News may want to make this a political issue, there are always competing motives and repercussions for an action. Reducing the misdemeanor minimum sentence from 365 days to 364 is still a long time for the person convicted; also, it lessens the burden on Immigration to deport people who aren't a safety or health threat to the community.
Yet, this isn't good enough for those people who rely on a book of laws to tell them what to do. They are not of the type to think that existing rules or laws might be draconian, irrelevant, or disproportional.
Why is it that Megyn Kelly said "illegal" instead of the truth? Perhaps she doesn't have an agenda; perhaps it is just as she said, "I confess I don't know a lot about the initiative."
But then again, maybe it is that she does have an agenda: "To now say that an employer who wants college educated people is a racist is going raise a lot of eyebrows from folks."
Of course, raising eyebrows, attracting consumers, selling your showÂ… that's what it's all about.
<noscript>Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com</noscript>]]>
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 29
What an evil beyotch, she will NOT be happy till a darkie is lynched. The KKK could make this beyotch an honorable Grand Dragon, what with her forked tongue and all.
Faux has been riling up Klan like listeners for a long time.
I've never heard of M Kelly (I don't watch Fox), but she sounds like a blathering idiot with absolutely nothing intelligent to say in this video.
But I enjoyed your joke about taking the Bell-Curve authors as a starting point. Next time, we should consider the phrenologists' point of view.
The important issues you raised are 1) do actions have "external" ramifications that may actually impede the intended goal or goals?, 2) how do you determine the timing of an action and its removal?, 3) is this action more about control than about the positive results candidly stated?.
I think you have compartmentalized too much. Why can't a government become an impetus for change? Why does it always have to be from a private citizen?
window dressing: Actually, by not being so philistine with the execution of certain laws that obviously obversely affect a certain portion of the population, it is relieving some of the economic hardship that maintains a population in their current state. Ultimately, I suppose to correct the anomie among certain communities is economic prosperity and shared wealth, and increased education coupled with better homelives. In the first 3 categories I believe govt. can play a strong and effective role. In the 4th that one is probably best provide for by the community, but with great financial support in the least affluent neighborhoods by the govt.
Top down: You can believe all you want, but look at the GOP. This IS top-down. Even the Tea Party is top-down, successful only because it tapped into fearful and anxious feelings of instability and conflated them with big govt and taxes.
Everyone must be treated equally under our laws, else there is no purpose to having laws. This attoney, an Hispanic in support of the city, agrees with Kelly on the majority of her exceptions to this issue.
Truth be known, whites are likely the American minority by now anyway. Regardless, the most qualified job candidate for a tax payer, public job should be the one who gets the tax payer paid public job.
I, Joe Public, am sick and tired of being ambiguously referred to as some racist. Those who whine loudest about racism are the very ones keeping racism alive. For crying out loud, get over it. The rest of US already have.
How about just accepting that a good majority of people really believe all people are created equal? Have a snazzy "21st century" name for that?
And your point would be ... ?
Now, you got to the crux of the issue with this statement: Regardless, the most qualified job candidate for a tax payer, public job should be the one who gets the tax payer paid public job.
Yet, this simply begs the question "does a college degree make a candidate the most qualified?" I think you and I and most people would agree that a college degree does not necessarily signify a person is better qualified than a person who doesn't have a college degree, especially, say when the latter has a decade of experience in a position of similar responibilities and the former has 1 year. Regardless, the "institutionalized racism" issue that is being addressed by this example is that "undue emphasis" on a college degree is a manifestation of institutionalized racism. This is not the equivalent of saying jobs requiring a college degree are racist. I think we can see through Kelly's disingenuous vacuous rhetoric.
Finally, I like how you posit the cliche that a dog smells his own doo-doo: I, Joe Public, am sick and tired of being ambiguously referred to as some racist. Those who whine loudest about racism are the very ones keeping racism alive. For crying out loud, get over it. The rest of US already have.
As you can see, it is Megyn Kelly clearly who is culling out the old race bait and switch card. She is trying to make RSJI (race and social justice) out as an govt. program that calls out racists, when in fact, this is hardly the case. RSJI has been implemented to reflect and analyze on every aspect of govt business that may, in fact, be adversely affecting minority racial groups without any other useful ends, which IS what institutionalized racism is.
It's inevitable, when people of your persuatin cannot address the issues you throw out some Fox News slure. That merely goes to demonstrating your limited repetition of diversions and excuses. Have at it. The majority of Americans know otherwise and those who don't are too closed minded to learn.
Pffft.
@Vicky/JJ/Micky: Did any of you watch the video? Apparently not. It is Megyn Kelly who fallaciously calls the RSJI "racist". That is what is so ironic how you guys all are manipulating the issue to make it as if I am calling ANYBODY a racist!! You also didn't read the article, or you would have seen how Megyn Kelly did it! She lied. She claimed that the Web site calls jobs requiring a college degree racist. This IS NOT TRUE. This is fabulous. Do any of you see how Megyn Kelly brought up the racist card?
Evidently not.
PS @Fren: How did you get somebody calling YOU a racist from the article??? If you have a beef with a particular poster, then talk directly with him. Otherwise, you're being vague enough that others might think you are calling them people who call you racist!
@JJ: Thanks for the strict denoted definition of a word. Quit playing semantics. But now for something totally different... Imagine a word that has multiple meanings and uses! Imagine a word used in conjunction with another word (institutionalized), and you get still another meaning. What I find is many people on the right have a difficult time with nuance. Again, you think RSJI is about either 1) token to ease conscience, or 2) hiring quota. Here's a question: Do you think institutionalized racism, of a type maybe as Malcolm X described it, is an actual phenomenon?
If so, then how would you ameliorate it?
If not, then what are we to make of the hugely disparate proportions in relation to population ratios of blacks on death row, blacks in prison, blacks and lower SAT scores, more blacks in poverty by ratio, fewer blacks with higher education, higher infant mortalitiy among blacks, and so on and so forth?
Institutionalized racism is not calling anybody a racist. These two phenomena may coexist mutually independent of each other. Of course, they may also exist together. But stop conflating.
And about your use of "better qualified", I'll refer you to my earlier post wherein I asked Fren the same thing: it starts with "Yet, this simply begs the question." Perhaps you can discuss your thoughts or answer it with better than a "Pfffft" as a response.
@Fren: America is obsessed with race. Right, left, the whole mess. We only think in race. An article couldn't be published in an American Journal because the author used class as a category to decipher infant mortality data. The conclusion: blacks and whites in the same CLASS experience EQUAL infant mortality rates. Of course, if we talk about race, we must be "prime examples of living racism"; contrarily, if we talk about class, we must be socialists. Either way, by using words so one-dimensinally, you successfully and effectively cut off any chance of discussing the data.
This speaks for your "We," Francois. Certainly not mine. Therein lies the problem, exactly. Assuming, of course, I am granted liberty here to know what I think.
You are one of the most independent independents. Which either puts you off the linear spectrum or in a tangent to the circumference spectrum that meets another tangent creating the apex of a cone whose cross-section is that very same circumference spectrum.
I'm sorry I only have a book in response. Whereas your article was 12 pages, mine is a book-length elaboration of the same idea of interpenetrating the various levels of knowledge: Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Dougals Hofstadter.
You know, as Robert M. Hutchins, editor of the Great Books of the Western World, said, you "cannot expect to store up an education in childhood that will last all [your] life."
It's time you read that book again. Let's do a cyber-book club!