Walter T. Charlton, Counsel for Cynthia Artis, et al., in the extremely long duration employment discrimination case, Artis v.
Greenspan Bernanke Yellen spoke about the Federal Reserve Board in 2002. Thirteen years later, the case is still active.
The Board acts as if equal opportunity is an undeserved burden, one which it does not have to respond to. This whole case is an abomination because one witnesses the Board as a passive yet determined and obstinate barrier against equal employment opportunity.
See video on the C-Span website. (http://www.c-span.org/person/?waltercharlton)
[Author’s note: A slight, but related, digression follows. Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts commented in oral argument for Fisher v. University of Texas that the United States of America will be able to resolve its centuries-old mistreatment of nonwhite persons, and promotion of white citizens, in a mere 25 years (Court transcript, page 49).
(The Chief Justice did not cite authority for such a time limit; the 14th Amendment (clause 5) is enforced by the Congress, not the Court (the Court has moved to limit the plain language of the text) however, setting time limits is political and is an exercise of legislative power. Such legislating is perverse for an unelected, unaccountable body to dare to think of imposing.)
Moreover, Roberts’ 25-year target for the “resolution” of race is an astoundingly exasperating statement to hear from the Supreme Court, a body which has not had any black justices (save Justice Thurgood Marshall–I deliberately exclude Clarence Thomas) until recently. Before historically recent times, no black people were involved in setting the precedential cases of the institution (as voting justices); all they do now is carry out the laws generated by the white justices before them. This result shows the injustice of the blind application of stare decisis in the United States of America.
Not to forget, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia deigned all black people (a people who pay taxes for the institution of the Supreme Court) as intellectually slow and proposed (during oral argument) essentially the re-institution of separate but equal policies based on perceived intellectual power. (Court transcript, pages 67 and 68.) (How Scalia has the power to determine another human beings’ intellectual value was unstated; I certainly do not accept Scalia as a trustworthy arbiter or as God.) Regardless of the intent of the argument, fulfillment of Justice John Harlan’s dissent is the ultimate goal. The Supreme Court is yet another huge mountain in the path of progress.
Scalia’s remarks broadcast (from a U.S. government microphone and U.S. government property) are the result of odious scientific racism, and those remarks also reflected the soiled workings of his mind. He is not alone–Google James Watson.
Furthermore, to witness an institution with a legal workforce that is mostly or all white (and male) having the audacity to lecture the country on the meaning of race–especially black people who suffer under the unfair policies–is truly insulting, and, yes, unacceptable.]