EEOC: Education Requirements May Violate Americans with Disabilities Act
RUSH: From the Washington Times today: "requiring a high-school diploma from a job applicant might infringe on the Americans With Disabilities Act." I kid you not. I kid you not. New from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: "High school diploma requirement might violate the Americans with Disabilities Act."
The Washington Times: "Employers are facing more uncertainty in the wake of a letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission warning them that requiring a high school diploma from a job applicant might violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. The development also has some wondering whether the agency's advice will result in an educational backlash by creating less of an incentive for some high school students to graduate. The 'informal discussion letter' from the EEOC said an employer's requirement of a high school diploma, long a standard criterion for screening potential employees, must be 'job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.' The letter was posted on the [EEOC]'s website on Dec. 2.
"Employers could run afoul of the ADA if their requirement of a high school diploma '"screens out" an individual who is unable to graduate because of a learning disability that meets the ADA's definition of "disability,"' the EEOC explained. The commission's advice, which [at the moment] does not carry the force of law, is raising alarms among employment-law professionals, who say it could carry far-reaching implications for businesses." Well, no kidding! You think this is an accident? Here you have a bunch of Obama liberals at the EEOC who are worried about any difference from person to person to person. There cannot be any difference, there cannot be any risk in life, there cannot be any difference in outcome. If anybody has anything more than somebody else then we are faced with "unfairness" that must be remedied.
And now requiring an education in order to get a job may be discriminatory against those who simply can't be educated. So we define everything down, again. We dumb and define everything down. This is not accidental. This is who these people are -- and it's all taking place under the guise of fairness, but what does it do? It punishes achievement and heralds the lack of it. It creates sympathy for the lack of achievement, excuses the lack of achievement and then rewards it. Why? What purpose could this possibly serve? It's all about getting votes. It's all about furthering the whole notion of class envy. "Mary Theresa Metzler, a lawyer with Ballard Spahr in Philadelphia, said there may be an 'unintended and unfortunate' repercussion of the EEOC's discussion:
"'There will be less incentive for the general public to obtain a high school diploma if many employers eliminate that requirement for job applicants in their workplace.'" You think? Really? What's your first clue? So you don't have to have a high school diploma in order to get a job or to be hired? Then why go to high school? "Officials at the EEOC said the letter in question addressed 'a particular inquiry' and disputed that it would have repercussions in secondary education. ... Some worry that the EEOC's letter could place less emphasis on a diploma in the workplace, but the push in Congress has been in the opposite direction.
"House Republicans sought late last year to reform the federal unemployment-benefit system by requiring recipients of aid who do not have high school degrees to be 'enrolled and making satisfactory progress in classes' toward a General Education Development certificate or equivalent." So here you have the American left in charge of these bureaucracies doing everything they can to reward below-averageness, to herald it -- to use a favorite word of theirs -- to "celebrate" it; and of course the emphasis is on a lack of a diploma, which means lack of knowledge, which means lack of education. Well, a degree in anything is discriminatory once you go down this road. The ADA, the Americans with Disabilities Act already is used to include a whole bunch of plain old aberrant behavior and characterize it as a disability, therefore to excuse it.
Alcoholism or other such things, but it's just more of the country in decline. It's more of, "We cannot have high or great expectations of people. We cannot give them reasons to reach high. We're going to give them excuses to reach nowhere." Imagine! It's gonna end up being discriminatory, unfair to have an education, to have a diploma. So how do we remedy that? You tell employers that you cannot have that as a requirement, and you see what opens up here? Lawsuits. Guess who gets to move in here and start suing people left and right, if this ever gets actually applied? It's already in practice. It's a recommendation, "does not carry the force of law," but I'll tell you what: I you're an average little business and you're already scared to death of the government and there's a little suggestion on that government website, and the last thing you want is trouble? What do you do?
Murdoch Tweets Support for Santorum
RUSH: So Rupert Murdoch signs up for Twitter, and the first tweet, I think it's the first tweet he sends out announces his support for Santorum, that Santorum's the only guy who has everything necessary to get this country back in the right direction, and the next thing that happens is that Rupert's wife gets on there, (paraphrasing) "Ah, well, you know, Rupert likes to have a lot of fun here on Twitter." Rupert Murdoch tweeting. I tried to have somebody explain this to me over the weekend and I still... never mind.
Chavez Says US Gave Him Cancer
RUSH: Hugo Chavez is blaming us for creating cancer and spreading it to Latin-American world leaders. I kid you not. "Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez hinted that the U.S. may be behind a 'very strange' bout of cancer affecting several leaders aligned with him in South America. Chavez, speaking a day after Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner was diagnosed with thyroid cancer, said the Central Intelligence Agency was behind chemical experiments in Guatemala in the 1940s and that it's possible that in years to come a plot will be uncovered that shows the U.S. spread cancer as a political weapon against its critics. 'It's very difficult to explain, even with the law of probabilities, what has been happening to some of us in Latin America,' Chavez said in a nationally televised speech to the military. 'Would it be so strange that they've invented technology to spread cancer and we won't know about it for 50 years?'"
Now, stop and think of that. How did we know 50 years ago who would be in power in Latin America? How did we know 50 years ago who we wanted to give cancer to? And if we had done this, why is Castro still alive? But anyway, this what Hugo Chavez is out there suggesting. And if you're in Venezuela and say, "Our leader is stupid. This guy claims he's got cancer but have you seen him? He's swollen up like a balloon. Now, most people who take chemo, they lose weight. I don't believe he's got cancer." If you say that in Venezuela you're gonna end up in a dungeon because he's got the authority and the power to do that.
MSNBC: 41% of Iowa Caucus Goes In Undecided
RUSH: At MSNBC, they have a graphic up there that says 41% of cauci goers tonight are undecided. Forty-one percent undecided! They do entrance polls, by the way, at the Hawkeye Cauci, as opposed to exit polls. They could do exit, too, but they do entrance polls. But 41% undecided? That's incredible. I just don't know what to believe anymore from these people with their polling data and all of this. It's not something I trust. It's just my instincts.
Andrea Mitchell: Iowa is "Too White, Too Evangelical, Too Rural"
RUSH: Yesterday Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington -- this from Mediaite -- "offered a rather blunt analysis of Iowa" as she was covering the Hawkeye Cauci. Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington, said, "The rap on Iowa is it does not represent the rest of the country… too white, too evangelical, too rural. Still here, politics are personal." So there you have it. I have no doubt that that is exactly how all the media look at Iowa: too white, too rural, too evangelical. But there they are covering the Hawkeye Cauci, 41% will show up tonight undecided. Anything can happen.
So the question is, ladies and gentlemen, when did being white, evangelical, and rural, when did those things become negatives? And what would Andrea Mitchell say if there were a caucus in Washington, DC? Would she say, "Now, this is America." Is that what she'd say? But white, rural, and evangelical, those are negatives now, to NBC News. But they're still gutting it out, and they're there.