That is crazy, you'd think that would be illegal under the Civil Rights Act. White criminals had a separate police force from black ones.
That is crazy, you'd think that would be illegal under the Civil Rights Act. White criminals had a separate police force from black ones.
As near as I can tell Black Lives Matter did not arise out of some sort of spite or radicalism, but out of the conditions Kinch's stated experience suggests. This pretty well contradicts the Civil Rights Act, something Kinch's stated experience also suggests.
I think you've misunderstood. It's clear from the article that the "Black squad" was so named because it specialised in investigating suspects who were Black, not because the officers in it were themselves Black.
A BFOQ can only apply to private hiring discrimination, not "having a separate police force when you are suspected of a crime based on race" discrimination. It's not employment rights at issue, so occupational qualifications are not relevant.
OTOH, the issue here is probably more 14th Amendment equal protection than statutory rights.
On the gripping hand, American police departments having racist practices that are internally well-known, and not being held accountable for them is..not at all surprising.
would a police group dedicated to investigating the mafia be a violation of the civil rights act?
I was watching an interview the other day from one of the Tuskegee Airmen and just going by his physical appearance he looked as "European" as I do.
> A Las Vegas police spokesperson told me they stopped “dividing squads by a suspect’s race” a year before Kinch retired.
and later:
> In 2016, he turned in his badge, a year after the saga broke in the local press.
If all those facts are consistent, they had a 'Black squad' until 2015.
Edit: An aside in an article and piecing together facts that were not necessarily intended to be consistent can result in bad misunderstandings. We need more information to understand it.
But at the same time, let's be careful about proceeding like scientists and making the null hypothesis 'it wasn't racist' or even 'there isn't racism', requiring 99.9% certainty. That's one way members of the status quo perpetuate bad things, even without meaning to. It's a rationalization ('I'm thinking about this scientifically!') for plain old self-serving bias - I'm innocent of anything until there are scientific levels of proof, and then I'll still keep questioning it and probably just refuse to believe it. It's an impossible mountain to climb; in those discussions, the status quo will never agree.
There are other approaches, such as a preponderance of evidence, to borrow the legal term.