|
|
Excerpted from Adversity.Net's non-profit application to the IRS 11/12/99
IRS Form 1023 (Page 2)
Part II: Activities and Operational Information1. Provide a detailed narrative description of all the activities of the organization -- past, present, and planned.
Adversity.Net official Form 1023 statement, as filed with IRS Nov. 1999:
1.0 Introduction
Adversity.Net, Inc. is an educational organization dedicated to the elimination of prejudice and discrimination, and to the defense of human and civil rights secured by law. From its inception, Adversity.Net has actively promoted fair and equal treatment under the law for all citizens without regard to race, gender or ethnic origin. This philosophy will continue to be central to Adversity.Net’s mission as a non-profit, publicly supported charitable and educational organization.
Adversity.Net’s activities are a direct outgrowth of the civil rights movement which suggests that no person should be given undue advantage based on race or gender.
During the past 15 years, courts of law at all levels have increasingly looked unfavorably upon the use of race and gender in government and private sector employment and contracting, and in school admissions.
In 1989, in City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., the Supreme Court ruled that racial preference programs created by state or local governments, no matter whom they are intended to benefit, in the absence of a narrowly tailored compelling government interest, are unconstitutional and must be struck down.
Six years later, in 1995, in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peņa, the Supreme Court attempted to clarify the constitutionality of race-based affirmative action programs. In Adarand, the Supreme Court reinforced the doctrine of a "strict scrutiny test" which government race-based programs must pass in order to be defensible. This ruling builds on the Croson decision, which applied to state and local governments.
The Court’s Adarand ruling was a sweeping rejection of current racial preference programs. The Court intended the decision to be a catalyst for the country to embark on a new era in civil rights law that focuses on race-neutral measures to tackle social inequality.
Adversity.Net endeavors to broaden and inform the public debate of these issues through educational efforts pertaining to often overlooked facets of race, gender and ethnic discrimination.
Adversity.Net analyzes and distributes information to the public concerning affirmative action, minority and disadvantaged business programs, women-owned business programs, government contracting policies pertaining to same, race-based and gender-based aid programs, and, in general, discrimination based on age, race, ethnicity or gender.
The preponderance of information sources currently available on this topic examine these issues from the perspective of specific racial, gender and ethnic groups defined by the government as historically disadvantaged.
By extension, there is a shortage of information regarding race, gender and ethnic discrimination against individuals who are not classified by the government as historically disadvantaged. In the interest of fostering robust and informed debate about these crucial issues, Adversity.Net seeks to fill this information void.
Adversity.Net is currently available 24 hours per day, seven days per week, via its Web Site on the Internet. Through charitable contributions, we hope to be able to extend our reach to those who are not able to access the Internet on a regular basis.
1.1 Goals and Objectives
The educational goals which Adversity.Net seeks to fulfill with its Web Site include the following:
(1) Raise public awareness regarding the economic, social and emotional harm (disparate impact) which preferential policies impose upon members of non-preferred classes.
(2) Raise public awareness about the extent to which reverse discrimination is a problem and the extent to which victims of reverse discrimination are retaliated against when they file complaints or pursue legal remedies for reverse discrimination.
(3) Serve as an information resource to non-preferred individuals who may be considering filing a grievance or legal action for reverse discrimination.
(4) Encourage victims of reverse discrimination to step forward and pursue legal and/or other remedies pertaining to unfair, discriminatory race-based and gender-based treatment resulting from preferential policies.
(5) Attract legal and/or other public assistance, as well as publicity, pertaining to the cases of reverse discrimination posted on Adversity.Net.
1.2 Key Terms and Definitions
For the benefit of readability, and to avoid unnecessary repetition, the following key phrases and terms will be used within this document in describing Adversity.Net’s activities.
Preferential Policies: The term "Preferential Policies" as used herein refers to the entirety of both government and private sector policies and regulations which grant preference or special treatment in hiring, promotions, contracting and educational admissions according to an individual’s membership in specific racial, ethnic or gender categories which are defined by the government as being historically socially and/or economically disadvantaged.
Preferred Class: The term "Preferred Class" as used herein refers to members of certain racial, ethnic, or gender groups defined by the government as being historically socially and/or economically disadvantaged.
Non-preferred Class: The term "Non-preferred Class" as used herein refers to members of certain racial, ethnic or gender groups who are defined by the government as not being historically socially and/or economically disadvantaged.
Reverse Discrimination: Semantically, the term "Reverse Discrimination" is something of an oxymoron. In popular use, however, it has come to connote discriminatory treatment of, and disparate impact upon, non-preferred classes resulting from preferential policies. "Reverse Discrimination", as used herein, has this latter meaning.
2.0 HISTORY and CURRENT OPERATIONS
From 1997 to the present, Mr. Tim Fay has, at his own personal expense, maintained an Internet Web Site by the name of Adversity.Net. Prior to the date of this application, Adversity.Net has been operated solely as a personal project of Mr. Fay, as an unincorporated, non-business activity with no income, no revenues, and no assets.
Mr. Fay does not enjoy any financial benefit from the current or proposed activities of Adversity.Net. Mr. Fay has contributed his time and expertise as a volunteer and as a concerned citizen. However, in order to expand and improve upon the contribution of Adversity.Net to this important public debate, it has become necessary to organize as a non-profit corporation. Any assets of the organization, such as its trade name "Adversity.Net", and its Web Site and all its content, will be transferred free of charge to the new, non-profit organization "Adversity.Net, Inc." without financial benefit to Tim Fay nor to anyone.
Adversity.Net officially organized as a non-stock corporation under the laws of the State of Maryland on September 22, 1999. To date, Adversity.Net has not solicited, nor has it received, any contributions or revenues. Similarly, at the time of this application, Adversity.Net possesses no assets other than the name of its Web Site and the content of its Web Site. The organization currently has no cash reserves, and has not incurred any expenses, and has existed entirely as a volunteer effort.
The Adversity.Net Web Site has presented, and plans to continue to present news articles, editorials, statistics, and other analyses pertaining to the disparate social and economic impact of preferential policies upon non-preferred classes. These educational materials include news articles, analyses, and information from various points of view so that all opinions are represented on the site. The Web Site is open to all persons without charge.
Our principal educational activity is the presentation on our Web Site of current news, research and policy papers on the topic of reverse discrimination. Please see also Activity I, below.
3.0 OVERVIEW of ACTIVITIES
Who will perform the work? All of the Adversity.Net Web Site editing, writing, research, and programming are currently performed by Tim Fay as an unpaid volunteer. In the future, and contingent upon the availability of charitable funding, third parties, contractors, and/or freelancers may be utilized in the performance of these tasks under the direct supervision of Mr. Fay.
Who holds the property or copyright? Any rights in property (such as the content and design of the Adversity.Net Web Site, and the Adversity.Net trademark) are held by Adversity.Net for the benefit of the public on a non-profit basis. These properties will not be sold or licensed to any profit-making ventures.
What will Adversity.Net Cost Users? The educational materials presented on the Adversity.Net Web site are available to the public free of charge. Additionally, contingent upon future charitable funding, printed materials may be made available to the public at cost.
Adversity.Net seeks to accomplish its educational mission at no cost to our users and our readers through four general categories of educational activities.
Activity I - Information and News Analysis, and Distribution of Same, pertaining to the disparate social and economic impact of preferential policies upon non-preferred classes. (See 3.1 below for details.)
Activity II - Case Studies pertaining to the disparate social, emotional, and economic impact of preferential policies upon non-preferred classes.
Adversity.Net researches and publishes specific cases concerning disparate impact upon members of non-preferred classes caused by preferential policies. These cases represent an up close and personal look at the actual, adverse effect of such policies upon the lives of real human beings. (See 3.2 below for details.)
Activity III - Research and Statistical Analysis, and Distribution of Same, pertaining to the disparate social, emotional, and economic impact of preferential policies upon non-preferred classes. (New. Contingent upon funding.) The results of these research efforts will be freely distributed at no cost to our users and readers through our Web Site. If future funding permits, other means of distribution - such as printed publications - will be made available at cost to the public. (See 3.3 below for details.)
Activity IV - Outreach and Awareness, including press releases, public service advertising (free), public service announcements (free), and other communication with the general public and with local, state and national decision makers. Also, upon request, such information will be supplied to local, state and national legislators. (New. Contingent upon funding.) (See 3.4 below for details.)
3.1 Activity I - News, Research, and Policy Papers
% of Time = 60%
Importance = Very High
Personnel = Tim Fay, Chairman and Editor
Location = Adversity.Net offices at 802 Argyle Road, Silver Spring, MD.Adversity.Net actively maintains an indexed catalog of current news stories, editorials, and policy papers highlighting the disparate impact of preferential policies upon members of non-preferred classes. The news and research categories currently available on-line on our Web Site include the following:
3.1.1 Education News Category:
Schools and Colleges (indexed by state and city) -- Presents published news stories, research papers, and other material documenting the disparate impact in education of preferential policies upon members of non-preferred classes.
See Web Site: www.adversity.net/education.htm
3.1.2 Busing News Category:
Adversity.Net maintains a special informational page dedicated to the 25th anniversary of court-ordered school busing. The page presents news stories and papers documenting the history of forced busing to achieve racial equality in our schools.
See Web Site: www.adversity.net/special/busing.htm
3.1.3 Government News Category:
3.1.3.1 Gov. Subcategory: City Contracting, Set-Asides -- Presents news stories and papers documenting the disparate impact of city-based preferential policies upon contractors who are members of non-preferred classes.
See Web Site: www.adversity.net/citysetasides.htm
3.1.3.2 Gov. Subcategory: Federal Agencies -- Presents news stories and papers documenting the disparate impact of federal agency-based preferential policies upon federal employees and federal contractors who are members of non-preferred classes.
See Web Site: www.adversity.net/fedagency_news.htm
3.1.3.3 Gov. Subcategory: Fire, Police and Municipal Employees -- Presents news stories and papers documenting the disparate impact of city, municipal, and county-level preferential policies upon police, fire, and other employees who are members of non-preferred classes.
See Web Site: www.adversity.net/policefire.htm
3.1.3.4 Gov. Subcategory: State Employment and Contracting -- Presents news stories and papers documenting the disparate impact of preferential policies in state employment and contracting policies upon present and potential employees who are members of non-preferred classes.
See Web Site: www.adversity.net/fedstate.htm
3.1.3.5 Gov. Subcategory: Military (Enlisted, Civilian, and Contractors) -- Presents news stories, papers and analyses which examine the disparate impact of the military’s use of preferential policies upon military personnel, civilian employees, and military contractors who are members of non-preferred classes.
See Web Site: www.adversity.net/military.htm
3.1.4 Immigration News Category:
3.1.4.1 Immigration Subcategory: Impact of Immigration Policy on Non-Preferred Classes -- This section presents news stories and papers about the impact of current immigration policies upon members of non-preferred classes. This section documents the social, political, and economic changes caused by large numbers of new immigrant voters who overwhelmingly support preferential policies.
See Web Site: www.adversity.net/special/immig.htm
3.1.4.2 Immigration Subcategory: Replacing American Jobs with Temporary Immigrant Visas -- Presents news stories and papers which chronicle the potential loss of jobs by U.S. citizens caused by importation of highly-trained foreign workers who are often willing to work for less money than their U.S. citizen counterparts, or who require less training at the U.S. employer’s expense as compared to U.S. citizen-workers. This section examines the disparate social and economic impact of these policies upon U.S. citizen-workers.
See Web Site: www.adversity.net/special/immig_h1b.htm
3.1.5 Legal Profession News Category:
3.1.5.1 Legal Profession Subcategory: Law Profession and Quotas -- Presents news articles and papers documenting the U.S. Government’s efforts to encourage law firms to give racial, ethnic and gender preference to legal professionals (employees and subcontractors) who are members of government-defined preferred classes. This section examines the disparate impact upon non-preferred legal professionals and subcontractors of preferential policies.
See Web Site: www.adversity.net/legalnews.htm
3.1.5.2 Legal Profession Subcategory: Supreme Court Pressured to Hire the Right Races -- Presents news articles and papers regarding efforts to force the high court to hire members of preferred classes.
See Web Site: www.adversity.net/legalnews_supreme.htm
3.1.6 Private Sector / Employment News Category:
3.1.6.1 Banking, Financial, Redlining, Wall Street, Mortgages -- This section examines the impact of preferential policies in the banking, mortgage, insurance, and financial services industries upon members of non-preferred classes.
See Web Site: www.adversity.net/special/banking_housing.htm
3.1.6.2 Other Private Sector News:
On the Adversity.Net Web Site, several cases of reverse discrimination in the private sector are presented in this category. In this document, these three cases are also duplicated in more detail under the category "Case Studies". A very brief synopsis if these cases is presented here.
3.1.6.2.1 Private Sector News: Paine Webber -- (Also posted as "Case 15"). The case of Paine Webber is presented in order to illustrate the economic and social pressures which are brought to bear on members of non-preferred classes who publicly express political beliefs which challenge preferential policies.
See Web Site: www.adversity.net/c15_tbd.htm
3.1.6.2.2 Private Sector News: PepsiCo -- (Also posted as "Case 18"). The case of Steffes v. PepsiCo is presented to illustrate the extent to which a large, powerful private employer is willing to impose promotion criteria based upon preferential policies upon qualified employees who are members of non-preferred classes.
See Web Site: www.adversity.net/c18_tbd.htm
3.1.6.2.3 Private Sector News: Texaco -- (Also posted as "Case 14"). In late 1996, and in early 1997, Texaco, Inc. agreed to a settlement of over $176 million in order to bring to an end a profit-killing, highly-publicized discrimination lawsuit filed by minority employees. As the dust settles two years later, the central question remains: Did Texaco racially discriminate?
See also Web Site: www.adversity.net/c14_tbd.htm
3.1.7 Racial Gerrymandering News:
This section examines the following question: In spite of rulings by several courts, including the Supreme Court, against the practice of drawing race-based or ethnic-based legislative districts, why does this practice continue? What are the social and economic forces which give continued life to this practice? What are the social and economic implications for members of government-defined non-preferred classes?
This section of Adversity.Net presents current news stories about this controversial practice.
See Web Site: www.adversity.net/special/gerrymander.htm
3.1.8 News About State Ballot Initiatives:
This section of Adversity.Net contains news and analyses of state-level citizen referenda and ballot initiatives which seek to end preferential policies within the subject state. Such ballot initiatives have become an increasingly popular tool for members of non-preferred classes to oppose preferential policies.
Currently, Adversity.Net maintains news pages devoted to ballot initiatives, such as:
3.1.8.1 FLORIDA Civil Rights Initiative 2000 - Factors which will influence the passage or failure of the Florida Civil Rights Initiative are examined through news clippings on the topic. Republican Governor Jeb Bush, younger brother of Presidential candidate George W. Bush, is a key player in this debate, as are the Florida General Contractors.
See Web Site: www.adversity.net/florida/initiative.htm
3.1.8.2 HOUSTON Civil Right Initiative (Prop. A) - In 1997 then-mayor Bob Lanier and his City Council re-worded this ballot initiative in a manner which the courts have found to be misleading. The initiative was defeated in 1997 in its re-worded form, and the courts have ordered a new ballot on the issue using the original petition language which sought to end the use of racial and gender preferences in Houston government employment and contracting decisions.
See Web Site: www.adversity.net/houston.htm
3.1.8.3 WASHINGTON State Civil Rights Initiative (I-200) - Washington State’s Initiative 200 was hotly contested, but a clear majority of voters approved this initiative to end Washington’s use of race and gender in state and local government employment, contracting and educational admissions. News clipping document the difficulties which are being encountered in implementation of I-200.
See Web Site: www.adversity.net/i200.htm
3.1.9 Miscellaneous:
In addition, Adversity.Net maintains several pages of miscellaneous information pertaining to preferential policies, including: short reviews of books on the topic; news stories which don’t fit into any other category; special coverage of events such as the furor caused when DC Mayor Anthony Williams’ aide used the word "niggardly"; Post Traumatic Stress Disorder among victims of reverse discrimination; and 1st amendment issues pertaining such as efforts to define criticism of affirmative action as non-protected speech.
In particular, please see the following web pages:
3.1.9.1 Book Reviews about Quotas and Preferences
See Web Site: www.adversity.net/special/books.htm
3.1.9.2 Misc. Opinion, News, Commentary
See Web Site: www.adversity.net/favor_misc.htm
3.1.9.3 NIGGARDLY: Ominous Portent of Political Correctness
See Web Site: www.adversity.net/special/niggardly.htm
3.1.9.4 Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
See Web Site: www.adversity.net/post_traumatic_0.htm
3.1.9.5 Free Speech: Criticism of Affirmative Action is NOT Allowed
See Web Site: www.adversity.net/special/freespeech.htm
*** END Activity I - News Summaries and Policy Papers ***
3.2 Activity (II) Case Studies and Horror Stories:
% of Time = 10%
Importance = Very High
Personnel = Tim Fay, Chairman and Editor
Location = Adversity.Net office addressCase Studies Overview: Adversity.Net researches and publishes specific case histories regarding disparate impact of preferential policies upon members of non-preferred classes.
Through this section of our Web Site, Adversity.Net seeks to empower victims of reverse discrimination, to validate their unfortunate experiences, and to educate the general public regarding the disparate impact of reverse discrimination upon members of non-preferred classes.
Current Case Studies: At the time of this application, Adversity.Net maintains 18 case studies about reverse discrimination on our Internet Web Site. Each of these cases highlights the disparate impact of preferential policies upon an individual or business who is not a member of a preferred class.
3.2.1 Case 1: Fay Communications, Inc. (Washington, DC). Fay Communications, Inc. is a small government contractor owned by a non-preferred individual. In 1987 this firm was told in person by representatives of the Federal Emergency Management Agency that because the firm was owned by a non-preferred individual the firm would be excluded from bidding on a major contract. Fay Communications sued the U.S. SBA’s Section 8(a) set-aside program.
See also Web Site: www.adversity.net/c1_fay.htm
3.2.2 Case 2: Sumter, South Carolina Police Officer. (Sumter, SC). Police Office Joe Moore (retired) was repeatedly excluded from promotion opportunities by the Sumter police department because Officer Moore was deemed a non-preferred individual. Officer Moore complained about this policy, and was forced to take early retirement.
See also Web Site: www.adversity.net/c2_tbd.htm
3.2.3 Case 3: EEOC Lawyer Joseph Ray Terry. (Washington, DC). Joseph Ray Terry is a member of a non-preferred class. Mr. Terry is a highly skilled attorney employed by the U.S. EEOC, and Terry has devoted his entire legal career to fighting discrimination. In spite of glowing and superior performance reviews at EEOC, Mr. Terry was forced to repeatedly sue the agency over the course of ten years in order to be awarded a much-deserved promotion.
See also Web Site: www.adversity.net/c3_tbd.htm
3.2.4 Case 4: Boston Latin public school. (Boston, MA). Grade schoolers Sara McLaughlin and Julia Wessman live in Boston. Their parents only wanted the best public education possible for their daughters, and they wanted to send their daughters to Boston Latin School, which is a highly regarded school in the Boston system. But the Boston Latin School, a taxpayer-supported public school, maintained a race-based admissions policy which did not allow these two children to be admitted, in spite of the fact that these girls scored higher on their admissions exams than a number of preferred individuals who were admitted. The girls sued, and the policy was eventually overturned.
See also Web Site: www.adversity.net/c4_tbd.htm
3.2.5 Case 5: Internal Revenue Service reverse discrimination. Several interrelated cases. (Texas and Louisiana). In April 1997 a U.S. District Court Judge determined that four IRS employees in Louisiana were denied "equal protection and equal treatment" because they were not on the IRS list of preferred classes.
Another IRS agent (Angelo Troncoso) proved to the court he was repeatedly denied promotions within the IRS because he was not a member of a preferred class.
In October 1997 IRS agent Jennifer Long sued the IRS for reverse discrimination and retaliation following her testimony before the U.S. Senate about IRS abuse of taxpayers.
In August 1998 the IRS was ordered to pay $200,000 damages to a white manager for reverse discrimination.
In 1999, in Byrd v. Rubin, Federal District Court Judge Donald E. Walter ruled that IRS deprived white males of their 5th Amendment rights. The case was settled in favor of the plaintiff prior to trial.
See also Web Site: www.adversity.net/c5_tbd.htm
3.2.6 Case 6: Seattle Fire Captain Randy Hansen. (Seattle, WA). Seattle Firefighter Capt. Randy Hansen faxed a humorous flyer for a fictitious employee organization called "The White Anglo Saxon European American Male Firefighters Association" to his fellow employees. Hansen’s fax was intended as a humorous parody of all the other racial and ethnic employee organizations within the fire department. Capt. Hansen’s employer, assisted by the City of Seattle, tried to penalize him for exercising his right to free speech. Hansen counter-sued the Seattle Fire Department and the City of Seattle for retaliation.
See also Web Site: www.adversity.net/c6_tbd.htm
3.2.7 Case 7: DeWayne Currier, FAA employee-applicant. (Sacramento, CA). DeWayne Currier is a partially disabled white male veteran with technical training and college degrees which eminently qualified him for employment by the California FAA. In spite of the fact that the FAA told Currier that he was the most qualified applicant, Mr. Currier was denied employment because he was not a member of a preferred class.
See also Web Site: www.adversity.net/c7_tbd.htm
3.2.8 Case 8: 16 non-minority deputies in Georgia’s Fulton County Marshall’s department. (Atlanta, GA). The court found that Fulton County’s Sheriff illegally denied promotions and/or employment to 16 non-preferred employee/applicants due solely to their membership in a non-preferred class. The court awarded over $180,000 to the non-preferred plaintiffs for reverse discrimination.
See also Web Site: www.adversity.net/c8_tbd.htm
3.2.9 Case 9: Arlington, VA kindergarten. (Arlington, VA). The Arlington School Board has repeatedly ignored a judge’s order to stop using racial criteria in admissions decisions. Arlington finally complied, and has lost an appeal. Arlington may take their appeal in favor of preferential policies to the Supreme Court.
See also Web Site: www.adversity.net/c9_tbd.htm
3.2.10 Case 10: Koski v. Gainer (Terrance Gainer, then-Chief of the Illinois State Police). (Illinois). In Koski v. Gainer the Seventh Federal Circuit Court found that 5,000 non-minority officers and officer-applicants were illegally denied either promotions within the State Police, or the opportunity for a job with the State Police, because they were not members of preferred classes. U.S. District Judge Harry D. Leinenweber ordered several specific remedies, including ordering the Illinois State Police to contact 5,000 non-preferred applicants who had been rejected during the past 20 years and offer them another chance at employment.
See also Web Site: www.adversity.net/c10_tbd.htm
3.2.11 Case 11: Florida Orange County Fire Rescue Division (OCFRD). (Orange County, FL). 32 non-preferred firefighters in Orange County, Florida sued for reverse discrimination. Orange County settled with the firefighters for an undisclosed amount.
See also Web Site: www.adversity.net/c11_tbd.htm
3.2.12 Case 12: John Goode, Austin barbecue vendor. (Austin, TX). John Goode is black. He was a successful vendor of barbecue at several Austin, TX entertainment and sports venues. But when the City of Austin required Mr. Goode to certify his business as an historically disadvantaged business enterprise, Mr. Goode refused, and the City of Austin ordered its contractors to cease doing business with Mr. Goode.
See also Web Site: www.adversity.net/c12_tbd.htm
3.2.13 Case 13: Tom Taber and Ford Graphics. (San Francisco, CA). The City of San Francisco has an ordinance - in apparent violation of Proposition 209 - which sets-aside a percentage of city contracts for companies owned by members r of preferred classes, such as women or minorities. The city notified bidder Ford Graphics in July 1998 that it was ineligible to bid on a project calling for reprographic services because Ford Graphics is owned by a member of a non-preferred class and the contract in question had been set-aside exclusively for businesses owned by members of preferred classes. The Pacific Legal Foundation sued San Francisco for reverse discrimination on behalf of Ford Graphics.
See also Web Site: www.adversity.net/c13_tbd.htm
3.2.14 Case 14: Texaco. (New York and Texas). In late 1996 and early 1997, oil giant Texaco, Inc. settled a discrimination claim by employees of preferred classes. No court ruled on the issue; Texaco chose to pay $176 million to settle the case and get on with business. Subsequent to the settlement, Texaco has ordered all of its U.S. employees to attend "diversity training", the company has hired thousands of additional preferred class employees, it has spent additional millions of dollars supporting minority-owned business enterprises, and it has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to other causes favoring preferred classes and preferential policies.
See also Web Site: www.adversity.net/c14_tbd.htm
3.2.15 Case 15: Edward Blum and Paine Webber. (Houston, TX). The case of Paine Webber is presented in order to illustrate the economic and social pressures which are brought to bear on members of non-preferred classes who publicly express political beliefs which challenge preferential policies.
In this particular case, Mr. Edward Blum had been a successful Paine Webber stockbroker for 16 years. In Blum's private life he was also co-chair of the Campaign for a Color-Blind America, which publicly opposed preferential policies. At the time, the Houston city council was also fighting against Proposition A which sought to end the city’s use of preferential policies. According to press reports, the Houston City Council strongly implied that Paine Webber would lose its lucrative bond underwriting business with the city unless Paine Webber opposed Proposition A. Subsequently, and apparently as a direct result, Paine Webber forced Mr. Blum to retire from the firm solely because of Blum’s opposition to preferential policies.
See also Web Site: www.adversity.net/c15_tbd.htm
3.2.16 Case 16: U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) vs. Dave Diersen. (Washington, DC and Chicago, IL). Dave Diersen transferred from IRS to GAO in 1980. He is an older, white, male (now age 50) who was discriminated against by GAO’s preferential policies which granted employment and promotion preferences to younger employees who belong to preferred classes. Diersen’s case is currently pending.
See also Web Site: www.adversity.net/c16_tbd.htm
3.2.17 Case 17: Waiter Jeb Bello v. MD Delegate Melony Griffith. (Annapolis, MD). Freshman Maryland Delegate Melony Griffith is black. Waiter Jeb Bello is white (Italian American). Ms. Griffith tried to treat a friend to lunch at Bello’s restaurant, but service was slow. Griffith got angry and accused waiter Bello of racism for failing to seat her quickly enough. Griffith retaliated by inducing the black leadership in Maryland to boycott Bello’s restaurant, and by writing letters to potential employers thus making it difficult for young Mr. Bello to find other employment in an Annapolis restaurant. Waiter Bello has filed a civil suit against Griffith.
See also Web Site: www.adversity.net/c17_tbd.htm
3.2.18 Case 18: Patricia Steffes v. PepsiCo. (Lansing, MI). The case of Steffes v. PepsiCo is presented to illustrate the extent to which a large, powerful private employer is willing to impose promotion criteria based upon preferential policies upon qualified employees who are members of non-preferred classes.
Patricia Steffes’ father had worked for Pepsi. Ms. Steffes went to work for Pepsi at an early age. She had pertinent college education, she had on-the-job-experience, and she had the seniority for a promotion. According to court documents, her Pepsi managers considered her to be the "best of the best". Unfortunately for Ms. Steffes, she was a member of a non-preferred class. Pepsi management, responding to threats of job actions and protests from employees who were members of preferred classes, filled the job opening with a member of a preferred class. Steffes sued for reverse discrimination, and she won a judgment of $2.6 million.
See also Web Site: www.adversity.net/c18_tbd.htm
3.2.2 Proposed Expansion and Improvement: (Contingent on Funding). Adversity.Net will contract with one or more research assistants and/or legal professionals to research additional reverse discrimination case studies. As at present, source material will be comprised of any and all of: government records, court documents, press reports, other public records and, of course, information submitted by victims of reverse discrimination.
This is an area in which Adversity.Net would like to expand its activities if funding is available. If funding is available, we will add public information and content not available from other sources. This will require contracting with qualified legal research personnel and editorial staff on a contract-basis or on a freelance basis. Examples of this expansion will include: providing legal footnotes or cross references within our published Cases. Under this scenario, our published cases of reverse discrimination will include links to the following legal information:
- A summary of the constitutional issues and legal precedents which formed the underpinnings of the victim’s claim of reverse discrimination (e.g.,. Title VII, or the 4th Amendment, or Adarand Constructors, etc.)
- Court filings and pleadings for each published case, including especially the legal citations and precedents used by both the plaintiff/victim and the defendant.
*** END Activity II - Case Studies ***
3.3 Activity (III) Research and Statistical Analysis
(New activity, contingent upon funding)
% of Time = 15%
Importance = Very High
Personnel = Outside hires, contractors
Location = Adversity.Net office address3.3.1 PROPOSED RESEARCH ACTIVITIES: Depending on availability of funding, Adversity.Net plans to conduct specific research projects documenting the disparate impact of preferential policies upon non-preferred classes.
3.3.2 Sample Proposed Research Project: Contingent upon funding, in the future Adversity.Net would propose to examine the official contracting and employment policies of selected government and public employers. Identify and document preferential policies as they affect hiring, promotion, and contracting with non-preferred classes.
Examine employment records and contracting documents and quantify the number of non-preferred individuals who either (a) have been denied a job, promotion, or a contracting opportunity with the selected government/public employer because they are not members of a preferred class; and/or (b) have been denied a contract award because they did not meet the agency’s preference targets or because another firm, perhaps which presented a higher cost bid, specified in their bid a greater number of preferred-class employees and subcontractors.
Where the availability of data allows, perform a multi-year trend analysis illustrating the increase or decrease in hiring, promotions, and contracting according to preferred classes vs. non-preferred classes.
Personnel: Project to be overseen by Chairman and Editor, Tim Fay
Personnel: University-affiliated Ph.D. in Statistics and/or Government who is nationally recognized and who is published in this field.
Availability: Research results from any such project will be available free of charge on Adversity.Net’s Web Site.
Other Distribution and Cost: Research results from any such project may be published in other, non-web formats such as printed materials. In such cases, the cost of printing and distribution will be charged at cost to members of the public who request receipt of such non-web materials.
3.4 Activity (IV) Outreach and Awareness
(New activity, contingent upon funding)
% of Time = 15%
Importance = Very High
Personnel = Outside hires, contractors
Location = Adversity.Net office address3.4.1 Outreach Purpose: The purpose of Adversity.Net’s outreach efforts is to increase awareness and readership of our educational materials. The large amount of educational material available through Adversity.Net’s Web Site will be of little use if concerned citizens, policy makers, and regulators are unaware of the existence of these resources. The more people who know of and have access to our educational materials, the more robust and informed will be the public debate on this important social and economic issue.
All of Adversity.Net’s educational materials are available free of charge on the Internet at our Web Site 24 hours per day, seven days a week.
3.4.2 Outreach Description: Proposed, expanded outreach activities include all of the following, contingent upon funding.
Press Relations - Adversity.Net proposes to increase awareness of this important public debate about preferential policies through expanded press relations. Improved press relations will be achieved through the use of press releases, press conferences and direct contact with individual media outlets.
(Content to be composed and edited by Adversity.Net officers, primarily Tim Fay, and distribution to be handled by contractors, contingent upon funding.)
Legislative and Regulatory Relations - In addition to Adversity.Net’s Web Site, our organization’s staff and educational resources are available, by invitation, to interested legislators and/or legislative bodies.
Adversity.Net also proposes to participate in the public comment process of selected federal, state and local rulemakings which have a direct impact on preferential policies and upon non-preferred classes.
(Content to be composed and edited by Adversity.Net officers, employees, and/or supervised contractors, which activity will be primarily overseen by Tim Fay. Distribution will be handled by Tim Fay or, for larger distributions, by contractors.)
Navigation Options: |
|
