Another great column, Jeff. Lemme see if I get it: we must discriminate to not discriminate.
The progressive machine will define who fits in which arbitrarily defined group (no sociology or even biology allowed--just vote-totals); then we will reward them on the principle that no one bites the hand that feeds them.
Then we will empower (and look the other way) at the flood of "nonprofit" cutouts that will spring up like magic mushrooms on cow-pies in order to disappear the payoffs. They will kick back with endorsements and jobs for worn-out pols (see: Ol' Earl-PSU, hire of) or as launchpads for up-and-comers (see: GuvTina barfed out by the neo-Marxist Oregon Food Bank).
It's classic machine politics, propped up for thirty years by one of the dumbest electorates in the union, with the exception (maybe) of California. Who will now be asked to "rank choice" long lists of pols (118 in Portland) in a further effort--fueled by out-of-state money--to bamboozle the mopes.
The Action Plan was the dumbest (measured by dumbness x length) document I've read in a very very long time. It is a disaster of an official government document.
It sounds like you read the piece in The Oregonian about Blumenauer's new grace-and-favour job at PSU. I was shocked by how out of touch with the Portland of today and with the city's recent history he sounded.
While private industry is dropping DEI policies like a hot rock, government is folding the socially divisive experiment into all aspects of daily policy and decision making. Private industry cannot tolerate the loss of income through reduced sales and productivity because of DEI policies. Government raises taxes to cover up for employees that were hired, retained, or promoted not based on merit. DEI is another layer of bureaucracy on top of the many 'HR' offices already in place that should be managing the hiring of qualified employees. Government run amok because it produces nothing and seldom is held accountable.
The really shocking thing to me is how ILLEGAL Oregon's official state racial ideology is. It's like the state laid off all its lawyers in 2020 and 2021. Think about BOLI. Its job is to investigate, prosecute and adjudicate employment discrimination claims, which amount to a complainant saying s/he was financially harmed when employer made employment decisions based on race. The Action Plan makes it the overarching goal of the state government TO DISCRIMINATE.
I wonder how the lawyers who sign off on schemes like the Action Plan rationalize their actions. Do they fool themselves with their strained analyses of the facts and the law? Are they ends-justify-the-means true believers?
For someone or entity to challenge Oregon’s unconstitutional DEI laws, that person or organization needs legal standing to show that there were harmed before the Supreme Court will hear the challenge. The suit against Harvard showed that’s Asian students were discriminated against and therefore harmed by Harvard’s holistic entrance policies. It seems to me that the case against Oregon is a slam dunk if we can identify someone who suffered monetary or civil rights loss. Then we need to find an accomplished pro bono attorney…
If there is a question of fact in an employment discrimination claim brought by an Asian, white or other officially disfavored ethnic group, a plaintiff would be insane not to try to introduce the Action Plan as evidence for discriminatory intent and training.
Pacific Legal Foundation might take it up. They are already suing the State of Oregon for a PPS teacher due to discrimination against him for being the wrong skin color.
And here’s a suit they are pursuing against the city of Seattle for racial discrimination against an employee
when I was a kid, many, many years ago, I thought the answer was to ignore race in all its aspects and thus equality had to happen through the gradual integration and disappearance of "race" since we would all become an amalgam, one race. silly me, I had not yet learned that there was a LARGE segment of our society that depended on separating everybody into categories based on their origins and therefore their skin color. and I watched as the "politically correct" separated all people into groups, easily enough, by the color of their skin. that was when aptitude took second place to history. it didn't matter anymore that ability and aptitude were ideals to admire. everybody had to be equal by skin color alone. the 'liberals" of this world have managed to separate everyone into groups antagonistic to all other groups just by the color of their skin. so, instead of aptitude and competence rising to the areas of leadership, we have become a nation of incompetents. we are going to pay for that idiocy for the foreseeable future. the best examples are the two people purporting to be the only choice to run our country. we are in VERY deep trouble.
Looks like they tie eligibility to where you live in the city (N and NE), and not race. The race thing comes in only, I guess, because there are more black people living in those parts of the city. You can discriminate based on geography; you just almost always can't based on race.
It seems the criteria they are using is just a “back door” method to achieve the same aims—giving preference to a specific race (Black). They’re not just using one’s current residence location as eligibility criteria.
Here is what the article listed:
“Under Portland's North/Northeast Preference Policy, housing applicants whose families owned property in the area that was taken via eminent domain by the city will be prioritized, as well as those who were displaced or are at risk of displacement.”
They know those criteria will give preference to Blacks and I question whether the goal to give preference to one racial group over another for the purpose of obtaining wait listed subsidized housing is legal.
Here is a link to their “Preference Policy”. Points are awarded in such a way that a specific race (Black) is more likely to be given preference in housing. https://www.portlandmaps.com/bps/phb-preference/
The North/Northeast Preference Policy needs to be challenged in court or at least analyzed closely by a qualified attorney who can opine on its legality. The geographical criteria appear to be a surrogate for race. It is unlawful for government to engage in racial preferences except in a few limited situations. It's questionable whether the circumstances listed above qualify.
Yep their preference policy does seem to be a surrogate for race. I would wager the city designed it that way intentionally, yet trying to give themselves cover for practicing racial discrimination. Yeah, I’d love for an attorney with expertise in that area to review it.
To clarify: There can be no priority or preference based on race, ethnicity, or national origin, as these are protected classes under Fair Housing law. When a building or a housing plan identifies a target population or priority community, it is not meant as a consideration in qualifying for the housing, or even as a preference – it refers to strategies intended to mitigate barriers for BIPOC and other communities through practices such as affirmative fair marketing, referrals from community-serving organizations, culturally specific outreach, or culturally specific service partners and programming, etc.
Otherwise, Portland Housing Bureau units are regulated to provide varying levels of affordability based on income. Eligibility to reside in these units is therefore based on income qualification (and meeting the rental screening criteria for the property).
Equity and redistribution = socialism. Am I wrong about that? Oregon’s plan is socially divisive and destructive on top of illegal. I bet more people would like and share this article if they did not fear cancelation by the psychotic, screeching progressive mob.
Students of critical theory, which provides the foundation for DEI, say that it eschews the division of society into owners and exploited workers and the ensuing class conflict between the two groups as an explanation for misery in contemporary society. That's why some ideologues' accusations that that CRT and DEI are Marxist fall flat.
Instead, critical theory is concerned with power imbalances between oppressors and the oppressed. What the oppressed have in common in the modern paradigm isn't that their labor is being stolen by the ownership class but that they're being kept down because of their identity. Race and gender are two such characteristics that come to mind.
Woke activists aren't seeking to take over the means of production. What they want is to do is see to it that members of historically marginalized groups attain positions of importance within the means of production, and if that means lowering standards by applying an equity lens to the hiring process, well, the ends justify the means.
The redistributive aspects of equity programs ("equity" means "what's mine is mine and what's yours is also mine") can coexist quite nicely with our capitalist economic system as long as the political class that established the DEI regime can get away with it and use the power of taxation to keep the project going.
For the time being, they're getting away with it. You see, though critics of DEI aren't censored and sidelined as effectively as those of us who believe that gender identity ideology is utter made-up philosophical nonsense run amok, a person could get themselves into a lot of hot water with polite company (and their own boss) if they were too vocal in the wrong forums about their belief that DEI amounts to institutionalized reverse racism. Also, critics of DEI can kick up as big a fuss about DEI they want, but as long as progressives control the executive and legislative branches of government in Oregon and the mainstream media ignore or belittle the controversy, DEI action plans and the racially discriminatory programs they spawn would appear to be unassailable politically.
Because Oregon has a discriminatory "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Plan," it would surprise no one if the state were running programs that discriminate in favor of people of color and members of other favored identity groups. Multnomah County, Metro and the City of Portland have DEI plans of their own that are conducive to discriminatory practices.
The first hurdle is catching government in the act of discriminating. The bigger challenge is actually stopping it and holding government accountable.
For example, in July 2021, The Oregonian reported that the city of Portland planned on spending $2 million for "struggling artists of color" from a federal pandemic aid grant of $114 million. That prompted me to gather more information about the proposal and submit it to the Project on Fair Representation. That organization funded one of the successful lawsuits challenging the legality of the racially discriminatory Oregon Cares Fund that disbursed almost $50 million to blacks and black businesses and nonprofits only. The good news is that Project on Fair Representation was very interested; the bad news is that no legal challenge was ever made, perhaps due to a lack of a plaintiff.
Housing programs and hiring practices are two types of governmental activities that occasionally appear to flout the law in Oregon. In March 2023, Commissioner Carmen Rubio promoted the Alder 9 apartment project in a newsletter. The description of the venture could have doubled as an issue-spotting question in a law school exam on the Fair Housing Act:
"Related Northwest and Centro Cultural are partnering to develop 159 units of new construction affordable housing located in the Buckman neighborhood of Portland’s Central Eastside. Targeting seniors, multigenerational and BIPOC households who are disproportionally impacted by homelessness, this project offers a mix of unit types, including studio, one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments."
The Fair Housing Act is a federal law that prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental and advertising of housing on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability. The familial status provision prohibits setting aside units for seniors (which would require refusing to rent to families with children) unless the project is specifically designated as housing for the elderly.
If you spotted possible violations of the Fair Housing Act based on race and color ("BIPOC households") and familial status ("seniors [and] multigenerational . . . households"), you should be working for the office of the city attorney so you can nip potential violations in the bud.
For the record, this is how one of the Commissioner's staffers defended the project:
"To clarify: There can be no priority or preference based on race, ethnicity, or national origin, as these are protected classes under Fair Housing law. When a building or a housing plan identifies a target population or priority community, it is not meant as a consideration in qualifying for the housing, or even as a preference – it refers to strategies intended to mitigate barriers for BIPOC and other communities through practices such as affirmative fair marketing, referrals from community-serving organizations, culturally specific outreach, or culturally specific service partners and programming, etc."
"Otherwise, Portland Housing Bureau units are regulated to provide varying levels of affordability based on income. Eligibility to reside in these units is therefore based on income qualification (and meeting the rental screening criteria for the property). "
Turning to hiring, the city of Portland's job listings were litigation bait a few years ago because of the egregious racial and ethnic preferences implicit in the detailed requirements for equity statements. Something must have shocked the system in the interim, because now the inculpatory language that showed a clear preference for BIPOC candidates has disappeared.
The only City opening I could find that came with the baggage of an equity statement was for deputy city attorney (Job Number 2024-00932). The need to obtain a declaration from a construction and real estate lawyer of their commitment to do diversity, equity and inclusion is self-evident, right? It is if DEI considerations have shaped the job description:
"The position requires experience in/knowledge of construction law and real estate transactions; business and workforce equity programs in construction contracting; and alternative contracting methods including construction manager/general contractor, design-build, and progressive design-build."
"Typical work includes pre-claims disputes, litigation, insurance coverage assessments and other work as assigned by the City Attorney. Litigation experience, knowledge of state or local public contracting code, insurance and property transaction experience, and municipal law experience are preferred. This position requires a focus on racial equity as applied to legal analysis, policy, and institutional systems."
The way equity makes a startling and gratuitous appearance here reminds me of the British author and cultural writer Helen Pluckrose's critique of gender identity ideology's hegemonic tendencies. Substituting "DEI" for "gender" produces the following result:
“[The DEI industrial project is bent on] ‘educating’ everybody in their own theories, policing language, making people affirm things they don’t believe and trying to shoehorn issues of race into absolutely everything even when it has no relevance at all.”
Critiquing is all that one can do in response to this job opening. That's because someone in City Hall has taken care to hide the potentially actionable part, the specifications for equity statement, from looky-loos like me. It's as if the web page designer had forgotten how to link to other content. It is not worth the time and effort of asking the senior recruiter assigned to this opening to produce the specifications for the equity statement, assuming he would.
Let's pay the state of Oregon a visit before winding up this tour of constitutionally suspect practices. There, applicants for the job of "Legal Assistant (Criminal Justice Division) - Eugene REQ-165129" will be relieved to learn that:
"The Department of Justice is an equal opportunity employer, does not discriminate based on race, color, national origin, ethnicity, veteran, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, or disability, and is committed to workplace diversity."
In these uncertain times, it is nice to know there's a level playing field somewhere.
Not quite. To reach the equal opportunity employer disclosure, the aspiring legal assistant would have had to scroll past a notice that produced either a sense of elation or a sinking feeling, depending on their race and sex:
"Research suggests that women and people of color are less likely to apply unless they are confident they meet 100% of the listed qualifications. We strongly encourage all interested individuals to apply, and allow us to evaluate the knowledge, skills, and abilities that you demonstrate, using an intentional equity lens."
If you don't think this means there's a thumb on the scale when it comes to evaluating job applications from the beneficiaries of project DEI, then you're probably the government lawyer who drafted or blessed this text or a spokesperson for the state of Oregon.
I could go on, but the point is clear. At all levels, government in Oregon gives every indication of believing that nondiscrimination laws have been suspended in favor of the Kendi doctrine: “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”
Until and unless the pendulum swings back toward a culture compliance with the Constitution and the law, litigation is the only available tool to curb governmental excesses. The lawsuits aren’t going to bring themselves, though. What’s needed are plaintiffs who are willing to risk harassment and worse for standing up to DEI, competent litigators, funding to cover fees and costs and a means to coordinate all those moving parts.
"Founded in 2005, the Project on Fair Representation is a not-for-profit legal defense foundation that is designed to support litigation that challenges racial and ethnic classifications and preferences in state and federal courts."
Another great column, Jeff. Lemme see if I get it: we must discriminate to not discriminate.
The progressive machine will define who fits in which arbitrarily defined group (no sociology or even biology allowed--just vote-totals); then we will reward them on the principle that no one bites the hand that feeds them.
Then we will empower (and look the other way) at the flood of "nonprofit" cutouts that will spring up like magic mushrooms on cow-pies in order to disappear the payoffs. They will kick back with endorsements and jobs for worn-out pols (see: Ol' Earl-PSU, hire of) or as launchpads for up-and-comers (see: GuvTina barfed out by the neo-Marxist Oregon Food Bank).
It's classic machine politics, propped up for thirty years by one of the dumbest electorates in the union, with the exception (maybe) of California. Who will now be asked to "rank choice" long lists of pols (118 in Portland) in a further effort--fueled by out-of-state money--to bamboozle the mopes.
Lucky us.
The Action Plan was the dumbest (measured by dumbness x length) document I've read in a very very long time. It is a disaster of an official government document.
It sounds like you read the piece in The Oregonian about Blumenauer's new grace-and-favour job at PSU. I was shocked by how out of touch with the Portland of today and with the city's recent history he sounded.
While private industry is dropping DEI policies like a hot rock, government is folding the socially divisive experiment into all aspects of daily policy and decision making. Private industry cannot tolerate the loss of income through reduced sales and productivity because of DEI policies. Government raises taxes to cover up for employees that were hired, retained, or promoted not based on merit. DEI is another layer of bureaucracy on top of the many 'HR' offices already in place that should be managing the hiring of qualified employees. Government run amok because it produces nothing and seldom is held accountable.
The really shocking thing to me is how ILLEGAL Oregon's official state racial ideology is. It's like the state laid off all its lawyers in 2020 and 2021. Think about BOLI. Its job is to investigate, prosecute and adjudicate employment discrimination claims, which amount to a complainant saying s/he was financially harmed when employer made employment decisions based on race. The Action Plan makes it the overarching goal of the state government TO DISCRIMINATE.
I wonder how the lawyers who sign off on schemes like the Action Plan rationalize their actions. Do they fool themselves with their strained analyses of the facts and the law? Are they ends-justify-the-means true believers?
Do lawyers sign off? It seems the legislature gets legal opinions but then can and do ignore them.
For someone or entity to challenge Oregon’s unconstitutional DEI laws, that person or organization needs legal standing to show that there were harmed before the Supreme Court will hear the challenge. The suit against Harvard showed that’s Asian students were discriminated against and therefore harmed by Harvard’s holistic entrance policies. It seems to me that the case against Oregon is a slam dunk if we can identify someone who suffered monetary or civil rights loss. Then we need to find an accomplished pro bono attorney…
If there is a question of fact in an employment discrimination claim brought by an Asian, white or other officially disfavored ethnic group, a plaintiff would be insane not to try to introduce the Action Plan as evidence for discriminatory intent and training.
Pacific Legal Foundation might take it up. They are already suing the State of Oregon for a PPS teacher due to discrimination against him for being the wrong skin color.
And here’s a suit they are pursuing against the city of Seattle for racial discrimination against an employee
https://pacificlegal.org/case/seattle-racial-equity-workplace-training/
https://pacificlegal.org/
when I was a kid, many, many years ago, I thought the answer was to ignore race in all its aspects and thus equality had to happen through the gradual integration and disappearance of "race" since we would all become an amalgam, one race. silly me, I had not yet learned that there was a LARGE segment of our society that depended on separating everybody into categories based on their origins and therefore their skin color. and I watched as the "politically correct" separated all people into groups, easily enough, by the color of their skin. that was when aptitude took second place to history. it didn't matter anymore that ability and aptitude were ideals to admire. everybody had to be equal by skin color alone. the 'liberals" of this world have managed to separate everyone into groups antagonistic to all other groups just by the color of their skin. so, instead of aptitude and competence rising to the areas of leadership, we have become a nation of incompetents. we are going to pay for that idiocy for the foreseeable future. the best examples are the two people purporting to be the only choice to run our country. we are in VERY deep trouble.
That official Oregon policy discriminates only against people ensures the safeguarding of our State’s fragile Democracy against people.
And it’s not just the state of Oregon that is practicing this type of discrimination.
Multnomah County and City of Portland do the same thing.
Take a look at this publicly funded low income housing specifically for Blacks. How is this race based preference legal?
https://www.kgw.com/article/money/business/portland-affordable-housing-north-northeast-alberta/283-4d31db73-a208-4d16-ac70-72d874718519
Looks like they tie eligibility to where you live in the city (N and NE), and not race. The race thing comes in only, I guess, because there are more black people living in those parts of the city. You can discriminate based on geography; you just almost always can't based on race.
It seems the criteria they are using is just a “back door” method to achieve the same aims—giving preference to a specific race (Black). They’re not just using one’s current residence location as eligibility criteria.
Here is what the article listed:
“Under Portland's North/Northeast Preference Policy, housing applicants whose families owned property in the area that was taken via eminent domain by the city will be prioritized, as well as those who were displaced or are at risk of displacement.”
They know those criteria will give preference to Blacks and I question whether the goal to give preference to one racial group over another for the purpose of obtaining wait listed subsidized housing is legal.
Here is a link to their “Preference Policy”. Points are awarded in such a way that a specific race (Black) is more likely to be given preference in housing. https://www.portlandmaps.com/bps/phb-preference/
The North/Northeast Preference Policy needs to be challenged in court or at least analyzed closely by a qualified attorney who can opine on its legality. The geographical criteria appear to be a surrogate for race. It is unlawful for government to engage in racial preferences except in a few limited situations. It's questionable whether the circumstances listed above qualify.
Yep their preference policy does seem to be a surrogate for race. I would wager the city designed it that way intentionally, yet trying to give themselves cover for practicing racial discrimination. Yeah, I’d love for an attorney with expertise in that area to review it.
When challenged, the city produces opaque statements such as this:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To clarify: There can be no priority or preference based on race, ethnicity, or national origin, as these are protected classes under Fair Housing law. When a building or a housing plan identifies a target population or priority community, it is not meant as a consideration in qualifying for the housing, or even as a preference – it refers to strategies intended to mitigate barriers for BIPOC and other communities through practices such as affirmative fair marketing, referrals from community-serving organizations, culturally specific outreach, or culturally specific service partners and programming, etc.
Otherwise, Portland Housing Bureau units are regulated to provide varying levels of affordability based on income. Eligibility to reside in these units is therefore based on income qualification (and meeting the rental screening criteria for the property).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the actual response I received when I challenged another similar project.
Equity and redistribution = socialism. Am I wrong about that? Oregon’s plan is socially divisive and destructive on top of illegal. I bet more people would like and share this article if they did not fear cancelation by the psychotic, screeching progressive mob.
Students of critical theory, which provides the foundation for DEI, say that it eschews the division of society into owners and exploited workers and the ensuing class conflict between the two groups as an explanation for misery in contemporary society. That's why some ideologues' accusations that that CRT and DEI are Marxist fall flat.
Instead, critical theory is concerned with power imbalances between oppressors and the oppressed. What the oppressed have in common in the modern paradigm isn't that their labor is being stolen by the ownership class but that they're being kept down because of their identity. Race and gender are two such characteristics that come to mind.
Woke activists aren't seeking to take over the means of production. What they want is to do is see to it that members of historically marginalized groups attain positions of importance within the means of production, and if that means lowering standards by applying an equity lens to the hiring process, well, the ends justify the means.
The redistributive aspects of equity programs ("equity" means "what's mine is mine and what's yours is also mine") can coexist quite nicely with our capitalist economic system as long as the political class that established the DEI regime can get away with it and use the power of taxation to keep the project going.
For the time being, they're getting away with it. You see, though critics of DEI aren't censored and sidelined as effectively as those of us who believe that gender identity ideology is utter made-up philosophical nonsense run amok, a person could get themselves into a lot of hot water with polite company (and their own boss) if they were too vocal in the wrong forums about their belief that DEI amounts to institutionalized reverse racism. Also, critics of DEI can kick up as big a fuss about DEI they want, but as long as progressives control the executive and legislative branches of government in Oregon and the mainstream media ignore or belittle the controversy, DEI action plans and the racially discriminatory programs they spawn would appear to be unassailable politically.
If liking this article begets cancelation, what does writing it do? Asking for a friend.
Because Oregon has a discriminatory "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Plan," it would surprise no one if the state were running programs that discriminate in favor of people of color and members of other favored identity groups. Multnomah County, Metro and the City of Portland have DEI plans of their own that are conducive to discriminatory practices.
The first hurdle is catching government in the act of discriminating. The bigger challenge is actually stopping it and holding government accountable.
For example, in July 2021, The Oregonian reported that the city of Portland planned on spending $2 million for "struggling artists of color" from a federal pandemic aid grant of $114 million. That prompted me to gather more information about the proposal and submit it to the Project on Fair Representation. That organization funded one of the successful lawsuits challenging the legality of the racially discriminatory Oregon Cares Fund that disbursed almost $50 million to blacks and black businesses and nonprofits only. The good news is that Project on Fair Representation was very interested; the bad news is that no legal challenge was ever made, perhaps due to a lack of a plaintiff.
Housing programs and hiring practices are two types of governmental activities that occasionally appear to flout the law in Oregon. In March 2023, Commissioner Carmen Rubio promoted the Alder 9 apartment project in a newsletter. The description of the venture could have doubled as an issue-spotting question in a law school exam on the Fair Housing Act:
"Related Northwest and Centro Cultural are partnering to develop 159 units of new construction affordable housing located in the Buckman neighborhood of Portland’s Central Eastside. Targeting seniors, multigenerational and BIPOC households who are disproportionally impacted by homelessness, this project offers a mix of unit types, including studio, one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments."
The Fair Housing Act is a federal law that prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental and advertising of housing on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability. The familial status provision prohibits setting aside units for seniors (which would require refusing to rent to families with children) unless the project is specifically designated as housing for the elderly.
If you spotted possible violations of the Fair Housing Act based on race and color ("BIPOC households") and familial status ("seniors [and] multigenerational . . . households"), you should be working for the office of the city attorney so you can nip potential violations in the bud.
For the record, this is how one of the Commissioner's staffers defended the project:
"To clarify: There can be no priority or preference based on race, ethnicity, or national origin, as these are protected classes under Fair Housing law. When a building or a housing plan identifies a target population or priority community, it is not meant as a consideration in qualifying for the housing, or even as a preference – it refers to strategies intended to mitigate barriers for BIPOC and other communities through practices such as affirmative fair marketing, referrals from community-serving organizations, culturally specific outreach, or culturally specific service partners and programming, etc."
"Otherwise, Portland Housing Bureau units are regulated to provide varying levels of affordability based on income. Eligibility to reside in these units is therefore based on income qualification (and meeting the rental screening criteria for the property). "
Turning to hiring, the city of Portland's job listings were litigation bait a few years ago because of the egregious racial and ethnic preferences implicit in the detailed requirements for equity statements. Something must have shocked the system in the interim, because now the inculpatory language that showed a clear preference for BIPOC candidates has disappeared.
The only City opening I could find that came with the baggage of an equity statement was for deputy city attorney (Job Number 2024-00932). The need to obtain a declaration from a construction and real estate lawyer of their commitment to do diversity, equity and inclusion is self-evident, right? It is if DEI considerations have shaped the job description:
"The position requires experience in/knowledge of construction law and real estate transactions; business and workforce equity programs in construction contracting; and alternative contracting methods including construction manager/general contractor, design-build, and progressive design-build."
"Typical work includes pre-claims disputes, litigation, insurance coverage assessments and other work as assigned by the City Attorney. Litigation experience, knowledge of state or local public contracting code, insurance and property transaction experience, and municipal law experience are preferred. This position requires a focus on racial equity as applied to legal analysis, policy, and institutional systems."
The way equity makes a startling and gratuitous appearance here reminds me of the British author and cultural writer Helen Pluckrose's critique of gender identity ideology's hegemonic tendencies. Substituting "DEI" for "gender" produces the following result:
“[The DEI industrial project is bent on] ‘educating’ everybody in their own theories, policing language, making people affirm things they don’t believe and trying to shoehorn issues of race into absolutely everything even when it has no relevance at all.”
Critiquing is all that one can do in response to this job opening. That's because someone in City Hall has taken care to hide the potentially actionable part, the specifications for equity statement, from looky-loos like me. It's as if the web page designer had forgotten how to link to other content. It is not worth the time and effort of asking the senior recruiter assigned to this opening to produce the specifications for the equity statement, assuming he would.
Let's pay the state of Oregon a visit before winding up this tour of constitutionally suspect practices. There, applicants for the job of "Legal Assistant (Criminal Justice Division) - Eugene REQ-165129" will be relieved to learn that:
"The Department of Justice is an equal opportunity employer, does not discriminate based on race, color, national origin, ethnicity, veteran, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, or disability, and is committed to workplace diversity."
In these uncertain times, it is nice to know there's a level playing field somewhere.
Not quite. To reach the equal opportunity employer disclosure, the aspiring legal assistant would have had to scroll past a notice that produced either a sense of elation or a sinking feeling, depending on their race and sex:
"Research suggests that women and people of color are less likely to apply unless they are confident they meet 100% of the listed qualifications. We strongly encourage all interested individuals to apply, and allow us to evaluate the knowledge, skills, and abilities that you demonstrate, using an intentional equity lens."
If you don't think this means there's a thumb on the scale when it comes to evaluating job applications from the beneficiaries of project DEI, then you're probably the government lawyer who drafted or blessed this text or a spokesperson for the state of Oregon.
I could go on, but the point is clear. At all levels, government in Oregon gives every indication of believing that nondiscrimination laws have been suspended in favor of the Kendi doctrine: “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”
Until and unless the pendulum swings back toward a culture compliance with the Constitution and the law, litigation is the only available tool to curb governmental excesses. The lawsuits aren’t going to bring themselves, though. What’s needed are plaintiffs who are willing to risk harassment and worse for standing up to DEI, competent litigators, funding to cover fees and costs and a means to coordinate all those moving parts.
Tell us more about the “Project on Fair Representation”
Do they take on similar cases to the Pacific Legal Foundation?
https://pacificlegal.org/
Here's the short answer from the group's site:
"Founded in 2005, the Project on Fair Representation is a not-for-profit legal defense foundation that is designed to support litigation that challenges racial and ethnic classifications and preferences in state and federal courts."
This is a link to the organization’s web site: https://projectonfairrepresentation.org/
Thanks! Their website looks a bit stale. For example they never updated their website entry on their suit they settled for Great Northern Resources. I wonder how active they are? https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2021/10/oregon-settles-second-lawsuit-over-pandemic-aid-earmarked-for-black-oregonians.html
This looks to be a humorous take on Portland and its White Saviors.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ldpPCBYpFww