chapotraphouse

I've never been involved with hiring and have only ever worked at companies small enough to fly under the radar when it comes to regulating things like that, so I have zero experience in seeing how it would have actually worked. But there are two narratives I often heard about it:

1. Companies were forced to meet "quotas". For example black people have to make up some percent of their workforce, meaning they would have to prioritize black candidates if they were actively hiring but under the quota

2. Even if a company met the quota, if they were considering two candidates that were equal in qualifications and one was white and the other not, the non-white candidate would get the job because being non-white give them... like extra "points" or something? I guess to give them a "buffer" so if next time they're hiring, they can hire a white person?

I have a strong feeling both are myths, and the reality of it was more vague and loosely enforced, especially since I never heard anything about what the punishment would be for not following these rules. A fine? Prison time for leadership? Complete shutdown of the business? Who knows. I am interested in hearing how it actually worked from anyone who has firsthand experience with affirmative action.

Been doing more reading on it, and found that quotas used to be a thing, but were struck down by the supreme court in 1978. I can't find anything that says the quota system UC Davis used was forced on them by the government.

It’s my chance at ever being able to retire so I might as well do it.

Wish me luck.

https://twitter.com/Caroleeenalala/status/1777479952301953490

Please appreciate it and move along.

https://twitter.com/ibrahimibnyusuf/status/1777216378421833883

I found this sign posted on a store's building when I was on my way home from a job interview. No, that isn't my hand in the image; I had to find an HD version on a Facebook page for a company.

The most libshit thing you can do is disregard the paradox of tolerance because being open to fascists seems more inclusive at face value when, in actuality, it isn’t at all.

Equating the discomfort that BIPOC, religious minorities, women, LGBTQ+ people, immigrants, the disabled, and neurodivergent people go through with a chud feeling uncomfortable simply because he got dunked on for his trash takes is just sleazy as fuck to me.

In essence, yes, you can not and should not kick someone out of a facility simply for harboring certain political views, but the need to put said political views on the same level as the discrimination that all the above categories go through makes this one of the most transparently performative attempts at inclusivity I've ever seen.

The best thing to have done was to just simply leave "ALL Political Parties" off the damn sheet.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/2252319

From the article:

Despite the fact that librarians are among the most trusted professionals, per data acquired in several studies of parents on the perceptions of the profession, lawmakers across the country continue to infantilize and criminalize library workers. The 2024 legislative session has been particularly eager to capitalize on the rhetoric from the far right on libraries, as seen through several bills aimed at not only limiting the types of books allowed in school and public libraries but also in how the profession itself may operate.

We’ve seen Utah pass a bill that would pull books off shelves in school libraries if the title is pulled in other districts in the state, a blatant removal of the local control the very anti-library advocates themselves demand. Idaho attempted to push through similar legislation, despite clear links of the rhetoric around “pornography in libraries” to QAnon conspiracy. Georgia attempted, but narrowly failed, to pass a bill this session that would ban the American Library Association from school and public libraries statewide (and the respective funding from the nation’s largest professional association for library workers).

Louisiana continues these efforts in an ongoing move by politicians in the state to damage public libraries with House Bill 777. HB 777 was introduced March 25 by Representative Kellee Dickerson, who helped fund the Louisiana Freedom Caucus. The bill would criminalize library workers and libraries for joining the American Library Association.

The American Library Association (ALA) is the largest and oldest professional organization for library workers in the nation. It was founded in 1876, and this Twitter thread is a fantastic resource on the history and purpose of the organization.

The HB 777 text reads:

A. No public official or employee shall appropriate, allocate, reimburse, or otherwise or in any way expend public funds to or with the American Library Association or its successor.

B. No public employee shall request or receive reimbursement or remuneration in any form for continuing education or for attending a conference if the continuing education or conference was sponsored or conducted, in whole or in part, by the American Library Association or its successor.

C. Whoever violates this Section shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or be imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than two years, or both.

This partisan bill undermines the profession on several levels.

Since the rise of book banning in early 2021, the ALA has been at the receiving end of criticism from right-wing politicians and organizations, despite no such similar pushback toward similar organizations for other professionals. Indeed, such attacks have served to not only skewer the profession and all it stands for, but they’ve also been one of several ways that certain groups have attempted to undermine the trust in these institutions.

By creating a villain of the biggest professional organization for library workers, book banners pound away at the institutions that establish and uphold librarianship as a profession. Librarians lose their place as experts in their field, with the skills, knowledge, and passion for helping connect people to vetted, accurate, verifiable information. To real facts and not those crafted by so-called “alternative” library organizations developed by long-time library antagonists and sympathizers who themselves have worked hard to dismantle these democratic institutions.

More, though, by criminalizing the library’s use of taxpayer money to be members of the ALA, HB 777 ends up harming those very same taxpayers by removing access to grants, funds, and educational opportunities that benefit them via their libraries. There are grants offered annually to help libraries increase specific collections or categories of material. There are opportunities for library workers to be part of the process in selecting the best books annually–important to note here because of how much noise there is around these books “not representing” certain communities and yet by barring library workers from engaging in these committees, they purposefully undermine their own purported lack of representation. Membership in the ALA means that individuals and institutions have the chance to take a variety of professional development courses to ensure their work is aligned with the standards of the profession more broadly, including ensuring that it remains a space of democracy, inquiry, and access.

Of course, those are the very reasons why bills like HB 777 arise. Dickerson and her ilk are eager to destroy and dismantle public and school libraries. By attempting to fine libraries and library workers, they make keeping Louisiana libraries aligned with the best of the best impossible and instead, create these institutions in their own image.

That image is one where the library doesn’t exist to serve an entire community but to serve specific demographics that may or may not live in those communities.

HB 777 not only would fine libraries and librarians, but it would possibly require hard labor by those found guilty. Read that again: librarians would be sentenced to hard labor for daring to join their largest professional organization.

The bill would also potentially kill one of the largest graduate school programs in the state of Louisiana, Louisiana State University’s Masters of Library and Information Science program. Like all Master of Library and Information Science programs, it is accredited by the ALA and goes through a rigorous process to ensure that the curriculum is up-to-date and aligned with best practices in libraries.

Even if the bill is limited “only” to the use of tax money to support membership or attendance/enrollment in ALA-sponsored professional development, take a moment to look into whether or not police, fire, or other public entities are subject to similar legislation in Louisiana or elsewhere. You probably know the answer–and you probably won’t be surprised that one of the few institutional benefits offered to library workers is such membership.

If you haven’t been paying attention until now or you’ve thought these fears when laid out over the last several years were hyperbole and this is your wakeup call, there’s no time like the present to get to work advocating on behalf of your library. If you live in Louisiana, contact your representatives as soon as possible (here’s a very easy way to do that!). You can also reach out to Kellee Dickerson by phone at (225) 380-4232 and email [email protected].

Then, reach out to your own libraries and offer your support, either by showing up at board meetings and/or running for those board positions when vacancies occur. Go borrow books from the library and get your writing hands going with letters to your local papers.

EveryLibrary also has a petition you can sign related to HB777.

ALA deserves criticism as an organization for many reasons, both from those within it and those outside it. But making it illegal to join the largest professional organization for librarians and punishing those who join with steep fines and potentially hard labor is not criticism.

It’s fascism and it’s unconstitutional.

The late anti-Kremlin activist and liberal politician Alexey Navalny had also berated Central Asian migrants and called for a visa regime.

Glad they're mentioning it. Navalny was an anti-immigrant POS. Shameful how western liberals were supporting him.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Lately at social events, I often find myself trapped by people who want to share, in excruciating detail, their genetic test results.

Each person finds their own results deeply compelling, marveling at length over being 3% this and 15% that, with stunning reveals like, “I thought I we were Welsh, but it turns out we’re Scottish!”

Meanwhile, the next person is on deck, barely half-listening, eagerly getting ready to launch into their own genetic saga.

Monologuing about the minutiae of one’s DNA is self-absorption at, quite literally, the cellular level. Is there a polite way to shut this down?

GENTLE READER: Oh, dear. Miss Manners would have thought that we had established the idea that bragging about one’s lineage is rude, and now it has started up again.

Well, you could try expanding the scope of the conversation. Try, “What would your ancestors have thought of the state of America today?” Or, “I suppose you must want to travel there now. What are your vacation plans this year?”

Or, “Excuse me, I need to freshen my drink.”

they tested my cum and it came back Probably Nordic, just like Opa always said!!

Like wut?

40 years in prison for a crime at 17... I think I would also find Islam if I were in his stead, otherwise God save the system and the captors from me.