Saying You are ‘Colorblind’ is a ‘Microaggression’ at CFPB

[INSIDE JW]

NOMINATION OF JUDGE KETANJI BROWN JACKSON TO THE SUPREME COURT

[[link removed]]

President Biden bowed to pressure from his radical base and selected a
judicial activist to fill Justice Stephen Breyer’s seat on the
Supreme Court. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has a long record of
left-wing activism both on and off the bench.

Disturbingly, President Biden seems to have selected Judge Jackson
under a process that excluded potential nominees simply because of
their race and sex. The Senate must not only investigate Biden’s
invidious discrimination but must also be prepared to reject Judge
Jackson or any other nominee who wants to further politicize the
Supreme Court by legislating from the bench.

FEDERAL AGENCY TEACHES EMPLOYEES ABOUT ‘MICROAGGRESSIONS’

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has gone seriously
“woke.” Among other curiosities, employees are taught that asking
someone where they are from is a racial microaggression.

We learned this in 48 pages
[[link removed]]
of records from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that
included a PowerPoint presentation titled “Race and gender based
microaggressions” that was used for training employees.

We obtained the documents in response to a January 27, 2021, Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) request asking for:

* All records of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
containing any of the following key words: ‘whiteness’;
‘unconscious bias’; ‘intersectionality’; ‘white
privilege’; ‘Kendi’; ‘Robin DiAngelo’; ‘systemic
racism’; ‘structural racism’; ‘close hold’; ‘climate
justice’; or ’critical race theory’
* All CFPB records instructing or suggesting that any individuals or
groups of people are fundamentally privileged, oppressive, oppressed,
racist, or evil on account of their race; and 3.
* All CFPB records instructing or suggesting that America is a
fundamentally racist or evil country.

The new records include a presentation by the CFPB’s Director of
the Office of Civil Rights Melissa Brand titled “Race and gender
based microaggressions”

The “goals” of the presentation include:

To help you identify race and gender based microaggressions

To help you understand how microaggressions can turn into
discrimination and/or unlawful harassment

To help you understand YOUR role in preventing discrimination and
harassment in the workplace

To help you know how to respond to these situations
A slide titled “Microaggressions” defines microaggressions as
“verbal and nonverbal behaviors” that “communicate negative,
hostile, and derogatory messages to people rooted in their
marginalized group membership (based on gender, race, ethnicity,
religion, sexuality, etc.)” The slide further notes that
microaggressions can be “intentional or unintentional,” and are
“more subtle” than “using racial epithets or displaying
swastikas.”

Other slides discussing “Stereotypes lead to microaggressions,”
begin with a warning to the viewer: “Trigger warning: the next slide
contains images of offensive stereotypes.”

Cartoons are used to depict “offensive stereotypes,” which include
people of color being offered various items such as: someone wearing a
hoody and gold chain being offered sports balls; a hijab-wearing girl
being offered a lit bomb and a picture of Osama bin Laden; a girl
being offered a maid’s apron and a sombrero; a male being offered a
guitar and a construction hat; a girl being handed a bottle of Aunt
Jemimah syrup; and a girl being handed a spear, a teepee, and a
Cleveland Indians baseball pennant.

A section titled “Common race-based microaggressions in the
workplace” depicts people saying various things, as well as what a
minority “receives.”

For instance, white males are shown saying: “When I look at you, I
don’t see color;” “There is only one race, the human race;”
and “When it comes to race, I am colorblind.”

A female of color is shown to receive the message as: “Denying a
person’s racial/ethnic experience;” “Assimilate to the dominant
culture;” and “Denying the individual as a racial/cultural
being.”

In another “microaggression” slide, a white male says: “All
lives matter,” but a hijab-wearing girl supposedly perceives it as:
“Ignoring systemic racism, such as in police interactions.”
Additionally, a pink, protest hat-wearing woman says: “As a woman, I
know what you go through as a racial minority,” from which the
hijab-wearing girl perceives: “Your racial oppression is no
different than my gender oppression.”

The presentation discusses “Two approaches to take when taking
action” against microaggressions. One is to “disarm” the person:
“If you choose to confront a microaggression, be prepared to disarm
the person who committed it.” Also: “One reason we avoid
conversations about race and gender discrimination is that they make
people defensive. Perpetrators of microaggressions typically fear
being perceived — or worse, revealed — as racist or sexist.”

The other approach is to “defy” and “challenge the perpetrator
to clarify their statement or action.”

In a slide titled “What Can You Do?” about filing Equal Employment
Opportunity (EEO) complaints, a line of business people is shown. They
all have Xs over their images, except for a youthful white man with a
broad smile on his face, who is singled out with a check mark over his
image.

In the appendix, slides are titled “Examples of racial
microaggressions.” Examples include:

“Where are you from?”

“Where were you born?”

Asking an Asian American or Latino American to teach them words in
their native language.

“You are so articulate.”

“Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough.”

Person of color is mistaken for a service worker.

College or university with buildings that are all named after
‘White’ [sic] heterosexual upper class males.

Overabundance of liquor stores in communities of color.
A section featuring “Examples of sex based microaggressions –
aimed at females,” includes:

“Have you been working out? You look good!!”

“You have a doctorate?”

Male colleagues interrupt women at meetings.
Federal Agencies shouldn’t abuse tax dollars for CRT
indoctrination, which makes a mockery of serious race and sex
discrimination issues. These documents show that critical race theory
is alive and well in the Biden administration.

DOZENS OF AFGHAN REFUGEES POSE ‘SIGNIFICANT SECURITY CONCERNS’

We are legally pursuing
[[link removed]]
details on
the Biden Administration’s disaster in Afghanistan. The horrors are
endless. Now, courtesy if the administration, many Americans are
unwitting neighbors to poorly vetted Afghan refugees. Our _Corruption
Chronicles_ blog reports
[[link removed]


Dozens of Afghan refugees released in the U.S. have Pentagon records
that “indicate potentially significant security concerns,”
according to a new federal audit
[[link removed]]
that reveals the multi-agency intelligence conglomerate created after
9/11 to protect the nation from terrorists has failed to properly vet
thousands of Afghans. Under the Biden administration’s Operation
Allies Welcome (OAW), approximately 80,000 “displaced persons from
Afghanistan” have been admitted into the country under a special
immigrant visa (SIV) or humanitarian parole. The president directed
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to lead the chaotic plan to
resettle the Afghans and the administration assured Americans the
refugees would be thoroughly screened. That has not materialized, and
for months media reports
[[link removed]]
have exposed crimes, including child molestation
[[link removed]],
assault and domestic violence committed by Afghans housed at military
bases throughout the U.S.

Now a probe conducted by the Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector
General (IG) offers more troubling details that shed light on the
magnitude of the problem. Investigators found that the agency
responsible for clearing the Afghans by conducting thorough background
checks is not doing its job, creating serious national security issues
and undoubtedly threatening the safety of Americans. The agency is
known as the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC)
[[link removed]]
and it
functions under the Office of the Director of National Intelligence
(ODNI). It was launched in the aftermath of the 2001 terrorist attacks
by consolidating intel gathered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), DHS, and the DOD. The
NCTC’s stated mission is to lead the national counterterrorism
effort by fusing foreign and domestic counterterrorism information and
its vision is to be a center of gravity and leading voice that unifies
counterterrorism intelligence for the homeland and abroad with a
record of sustained excellence across all mission areas.

When it comes to screening Afghan refugees however, the NCTC has
failed to use all available DOD data to properly vet candidates prior
to arriving in the U.S. Besides missing the significant DOD security
concerns of at least 50 refugees, the nation’s lead counterterrorism
intelligence entity also failed to stop at least four dozen Afghans
with “derogatory information” in their record, the report states.
The document defines derogatory information as potentially justifying
an unfavorable fitness or access determination, requiring further
investigation. Those potentially dangerous refugees are somewhere in
the U.S. and cannot be located, the DOD watchdog warns. “As a result
of the NCTC not vetting Afghan evacuees against all available data,
the United States faces potential security risks if individuals with
derogatory information are allowed to stay in the country,” the DOD
IG writes. “In addition, the U.S. Government could mistakenly grant
SIV or parolee status to ineligible Afghan evacuees with derogatory
information gathered from the DoD ABIS database.”

Also of tremendous concern, the audit discloses that Afghan parolees
have the right to leave U.S. military bases, officially known as
“safe havens,” after receiving required vaccinations and
tuberculosis testing. As of late September, 1,236 Afghans left their
government safe havens without finishing processing. Here is how the
government handles the early “egress” of Afghan evacuees; DHS
personnel conduct a meeting with the parolee to discuss the
ramifications of leaving the immigration program early, arrange for
the parolee’s exit from the facility, and record and track the
parolee’s removal from the installations’ lodging. This may seem
like a joke, considering Afghanistan is a terrorist sanctuary and the
refugees are so poorly screened by the U.S. A ranking member of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley, points out
that the problems processing the Afghans pose serious national
security and public safety concerns
[[link removed]].
Among the IG’s recommendations for improving the situation is that
the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security develop
procedures for sharing derogatory information on Afghan evacuees with
the DOD and interagency stakeholders.
Until next week …





[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


<a
href="[link removed]"
target="_blank"><img alt="WU02"
src="[link removed]"
style="width:100%; height:auto;" /></a>

[32x32x1]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x2]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024

202.646.5172



© 2017 - 2022, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]