the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, detractors of “workplace diversity initiatives” are increasingly relying on a segment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to challenge both equity policies and financial support for businesses owned by minorities.
Originally designed to safeguard formerly enslaved individuals, specifically black people, from economic marginalization, Section 1981 of the act is now being invoked by the American Alliance for Equal Rights. Led by conservative activist Edward Blum, who successfully contested affirmative action in higher education, the group is using this section to target the Fearless Fund, a venture capital fund investing in businesses owned by women of color. A federal appeals court has temporarily halted funding for Fearless Fund’s grant program while the case progresses.
Conservative activists have filed lawsuits leveraging Section 1981 against various entities, including insurance company Progressive and pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. These legal battles are closely watched as the focus on racial considerations transitions to the workplace following the Supreme Court’s June decision to end affirmative action in college admissions.
What is Section 1981?
The 1866 Civil Rights Act is a federal law prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, and ethnicity in the formation and enforcement of contracts. Section 1981 specifically affirms that all individuals within U.S. jurisdiction possess the same rights and benefits in contractual relationships as those “enjoyed by white citizens.”
Notably, the Supreme Court’s 1976 McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation decision expanded these protections. It clarified that Section 1981 prohibits racial discrimination in private employment against both people of color and white individuals.
the Ridgewood blog has a brand-new twitter account, we tweet good sh$t
https://twitter.com/tRidgewoodblog
#news #follow #media #breakingnews #trending #viral #newsupdate #info #currentaffairs #newspaper
This is BS.
We all know that blacks cannot compete on merit and they need whites to provide for them.
That is what DEI and diversity is all about – NOT equal opportunity.
So, let’s cut out the lawsuits and all just chip in and take care of them and tell them they are doing a good job – just like we do for children.
You got to hand it to The Ridgewood Blog for allowing such blatantly racist opinions to be published, whereas other sites would tremble before such polarizing effrontery. I think that’s a good thing. I think the above-commenter is also wrong.
You cannot say that blacks, categorically, cannot compete with whites on merit, as we all know (I hope) there are blacks that are as exemplary as there are whites who are deplorable. And that doesn’t deny group-level differences in IQ, tendencies, and so on. The systematic and institutional attack on blacks, specifically the black family, through decades of social engineering does far more to explain the gulf in competency than any innate differences. But it’s far easier to just write off a whole group of people, isn’t it? Imagine poisoning someone and then getting upset at them because they’re sick.
DEI is really about DIE. Do you want to guess who’s next?
the commenter was making fun of progressives , beside its always good to know what your neighbors are really thinking
Equality not equity this is the message Dr. King was preaching. Protecting and favoring one race over another is racism. It doesn’t matter what race
I agree and I think this lawsuit has very good merit.