TCU 360: Judge won’t throw out claim that TCU officials were indifferent to discrimination

A contrived crock of (censor) by any other name.

 

I read the article and found it an excellent piece of journalism. Mr. McDonald presented the facts, included the lawsuit materials, and did not put his personal opinions anywhere in the article. Maybe you could quibble with the headline. I also think the judge acted pretty even handedly. She basically threw out a huge swath of the lawsuits with prejudice, and only kept the items that if they are true (she said she assumed they were true for her ruling) would have damaged the plaintiffs under the law.

 

Too reasonable, insufficient outrage.

 

"Further, her claims of employment discrimination under Title VII were also upheld because of the alleged fact that TCU failed to “pay her an hourly compensation that was equal to that of her similarly situated white female counterparts because of her race.” The court also found Jane Doe No. 1’s retaliation claim under Title VII sufficient, because of the alleged fact that her work hours were reduced after she made a discrimination complaint to Turner."

In my legal opinion this is the only area in the lawsuit that if proven, and it is easily fact checked with records, that TCU can and probably will be find liable. The rest is BS and should fail at trial with testimony.

 

Never let this distract you from the fact that, in 1966, Al Bundy scored four touchdowns in a single game while playing for the Polk High School Panthers in the 1966 city championship game versus Andrew Johnson High School, including the game-winning touchdown in the final seconds against his old nemesis, "Spare Tire" Dixon.

 

Married with Children--great show that sadly would not be made today

 

Also (1) found it interesting that the judge ruled that for the claims to move forward, the Jane Does cannot remain anonymous. (2) the Jane Does lawyers did not reply to the reporter's request for comment when requested.

 

So if TCU wins the case tuition will go up and if they lose it will just go up a little more.

 

Up’d the ante. How bad you want this? How long you willing to wait?

 

The New American Constitution-The Civil Rights Act of 1964. The roots of our partisan divide.

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/roots-partisan-divide/

 

That was a very interesting read. Thanks.

 

Seemed semi-rational enough at first, but was bound to fall on it's face at some point. Here it is, for me:

"The problem is that when the work of the civil rights legislation was done—when de jure segregation was stopped. . . "

If he believes that de jure segregation has stopped, he needs to get out of his ivory tower more. Maybe go do some shopping in Stop Six, then in Rivercrest.

 

Let us not forget that In 1972, a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them....maybe you can hire The A-Team.

 

The pendulum in some areas seems to have swung the opposite way as Madison Avenue preaches to us...Notice how almost all families on commercials seem to be mixed race now, Jake from State Farm has had a race transplant, every 6:00 o’clock news set from coast to coast has a a black person reading the news, etc. I’m not saying this is a bad thing, but their representation sure seems to far surpass their 13.4% of the population...

 

We notice this, too, and wonder why some of the "investigating" and "crusading" national journalists don't notice it, and say something about it. And where are the Latinos? They make up 50% more of the US population than blacks so, excuse me, Blacks do, (12%-18%), but when do you ever see Latinos in advertisements? Strange.

 

This author/speaker is, in my personal opinion that is not likely shared by everyone, in the shallow end of his discussion. Lots of assumptions that are very simple, and that work backwards from his point of view. Poor scholarship, I suggest. When he says--

Because conventional wisdom today holds that the Civil Rights Act brought the country together, my book’s suggestion that it pulled the country apart has been met with outrage.

His argument is about as developed as a stereotyped political 20-minute political stump speech. Maybe some head-nodding from folks that share his point of view, and eye-rolls from those that are skeptical. But "outrage"? He's giving himself way too much credit for making a strong argument to those not inclined to accept his premises from the get-go. Bemusement, maybe. But hardly outrage.

Somehow, I ended up on Hillsdale College's mailing list. I've never bought anything from them, but I get a lot of promotional material for courses, books, etc. They are indoctrinators, sort of like a Bible college for a way out of the mainstream, anti-intellectual Protestant denomination.

 

Hillsdale! I almost went to school there--did not know there was anyone else out there who knew it existed.

 

Shhhhhh! You are not allowed to make observations unless you want to be called a racist!
,

 

After reading this update as well as all the comments I need to ask the lawyer types among us, is this person becoming TCU’s version of Omarosa?