DNC Issues Belated Boilerplate Response To Controversy Over The Alleged Exclusion of White Heterosexual Males From Job Opportunities

imagesIt has been something of a nightmarish week for the Democratic National Committee (DNC).  First, former DNC head Donna Brazile revealed in her book that Hillary Clinton effectively bought the DNC before the primary by assuming its towering debts in exchange for control over critical parts of the organization.  In addition to the emails showing the DNC favoring Clinton, the book seems to confirm that Clinton and her allies took over key financial decisions for the DNC before the primary.  The deal would show that a variety of Democratic leaders, including most notably Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, openly misled the public in the primary.  The disclosure in the book came right after the DNC moved to push out Sanders supporters and bring back Clinton allies into key positions last month.

While this scandal was brewing this week, an email surfaced showing that a DNC official told staff not to share employment opportunities with straight white men — a clear effort to discriminate in access to job opportunities.  I (and many others) tried to get the DNC to confirm the email. The DNC has largely stonewalled all inquiries beyond a belated and ambiguous statement.

What is astonishing is that this email recommends clearly unlawful discrimination in advertising and hiring, but the DNC refused to respond to numerous inquiries and still has yet to give a definitive answer on the controversy.

The controversy began with Data Services Manager Madeleine Leader announcing eight job titles within the DNC’s technology department.

As you may have heard, we are rebuilding the Technology Team into a robust well-oiled machine that can tackle all elections from the Presidential down to Dog Catcher and School Board. What’s more important is that we are focused on hiring an[d] maintaining a staff of diverse voices and life experiences, something that we desperately need if we hope to secure the future of our country.

We are building a distributed Tech Team so most of our positions can be based wherever you happen to live. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns and feel free to forward on to your contacts. I personally would prefer that you not forward to cisgender straight white males, since they’re already in the majority.

The “preference” to exclude people due to their sexuality, gender, and race is discriminatory and unlawful.  The concern was that the DNC might have fostered an environment where such discrimination is not just tolerated but supported.  What Leader did that was so notable was to be so open and express on such a policy.  If the DNC wanted to dispel all such concerns, it certainly did not convey it in its belated response. Rather than denouncing Leader’s discriminatory preference and removing her from her position, the DNC went into a complete bunker mode and then issued this statement:

The email in question was not authorized by the DNC nor was it authorized by senior leadership. All hiring decisions at the DNC are made consistent with the DNC’s commitment to equal employment opportunity and hiring an inclusive and talented staff that reflects the coalition of the Democratic Party, because our diversity is our greatest strength.

What?  The “email in question” was issued to announce a DNC position by the DNC Data Services Manager.  More importantly, the statement does not expressly denounce the notion that employees would be hired according to their sexuality or gender or race rather than simply their skills and record.  Indeed, their manager preferred not to received applications from white heterosexual males.

If the email was not official and did not reflect DNC policy, one would have expected the suspension of the author pending review of possible termination.  Instead, the DNC offered this boilerplate response that failed to clearly repudiate the staffer or her message.

If the DNC is wondering why it is having a bad period, it needs only to look at how it continues to handle such controversies.

32 thoughts on “DNC Issues Belated Boilerplate Response To Controversy Over The Alleged Exclusion of White Heterosexual Males From Job Opportunities

  1. Boiler Plate translated to DNC Speak is anything said or done to Advance The Party IS The Truth.

    Truth in the DNC Fictionary is defined as Whatever Works or in the dictionaries of decent people low grade propaganda.

  2. Suppose that the RNC is a private club formed by dues paying members who are not subject to the CRA and can therefore lawfully discriminate against whosoever they wish.

    Further suppose that the DNC is also a private club formed by dues paying members who are not subject to the CRA and can therefore lawfully discriminate against whosoever they wish.

    Surely Turley is now advocating that the CRA should be applied to the hiring practices and workplace environment of the DNC. Unless Turley accepts the supposition that the DNC is a private club formed by dues paying members not subject to the CRA.

    Will Turley further advocate bringing the hiring practices and workplace environment of the RNC under the jurisdiction of the CRA? Or will Turley insist that the RNC is a private club formed by dues paying members not subject to the CRA?

    Maybe Turley will follow AAWG’s lead and advocate scrapping the CRA altogether for the sake of preserving the wondrous partisan divide resulting from our our glorious two-party system.

    On the other hand, maybe this thread is just another one of Turley’s mechanical rabbits set loose on his five mile long Camptown Racetrack for the leisure-time pursuits of his tireless blawg hounds all the live long day. Doo-dah. Doo-dah.

  3. So it appears that a white, gay male would be acceptable. The question then becomes how would an interviewer establish whether the candidate really was gay. Never mind…….I don’t think I want to know.

  4. We’ve known since 1971 that the plain meaning of employment discrimination law has been ignored to provide for patronage programs for the Democratic Party’s favored clientele (who are also the legal profession’s favored clientele). We’ve also known more recently that federal judges have abusively and arbitrarily insisted that civil service examinations be eliminated or gutted to benefit members of that same clientele.

    Employment discrimination law is humbug and the culture of the bar is such that it cannot be enforced in a non-sectarian manner. Get rid of it. With regard to public employment, explicitly strip federal district judges of any jurisdiction over the content of civil service examinations.

  5. One thing for certain, discovering your political party laundered your contribution through the the state and into one candidates victory fund is not going to encourage people to financially support the party; especially given the fact the anointed candidate lost…bigly. Add to that the down-ticket campaigns were then starved of campaign funding from the DNC due to the money laundering scheme and also lost…bigly, it’s no wonder the Democrats have pushed all-in on the Russian-Trump collusion story. They are bankrupt financially and ethically and they need a win, any win at this point.

  6. Ah yes… can’t … can’t… we All ( well maybe not all) get along? It just keeps giving 😁😂😃😄😅😅😅😄😃😂

    • Yeah, the “we support everyone, except for you “__________” (insert group of the week…). Their basic philosophy is a self-defeating argument. Hard to get anywhere with an argument like that. Insert Russia story… “but…. but…. yeah–them! That’s it!!!”

      • Sorry, forgot to sign that post. How about “Dude straight from the deplorables basket…?”

        Yeah, after I’m done cutting myself to the required extent and beg forgiveness, I’m going to run out and support the Democratic party.

        Good luck with that.

  7. So, because it is reflecting some internal perception of “quotas,” it’s OK! They are so silly.

    Getting an early start on losing the next presidential election, probably dog catcher, and school board as well.

    Sounds like an opportunity to start a new party, for the people… everyone without a label. (Horror…)

  8. The last sentence in Madeleine Leader’s announcement of eight new tech jobs at the DNC:

    I personally would prefer that you not forward to cisgender straight white males, since they’re already in the majority.

    If it’s true that cisgender straight white males are already in the majority within the DNC’s technology department, then there must be at least eight heterosexual White men already employed at the DNC’s technology department. Chances are that there are more than eight heterosexual White men currently employed at the DNC’s technology department. How many more than eight is anyone’s guess based upon Ms. Leader’s reference to a “majority.”

    Meanwhile, Ms. Leader stated that “[she] personally would prefer that ‘you’ not forward [her email] to cisgender straight white males . . .” Since Turley wrote that “. . . a DNC official told staff . . .” the pronoun “you” in Ms. Leader’s email presumably includes the alleged majority of heterosexual White men currently employed at the DNC’s technology department. And from that Turley expresses the concern that ” . . .the DNC might have fostered an environment where such discrimination is not just tolerated but supported.”

    So, to review the bidding without the original inflection, an unknown number of heterosexual White men comprising an alleged majority of the DNC tech department were subjected to a hostile work environment when their woman boss told them that she prefers that they not forward her email announcing eight new tech positions in their department to their fellow heterosexual White men.

    Moreover, Turley stated that “[t]he ‘preference’ to exclude people due to their sexuality, gender, and race is discriminatory and unlawful.” Either despite the putative fact that heterosexual White men currently comprise a majority of the DNC technology department, or because of the prospective fact that heterosexual White men might become a minority of the DNC technology department were all eight new tech positions at the DNC to be filled by persons who are not heterosexual White men.

    Well, touchy, touchy Turley; it’s almost, but not quite, touching.

  9. DNC advertises for tech team to “tackle” elections . . . “down to Dog Catcher and School Board.” Listing school board as below dog catcher reflects deplorable priorities, to say the least. Better school boards for better schools that would teach, hopefully, non discrimination.

  10. What are odds of Isaac, Natacha, and Enigma posting in this thread?

    Is there or is there not FEC requirement for “fair” voting and nominating rules by the respective parties? If yes, is or is not her Majesty the Queen of all Liars HRC exposed to criminal prosecution? If no, please just abolish the FEC now and save us the misery of this god forsaken charade.

    Hill and Bill are now only the subject of three potential criminal investigations: trading 20% of US uranium reserves in exchange for Bill’s half million dollar Russian speeches (strangely, his price doubled for this speech) and Russian payments to allegedly stop child obesity to the Clinton Crime Foundation (if you believe Russian oligarchs care about US child obesity, please buy my red bridge over San Francisco Bay), and now the fact that HRC purchased the DNC to insure her stealing the nomination.

    Trump has not been an exactly stellar guy throughout his life, including as POTUS. But he deserves a bronze statue and more for insuring this Satanic witch HRC is not POTUS. God bless Donald Trump.

    • “Hill and Bill are now only the subject of three potential criminal investigations: trading 20% of US uranium reserves in exchange for Bill’s half million dollar Russian speeches.”
      ~+~
      Hillary Rosenberg Clinton

  11. Democrats can’t afford to “denounce the notion that employees would be hired according to their sexuality or gender or race” because the crowd they’re trying to win with expects Democrats to embrace the right kind of discrimination.

  12. After nominating the only candidate who could possibly lose to this NYC Three-Card-Monte hustler [the proverbial Ham Sandwich possibly excepted], DNC self reflection is among the least likely likelihoods… but nice try anyway.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: