What are some recent incidents of discrimination againgst minorities that have been reported?

There was an incident (in Philly I believe) where the New Black Panther Party intimidated caucasian voters at a polling place. Does that qulaify as minority discrimination?

Atty Gen and the just dept won't be prosecuting however. Does that qualify as filling the quota? Is that evaning the playing field?

According to the Justice Dept's fairly recent position, and most likely in response to the outcry over that incident, no, it doesn't qualify for any action on the part of the DOJ. The fact that a perceived majority (white people) were being intimidated by a minority (a black person or persons), isn't discriminatory according to the current mindset of DOJ, because, only a minority can be discriminated against.

DOJ's premise (although there may have been some pushback-- but DOJ only gave lip-service to it) is that discrimination and voter intimidtation laws were created to protect minorities, or broader terms, "protected classes"; therefore, those laws cannot be enforced on behalf of a group that is NOT a minority or a protected class. White voters have no standing as they are not a protected class.

What I'm interested to know are what recent incidences of discrimination against minorites have ocurred. One of our posters says that discrimination against minorities still exists today. I would like to know what evidence there is for that statement.

So doesn't a survey potentially back up the fact that a company is not discriminating against any one group or individual? Wouldn't this be a safeguard to show that everyone is given the same opportunity?

In my endeavor to continue to provide negative examples here is an article from a sitting US Senator, Democrat from Virgnina. I have posted this link before and I believe it supports our argument against minorty surveys.

We will see what others might put up to answer your question with positive examples. Sen. Jimm Webb--the Myth of white privilege I think this is one of my favorite lines.....Memo to my fellow politicians: Drop the Procrustean policies and allow harmony to invade the public mindset. Fairness will happen, and bitterness will fade away.

If everyone is being treated equally then why must one know the gender, race, origin, etc of the applicant? The reason being that those in certain classes will be given priority treatment. The only measuring stick in any industry should be performance. I happen to be an agent in an office that's woman owned, thus she gets priority treatment. Nice lady that has never sold an REO, has no idea what I do or how I do it. But I get priority treatment due to her Minority??? status. Last time I heard there were more females on the planet then males.
We all have a vested interest in reducing a lender's losses since that cost is eventually passed on to the consumer via higher prices or via our tax dollars.
Picture this. 2 folks. One a caucasian male that sold thousands of REOs and one a Native American of color, that's also a female, disabled veteran and gay, but never sold an REO. As a business owner which would be more valuable to your operation? I hire based on qualifications regardless of race, religion, origin or any other criteria that doesn't address productivity. It is equally disgusting to state "you're a minority, you're fired" as it is to say "you're NOT a minority, you're fired".
I would also add that I have 3 sisters, a wife, 2 daughters and 4 grandaugters and they all stand on their own 2 feet, are extremely successful due to their ability and not due to gender.

Jack, I hear you. And while I basically disagree with minority or "special class" preferences, I have this to offer on your examples:

The mindset or thinking regarding giving minorities preferences is that the Native American "of color", female/gay has never really had a chance to sell an REO BECAUSE there was prior discriminatory practices that precluded her from doing that.

Regarding the situation in your own office where a female who has never sold an REO, she, (as a representative of a class) never, except in the last 40 some years, had the opportunity to do so except very marginally. As a "hobby" perhaps. Prior to EEOC, women were told, flat out, that this or that job was a "man's job", and they could be and were excluded from taking that job. Period. So, for the several hundred years prior to that law, presumably with few exceptions, MALES sold real estate. If not several hundred, then under NAR since 1913 (I believe) most brokers were male and most were white.

In fact, a black real estate organization was founded in answer to probably NAR.

And with all due respect to the dynamic and successful females in your family, absent EEOC laws they would be having a very difficult time standing on their own two feet. MOST women of the day had to marry a paycheck. Your female family members and other females, in the last 40-some years have had the CHANCE to prove themselves. But prior to that time, they'd have no chance to prove their abilities except in traditonally female occupations with extremely few exceptions.

No, it doesn't. In order to prove that a company was not discriminatory, they'd have to release the minority statuses of all applicants as well as the approved vendors. You would need to compare the population samples, and that's assuming that every applicant is qualified. The population percentages of each minority group should be similar between approved vendors and qualified applicants. Of course, then you would have to prove that there was no discrimination in determining who was a qualified applicant, which you can't do. So, these surveys don't prove that discrimination did not take place, but only verifies who was hired.

You know, percentages of overall minority populations nationally, regionally, or locally, especially with the so-far largest minority population (true minority and not female) is aprx 13%. However, hiring is NOT based on minority percentages per population. In fact, traditionally, with respect to the African-American population, these hiring percentages were targetted for 50/50 or greater. EQUAL is the operative here, not "fair". If there are 50 white persons, there must be 50 minority persons.

So, the assumption would necessarily be that, HALF of those hired or working SHOULD be minorities. I think that's where females, gay, lesbian, transgendered, get thrown in the mix to bring the percentage of "minorities" to 50%.