[blindLaw] Discrimination

Wed Sep 25 01:16:28 UTC 2019

Laura,

I emailed you off-list earlier today. In short, your response here is
exactly the reason I'd love to talk. I'd deeply appreciate some of
your time.

Warmth,
Sanho

On 9/24/19, Laura Wolk via BlindLaw <blindlaw at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> Dear Daniel and all,
>
> I simply cannot agree with the fatalistic understanding of "privilege"
> sketched in the second half of your email.  When I went to law school,
> I had no lawyers in my family, let alone well-connected ones.  Any
> connections I did have dropped me like a hot potato after my religion
> and politics changed.  I had no connections to any of the groups that
> are supposed to mysteriously place people with the right ideologies in
> the right places.  And I floundered and did horribly trying to go to
> large cocktail mixers on my own.  My 1L summer I interviewed with over
> 40 firms, with top-notch grades and a law review placement.  I  got
> one callback.  But guess what?  I made my own connections.  And I
> firmly believe that I don't possess any characteristic that any other
> human can't or couldn't develop.  I worked extraordinarily hard,
> perhaps hardest, at developing the infrastructure and support network
> that some folks are just born into.  Yes it's harder, but just like
> everything else we do when compared to the sighted world, it is very
> doable.  I learned how to tell my own story, to get people interested
> in me, to learn the things about me that stood out and made people
> take notice.  And anyone on this list can do the same.
>
> Our biggest hurdle is not the type of invidious, hateful
> discrimination that kept black men off of juries.  Our biggest hurdle
> is innocent ignorance and lack of exposure.  Those two forms of
> employment discrimination are not remotely the same, and so I don't
> think employers are purposely screening out blind applicants in the
> way you are describing.
>
> Laura
>
> On 9/24/19, Daniel McBride via BlindLaw <blindlaw at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>> Dear Group:
>>
>> This must be among the more remarkable discussions I have followed since
>> joining this list fifteen years ago.
>>
>> Going back to the original post in this thread, I have several
>> observations
>> regarding discrimination and job opportunities.
>>
>> In the 1986 SCOTUS case of Batson v. Kentucky, the issue was raised
>> whether
>> state prosecutors could use preemptory challenges to strike minority
>> veniremen based solely on their minority status. The answer was No in
>> theory
>> and Yes in its real application.
>>
>> The case said that preemptory challenges cannot be used to systematically
>> strike minority veniremen solely because of their being a minority.
>> Rather,
>> in utilizing a preemptory challenge, the State must have a rational and
>> articulable reason for using a challenge on any venireman.
>>
>> The reality of Batson, over the last 33 years, simply changed the State's
>> approach to voir dire. Prosecutors now ask very clever questions of
>> minority
>> veniremen in a manner calculated to give the prosecutor a rational,
>> articulable reason to justify their challenges on minority veniremen, and
>> the systematic exclusion of minority veniremen, in Texas courts, has not
>> changed much at all.
>>
>> So, the true effect of Batson was to tell State prosecutors that they can
>> continue to systematically discriminate against minority veniremen, but
>> that
>> they must do so through a filtering system that will allow the prosecutor
>> to
>> take the witness stand in a Batson hearing and articulate their rationale
>> for using preemptory challenges on all the minorities they struck.
>>
>> In a similar fashion, the laws allegedly prohibiting discrimination
>> against
>> blind persons do not actually prohibit the discriminatory practices we
>> encounter. Rather, the laws create merely a filter through which the
>> hiring
>> employer must pass to allow them to reject the blind applicant.
>>
>> Minority vemiremen continue to be systematically struck by use of the
>> proper
>> filter. Blind persons continue to be discriminated against through the
>> use
>> of the correct filters. This is reality, and I am at a loss for a
>> solution
>> to the problem.
>>
>> Second, whether a sighted or blind person, the American system is a
>> system
>> of privilege. Those with connections get jobs, those without connections
>> do
>> not. I don't offer this observation as an absolute, but, as a general
>> rule,
>> this is how America works. Over the 36 years I have been licensed, many
>> of
>> the jobs I desired were denied, not because I wasn't qualified and
>> capable,
>> but because I grew up on the wrong side of the tracks and had no
>> connections. On the other hand, had I been born to parents with serious
>> connections, I could have had most any job I wanted, no questions asked.
>>
>> This is, again, just the sad reality of how things really work in
>> America.
>> The official story as to how things are "supposed" to work, and how
>> things
>> "really" work in America are, many times, the difference of day and
>> night.
>>
>> Just my two cents worth.
>>
>> Daniel McBride
>> Fort Worth, Texas
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> BlindLaw mailing list
>> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> BlindLaw:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/laura.wolk%40gmail.com
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> BlindLaw mailing list
> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> BlindLaw:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/sanho817%40gmail.com
>