Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court lets stand broadcast diversity ruling (bye bye forced racial quotas in TV news biz!)
Reuters ^ | January 22, 2002

Posted on 01/22/2002 12:15:40 PM PST by Timesink

Tuesday January 22 2:34 PM ET

Supreme Court lets stand broadcast diversity ruling

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday let stand a lower-court ruling striking down as unconstitutional federal rules designed to promote employment diversity in the broadcast industry.

A year ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) rules put official government pressure on the broadcasters to recruit minorities.

The appeals court said the rules put official pressure on television, radio, and cable operators to recruit minority candidates in a way that was not narrowly tailored to support a compelling government interest.

The high court declined, without comment or dissent, to hear an appeal brought by a number of groups, including the National Organization for Women and People for the American Way.

The FCC, at its December open meeting, started the process of rewriting its policy by proposing new rules that would require broadcasters and cable companies to send job vacancy information to all recruitment organizations that request it.

Additionally, the agency proposed the companies participate in certain outreach programs like job fairs and internship programs, and that they interact with education and community groups and file annual employment reports.

Reuters/Variety REUTERS


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
I cannot put into words how hard it was for me, as a white male, to find work in broadcast journalism coming out of college in the early 90s. Well, actually I can put it into words: It was IMPOSSIBLE. Nobody was hiring anyone that wasn't either a minority or a female, and plenty of potential employers admitted this to my face (off the record, of course). I am absolutely ecstatic to see this institutionalized racism and hate made illegal FOREVER.
1 posted on 01/22/2002 12:15:40 PM PST by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Did you ever consider changing your name to Geraldo Rivera?
2 posted on 01/22/2002 12:19:20 PM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
I am absolutely ecstatic to see this institutionalized racism and hate made illegal FOREVER.

Forever? "The high court declined, without comment or dissent, to hear an appeal...." Therefore, it looks to me as if it's illegal only until another court rules differently.

3 posted on 01/22/2002 12:19:52 PM PST by newgeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
I think it will stay illegal in that district.
4 posted on 01/22/2002 12:21:25 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Nothing is forever. The FCC under chairman Powell has already issued a public notice seeking comments on a new and improved racial quota, oh, excuse me, diversity system.
5 posted on 01/22/2002 12:21:35 PM PST by garyb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
Hey its still good news for now !
6 posted on 01/22/2002 12:25:11 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
Does anyone know the vote breakdown?
7 posted on 01/22/2002 12:44:44 PM PST by AZFolks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
The rancid misinformation purveyed as "news" by the lefties of the Fourth Estate used to be good for a laugh at least, but out of the mouth of "info-babes" it becomes a virulent, disgusting plague as it issues forth colored by their smug arrogance. For years, I have avoided watching or listening to such, and I wondered why there were so many, and so hard to avoid. So that's the answer -- affirmative action. I might have known. Thank you, sir.
8 posted on 01/22/2002 12:53:39 PM PST by thulldud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZFolks
Does anyone know the vote breakdown?

"The high court declined, without comment or dissent, to hear an appeal...."

There was no vote.

9 posted on 01/22/2002 1:02:36 PM PST by newgeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

This is very important (non)decision

Effectivly, the vote was 9-0.

This will have VERY serious effect, espceially in the medium to smaller markets. In New York, you "need" a one eyed, gay, left-handed Afro-Chineese anchor in a wheelchair.

Not so in Fargo.

In Fargo, Framingham and Fresno, specific minorities have been required by federal mandate. No more.

Gone will be the minority reporters who couldn't write a declarative sentence, and like one I worked with, didn't know the executive of a state was the governor and the executive of a city was the mayor, (She once asked me who was the Mayor of Nebraska! She ended up as an anchor in New York until she said St. Patrick's day was a wonderful event, not just in New York, but for German people everywhere. She also asked her co-anchor, since the Pope appeared to be such a kindly man... "Did Pope John Paul II ever have a family?")

Gone also are the "reserved seats." In TV, once a minority gets a specific position, such as noon anchor or weekend anchor, that position becomes a "Black Job" or an "Oriental Job" and must be filled by that minority when the current one leaves. Adios that idea.

Also, this affirmed decision was from the "Little Supreme Court", the DC Appeals Court. Other courts look to this court for guidance.

Finally, this is a very visable blow against liberal racism called "Affirmative Action." It will be extended to other areas, other jobs.

Oyeas, Oyeas, Oyeas, God Save This Court.

10 posted on 01/22/2002 1:38:52 PM PST by MindBender26
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
There was no vote.

It takes four votes to hear a case but, since those internal votes are never released to the public, all we know is that at least 6 judges declined to hear it. Coulda been all 9, we'll just never know.
11 posted on 01/22/2002 1:55:17 PM PST by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
It takes four, officially, but if one or two justices really want to hear a case, others will defer to him or her and grant certerari so the court can schedule the matter.

A non-hearing on this indicates a rather broad agreement, and that they thought the decsiion from the DC COA was correct, well written and well founded.

12 posted on 01/22/2002 2:37:24 PM PST by MindBender26
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
It takes four, officially, but if one or two justices really want to hear a case, others will defer to him or her and grant certerari so the court can schedule the matter. A non-hearing on this indicates a rather broad agreement, and that they thought the decsiion from the DC COA was correct, well written and well founded.

I bow to your superior knowledge.
13 posted on 01/22/2002 4:18:03 PM PST by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Thanks Dad. :~)
14 posted on 01/22/2002 5:32:39 PM PST by MindBender26
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
Diversity,aka affirmative action is being eviscerated, slowly but surely.It is THE law in Washingtn D.C. If some other Appelate jurisdiction doesn't agree, it will certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court will then decide, and the decision will be to uphold the Washington D.C. court.Diversity equals quotas, and quotas have always been illegal.
15 posted on 01/22/2002 5:49:49 PM PST by stimulate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Hey, the white male is still discriminated against. Try getting any government job coming out of college, and it is almost as difficult. They usually only take minorities and women if there is no previous work experience (internships don't count).
16 posted on 01/27/2002 8:57:15 PM PST by FreedomFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson