You prattle on anyway! IF you took time to read Mr Fauntroy's article which I doubt, since most of you lack the intelligence to understand it anyway, you would see how wrong you are. This government has engaged in a systematic undercover effort to change the "standard of proof" as it relates to civil rights cases. The first nod to the racists was the inclusion of a "time limit". Why should there be a time "limit" on the TRUTH? Funny, how there's no statute of limitations on murder, huh? So, the inclusion of these "limitations" in the original legislation was a nod to the racists to begin with! I realize that the racist deniers on this site have an interest in refuting this but the facts are here, since most of you just read the blurbs and regurgitate your ill informed opinions from that, I'll help you out. (the below is quoted from Mr Fautroy's article).

"The dismantling of Federal civil rights enforcement under Reagan took two forms occurring concomitantly.  First, was the freezing or reducing of funding for agencies charged with enforcement of federal civil rights laws and regulations. Rather than overtly end these programs and agencies, the Reagan administration sought to starve them to prevent them from doing their work.  In this way, they could largely achieve their goal of civil rights deregulation without seeking the abolition of the programs and agencies, thereby providing some political cover.  Second, was the hiring of individuals to lead these organizations, or take high-ranking positions therein, who were ideologically pre-disposed to not enforce federal civil rights laws and regulations as aggressively as their predecessors.  These actions deregulated federal civil rights enforcement and created an environment in which civil rights violations could occur with near impunity and certainly with much less fear of federal reprisals than before.In some departments, enforcement either shifted in new ways, was reduced, or discontinued.  One congressional investigation concluded that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shifted away from class action lawsuits, elevated the standard of proof to establish reasonable cause, orally directed staff not to recommend the use of goals and time tables and not to intervene in cases in which goals and timetables were proposed as a remedy for discrimination, and accelerated closure of cases at the expense of quality of investigations.  The Justice Department filed no cases under the Fair Housing Act of 1968 during its first year under Reagan; they filed two in 1982.  Under presidents Nixon, Ford, and Carter, the department averaged thirty-two cases a year."

Now, before you reflexive deniers pipe up, where are YOUR facts? Here are his. He has shown CONCLUSIVELY that there was a pattern designed to lessen enforcement in this area and shown with statistics that this effort was successful. Where are YOUR facts? Or do you people just argue like silly liberals and talk about how you "feel"? P.S. I knew the NB staff would NOT print the factually relevant portions of the article although they DID link to it. But how many of the lowbrows actually read the whole thing? hmmmm. 

Which is why Conservatives and Repubs have a doubly vested interest in the success of Blacks, not their failure.  We are opposed to Welfare and any other Socialistic government handouts.  If we eliminate the reason for being on Welfare then we also eliminate the cornerstone of Dem power - hand outs (voting buying bribes) from the public treasury. 

With the level of poverty among "citizens" dropping due to the economy, the Dems have to import poverty from Mexico and SA to keep up their voting base and continue with the bleeding heart pitch to the rest of the liberals.  It's getting so bad for the bureaucrats that they have resorted to advertising to get more clients to take their handouts, they call it "outreach".

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.

SMALLTIMER, I know that you're not that bright, having debated you in the past as it related to your "unregenerated, improperly baptized" status.  But to put the words "SO CALLED" in front of "civil rights movement" is particularly heinous. IT's easy for do nothings like yourself to criticize those who actually have "skin in the game"! To you Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are just "race hustlers" making it all up as they go along! While both of these men have done things that I regard as questionable there can be no doubt that they arose to prominence in RESPONSE to discrimination! Unless you think all those blacks eating and going to the bathroom in segregated facilities were just victims of  "so called" racism! Was the civil rights movement "so called" when Jesse Lee Jackson was killed? For those of you who went to public school, this was one of the catalysts for SELMA marches which started the whole ball of wax. I realize that many of you racist deniers like to hide behind the misguided belief that whites have somehow magically changed, but when did that happen? What classes have you taken? You rail against anyone who describes your former racist behavior as disgusting or abominable, preferring to relegate it to "sign of the times" status, so when did you all change? Was there a meeting? And if the civil rights movement in your ill informed opinion is now, SO CALLED, how does one of your presumably egalitarian bent explain disparity in pay among the "so called" races? Or gender? These statistics were compiled from a government study done just a few years ago. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the world that the rest of us live in. Not the "so called" world but the real one.

"Executive Summary  Median Salaries: This survey of California’s state civil service work force of more than 160,000 finds median annual salaries of full-time women workers remained significantly below those of full-time men workers in 1995, and median salaries of African-Americans and Hispanics were significantly lower than those of whites and Asian-Americans.  Women earned markedly less than men in all racial and ethnic groups.  The findings are important because state government is the largest employer in California, other than the federal government.  Its salary and employment trends likely are reflected in less public workplaces. The median salary paid women was 74 percent of the median that went to men. As Table 1 shows, men earned a median of $46,020; women $34,236. African-Americans and Hispanics -- men and women together -- earned 85 percent of the $44,600 median paid to whites.  Asian-Americans had a median about $1,100 higher than whites. Female Hispanics and female Pacific islanders had the lowest medians among all the racial, ethnic and gender groups, at about $31,900 each.  Asian-American males had the highest at $51,400 -- meaning a difference of $19,500 per year between highest- and lowest-paid ethnic, racial and gender groups. Asian-American women earned the highest median among females -- but their pay was equal to the lowest median among males.  Asian-American women had a median of  $37,900, the same as Filipino-American men. Median salaries among males ranged from $37,900 to $51,400, varying by race and ethnic category, while the range was much narrower among women -- $31,830 to $37,920, also varying by race and ethnicity.  Interestingly, white men had a median salary only $420 above the median of African-American men -- but the median of white women was $3,168 higher than the median of African-American women.  Yet, nationally, more African-American women than African-American men are college graduates. White women earned 78 percent of the median paid white men. African-American women earned 72 percent of the median paid African-American men. Hispanic women earned 73 percent of the median paid Hispanic men. Asian-American women earned 74 percent of the median paid Asian-American men."  There are MANY studies like this one all with similar conclusions! Gee, how come there's NEVER been ONE SINGLE STUDY which says, "the blacks just made it all up"? How come EVERY study finds discrimination and the need for "so called" civil rights, while you just keep plodding along with your head up your butt! The study in it's entirety can be found here...http://www.sen.ca.gov/sor/REPORTS/REPORTS_BY_SUBJ/Pub_Employment_Retirement/GLASS_CEILING.HTMAnd before some "denier" tries to jig the numbers, the disparity is among those with the SAME JOBS and SAME EDUCATION not receiving the SAME PAY. PROBABLY DOESN'T BOTHER YOU, THOUGH.