DEI = Racist

[Morley]

As for civil rights, one person I love to read books about is civil rights leader Abraham Joshua Heschel. Please explain how his work in the South affected who was hired in our Department.

If your department had existed in 1955, do you really think it would have had the same racially diverse makeup as it did when you worked there?

The US Civil Rights Movement was not just about the American South. Or is it your contention that LA was always an egalitarian paradise where the grievances that sustained the Watts riots were just a mirage? Did your hero, Abraham Joshua Heschel, think that racial and ethnic bias was restricted to a few states in the deep South?

You're naïve if you think that the civil rights movement or the federal legislation that passed in 1964 didn't have an impact on Southern California. I have no idea what your job is, but cultural and political movements affect us all in a bunch of different ways--and laws impacting employment, housing, and educational discrimination do have ramifications, even if we aren't aware of them.

[Morley]

For me, I have a big problem with those who jump states for certain positions. Just from experience at my job, there were times when a director was needed because the board of supervisors fired the previous director. After trying this again and again, they finally found a really good person, but what the others tried to implement just created more paper work for us, which made our team less effective in the field.

Just because a person did well in one state or city, doesn’t mean they will do well in Los Angeles. Willie Williams did great in Philadelphia but when he came Los Angeles to work ad police chief for the city, he didn’t do as well. I’ve seen this type of thing over and over. It looks great on paper but likely doesn’t work out in the long run.

Sure. But the impulse to bring in a gunslinger from another territory to come and clean up the town can't be blamed on DEI.

[yellowstone123]

As for civil rights, one person I love to read books about is civil rights leader Abraham Joshua Heschel. Please explain how his work in the South affected who was hired in our Department.

If your department had existed in 1955, do you really think it would have had the same racially diverse makeup as it did when you worked there?

The US Civil Rights Movement was not just about the American South. Or is it your contention that LA was always an egalitarian paradise where the grievances that sustained the Watts riots were just a mirage? Did your hero, Abraham Joshua Heschel, think that racial and ethnic bias was restricted to a few states in the deep South?

You're naïve if you think that the civil rights movement or the federal legislation that passed in 1964 didn't have an impact on Southern California. I have no idea what your job is, but cultural and political movements affect us all in a bunch of different ways--and laws impacting employment, housing, and educational discrimination do have ramifications, even if we aren't aware of them.

Again, I want specifics. Real life examples. I’m sure there is a lot of evidence to support your view so I will give you easy ones: UCLA or UC BERKELEY. When Fawn Brodie became the first female to obtain tenure at UCLA in the history department, was in civil rights legislation or merit?

Just to let you know that there was segregation in schools in upstate New York. It wasn’t blacks being segregated from the whites, it was those in England and Northern Europe being segregated from the Italians which likely included those from Spain and Portugal. That’s was kindergarten through the 8th grade. That’s an easy way to see how the English and Northern Europeans lost out.

And what were the reasons for those riots in the 60s throughout the USA? Pretty complex if you asked me. Have those issues been solved? I worked in Watts so I can tell you they haven’t been solved, and likely won’t be no matter what legislation is passed, or money thrown at the problem.

Maybe if the Majority voted with associate justice John Marshall Harlan in the 1896 Supreme Court decision Plessy Vs Ferguson then things would have gradually changed but it didn’t happen, so things remained the same.

[Morley]

Again, I want specifics. Real life examples.

When I give specifics, the real life examples you request, you either shrug them off or ignore my posts and take a tangent to something else. Then you do things like make demands that I tell you how the man you're reading about advances my arguments. Why the hell would I keep playing this game with you?

Just to let you know that there was segregation in schools in upstate New York. It wasn’t blacks being segregated from the whites, it was those in England and Northern Europe being segregated from the Italians which likely included those from Spain and Portugal. That’s was kindergarten through the 8th grade. That’s an easy way to see how the English and Northern Europeans lost out.

Another tangent. Those damn Italians in upstate New York picking on poor Northern Europeans. When and where and what were the white-and-delightsome folks being denied by their darker (gasp) brothers?

You seem to be arguing that because Mediterranean folks were mean to Germans in upstate NY a century ago, we should not pursue justice in the US today. You make no sense.

And what were the reasons for those riots in the 60s throughout the USA? Pretty complex if you asked me. Have those issues been solved? I worked in Watts so I can tell you they haven’t been solved, and likely won’t be no matter what legislation is passed, or money thrown at the problem.

You're wrong. Some things are better.

Besides, again, it makes no sense to maintain that, because some problems still exist, we should not have attempted to solve them. You can't be serious about that. Passing laws that require equal treatment does not equal throwing money at the problem.

Maybe if the Majority voted with associate justice John Marshall Harland in the 1896 Supreme Court decision Plessy Vs Ferguson then things would have gradually changed but it didn’t happen, so things remained the same.

You do realize that this is my exactly my argument, don't you? Separate but equal didn't work.

You say that things would be different if we didn't have 'separate but equal.' You know that Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned in 1954 with Brown v. Board of Education, right? We've had 70 years without it. Your argument is ridiculous.

Edit:

Yellowstone, I apologize for my tone in this--but I find that I'm not sorry enough to go through with my initial intention to delete this.

Maybe I need to step back a little. You have one viewpoint and I have another. While I'm pretty certain I've jumped up and down and shouted mine at you, I still don't understand what you're arguing. Other than expressing some kind of reflexive grievance about what you see as 'liberal' programs, I'm not sure what it is that you're attempting to say. Maybe you'll clarify? If you wish, I'll try to sit on my hands and tape my mouth shut.

[yellowstone123]

Morley wrote:

When I give specifics, the real life examples you request, you either shrug them off or ignore my posts and take a tangent to something else. Then you do things like make demands that I tell you how the man you're reading about advances my arguments. Why the hell would I keep playing this game with you?

What example did you give except to disparage certain people who you called inbred?

Another tangent. Those damn Italians in upstate New York picking on poor Northern Europeans. When and where and what were the white-and-delightsome folks being denied by their darker (gasp) brothers?

Where did I mention that one group was picking on another? I gave an example of segregation. Your conclusion was that the Italians were picking on the "poor Northern Europeans." Where did you get that from?

I will give you this. I am Mr Tangent^10 - sorry. It happens when you suffer from sentence derangement syndrome.

You seem to be arguing that because Mediterranean folks were mean to Germans in upstate NY a century ago, we should not pursue justice in the US today. You make no sense.

When did I write that Mediterranean folks were mean to Germans? when did I suggest that Justice - in all forms - should not be pursued today?

You're wrong. Some things are better.

What's better today about Watts than it was almost 60 years ago in the summer of 1965? What's different today at 109th and Willowbrook than it was 60 years ago?

Passing laws that require equal treatment does not equal throwing money at the problem.

When did I write that passing laws that require "equal treatment" was just throwing money at the problem?

I wrote:

"Maybe if the Majority voted with associate justice John Marshall Harland in the 1896 Supreme Court decision Plessy Vs Ferguson then things would have gradually changed but it didn’t happen, so things remained the same."

Morley wrote:

You do realize that this is my exactly my argument, don't you? Separate but equal didn't work.

thank you for agreeing with Justice Harlan that the constitution is color blind. I agree.

You say that things would be different if we didn't have 'separate but equal.' You know that Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned in 1954 with Brown v. Board of Education, right? We've had 70 years without it. Your argument is ridiculous.

Per wiki:

"Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson influenced the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas in 1954. In Brown, the Court ruled that 'separate but equal' was unconstitutional."

Harlan argued that the "separate but equal" law violated the Constitution's protections of personal liberties and equal treatment.

He believed that the law created a badge of slavery that marked minorities as inferior.

Harlan predicted that the decision would lead to "race hate" in state law."

"Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson influenced the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas in 1954. In Brown, the Court ruled that "separate but equal" was unconstitutional."

That's why Harlan dissented. The only one. That's why I wrote, "Maybe if the majority voted with associate justice John Marshall Harland [dissenting] in the 1896 Supreme Court decision Plessy vs. Ferguson then things would have gradually changed but it didn’t happen, so things remained the same."

[Morley]

What example did you give except to disparage certain people who who you called inbred?

You're not really reading anything I say, are you? I took considerable care to give a coupe of pretty detailed responses about a specific situation in response to your questions. I said that their culture and ideas were inbred as the result of no outside influence.

Where did I mention that one group was picking on another? I gave an example of segregation. Your conclusion was that the Italians were picking on the "poor Northern Europeans." Where did you get that from?

When did I write that Mediterranean folks were mean to Germans?

You're also not reading the pieces that you yourself wrote, when I quote you above my response. You wrote it when you said this:

"Just to let you know that there was segregation in schools in upstate New York. It wasn’t blacks being segregated from the whites, it was those in England and Northern Europe being segregated from the Italians which likely included those from Spain and Portugal. That was kindergarten through the 8th grade. That’s an easy way to see how the English and Northern Europeans lost out."

What's better today about Watts than than it was almost 60 years ago in the summer of 1965? What's different today at 109th and Willowbrook than it was 60 years ago?

You can't be serious. Let me change that: You aren't even trying to be serious. Watts in the 60s, and America in the 60s, have changed. But you don't see it. There's nothing I can say.

When did I write that passing laws that require "equal treatment" was just throwing money at the problem?

Again, if you look at your own words in quote above my response, you'll see it. You're not bothering to even read. You wrote:

"I worked in Watts so I can tell you they haven’t been solved, and likely won’t be no matter what legislation is passed, or money thrown at the problem."
In the past, I've thought you had some interesting points to make and I've enjoyed talking with you. That has proven to be not so true this time around. You're not bothering to read anything I'm saying--or even anything you're saying, which makes it impossible to engage on any level. So I'm out of here, my friend.

Be well.

[yellowstone123]

Thanks for your responses, Morley. I do appreciate them. I guess it went sideways. Sorry for that.

[Physics Guy]

It's higher competence at the price of having to work with people who look and act differently in ways that are irrelevant to the job.

I'm not sure what you mean "think differently" when it comes to public safety. You follow the policy and the law. It's meant to save lives. If you are a Rambo type character then go find another job.

I did say "in ways that are irrelevant to the job." You even quoted it.