CBS Sued by ‘SEAL Team’ Scribe Over Alleged Racial Quotas for Hiring Writers

[Social Media]

 

CBS Studios and its parent company Paramount are facing a legal battle initiated by Brian Beneker, a script coordinator on the show SEAL Team, who alleges discriminatory hiring practices based on race and gender. Beneker claims that CBS's policies prioritize hiring less qualified candidates from minority, LGBTQ, or female groups over heterosexual white men, which he argues violates his civil rights.

 

In the lawsuit filed in a California federal court, Beneker seeks compensation of at least $500,000 and a court order granting him a full-time producer position on the series SEAL Team, while also halting the use of discriminatory hiring practices. Represented by the America First Legal Foundation, founded by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller, Beneker's case has broader implications for diversity and inclusion efforts in Hollywood.

 

Beneker's complaint is rooted in the alleged implementation of an "illegal policy of race and sex balancing" at CBS, which he claims led to his repeated denial of staff writer positions. He cites instances where he was passed over for promotion in favor of less experienced minority or female candidates, with reasons given such as CBS's desire to fulfill diversity quotas. Beneker argues that CBS's hiring practices create a situation where heterosexual white men require "extra" qualifications to compete with their nonwhite, LGBTQ, or female peers.

 

The lawsuit brings claims for violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibit racial discrimination in private contracts and employment practices, respectively. Beneker's case challenges the legality of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs that explicitly consider race, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.

 

CBS's alleged racial quotas, such as the network's goal for writers rooms to consist of at least 40 percent minorities for the 2021-22 season and a requirement for half of all writers to be nonwhite for the 2022-23 broadcast season, further fuel Beneker's claims of discrimination. These quotas, while aimed at promoting diversity on-screen and behind the camera, have sparked controversy and legal scrutiny regarding their compliance with civil rights laws.

 

The lawsuit underscores the ongoing debate surrounding race-conscious corporate DEI initiatives and their compatibility with anti-discrimination laws. While some argue that such programs are essential for fostering diversity and representation, others raise concerns about potential reverse discrimination and the infringement of individuals' civil rights.

 

Ultimately, Beneker's case against CBS sheds light on the complexities surrounding diversity initiatives in the entertainment industry and the legal challenges they may face in ensuring fairness and equity for all individuals involved.

 

06.03.24

Source

 

[JonnyF]

Well done Brian.

 

Racism and sexism is wrong in all forms, even when it is against white people or male people (or Jews). 

 

This politics of revenge only prolongs discrimination and resentment. The answer to racism is not more racism. Time for this positive discrimination to be filed under the "terrible political ideas" tab. Along with Critical Race Theory and other leftist loony theories. 

[Chomper Higgot]

Brian waves the ‘poor me’ card because he thinks he’s missing out.

 

Go shower Brian the stench of entitlement is all over you.

[JonnyF]

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Go shower Brian the stench of entitlement is all over you.

 

Because he's white?

 

And all white people are entitled?

[Chomper Higgot]

58 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Because he's white?

 

And all white people are entitled?

No because Brian stinks of entitlement.

 

 

[JonnyF]

37 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No because Brian stinks of entitlement.

 

 

 

You are only saying that because he is white.

 

If a black woman complained that she was being discriminated against due to discriminatory hiring practices you would not take the same stance. You would support her. You would criticize those doing the hiring. You would call them racist. Especially if the discriminatory practices were common knowledge and acknowledged by the entity that was hiring. Celebrated even.

 

Discriminating against white people is just the same as discriminating against black people. It is racist. The fact you think he is "entitled" shows your unconscious bias. It shows the racial stereotypes you carry. It shows that you do not believe in equality. It is no better than calling a black woman "Uppity" if she had a legitimate complaint about being discriminated against.

 

You are showing that you carry all the same prejudices as those you profess to stand against.  

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

You are only saying that because he is white.

And with that assumption your destroy the rest of your post, which is in itself a litany of assumptions.

 

 

[JonnyF]

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And with that assumption your destroy the rest of your post, which is in itself a litany of assumptions.

 

 

 

If this was a black man being discriminated against because they wanted more white men to meet a quota, you'd be all over it screaming Racism.

 

But you think it's OK because he is white. In fact, you go even further and label him "entitled" for objecting to being discrimated against on the basis of race. 

 

There's a name for people who support discriminating against people based on race. I'm sure you are aware of it. 

 

It's good to see it so clearly exposed though. 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

If this was a black man being discriminated against because they wanted more white men to meet a quota, you'd be all over it screaming Racism.

 

But you think it's OK because he is white. In fact, you go even further and label him "entitled" for objecting to being discrimated against on the basis of race. 

 

There's a name for people who support discriminating against people based on race. I'm sure you are aware of it. 

 

It's good to see it so clearly exposed though. 

 

 

Again, you are arguing with assumptions you yourself are making.

 

This is better know as arguing with yourself.

 

Edited March 6 by Chomper Higgot

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Again, you are arguing with assumptions you yourself are making.

 

This is better know as arguing with yourself.

 

 

Let's clear it up then. You labeled him entitled.

 

Would you have done so if he were black and complaining about discriminatory hiring practices?

 

Simple question. Try to answer directly, and honestly.

[Chomper Higgot]

48 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Let's clear it up then. You labeled him entitled.

 

Would you have done so if he were black and complaining about discriminatory hiring practices?

 

Simple question. Try to answer directly, and honestly.

I’d read the hypothetical OP and respond according to my thoughts on what it has to say.

 

Now back to topic please (which is not what you imagine I might say and is a real case not a hypothetical case).

 

Refer top of thread.

 

 

Edited March 6 by Chomper Higgot

[ozimoron]

Nothing should be of more paramount importance to a media company than diversity of opinion and that means diversity of contributors.

[JonnyF]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’d read the hypothetical OP and respond according to my thoughts on what it has to say.

 

Now back to topic please (which is not what you imagine I might say and is a real case not a hypothetical case).

 

Refer top of thread.

 

 

 

I said you should answer the question directly, and honestly.

 

Obviously you are aware exactly what a direct and honest answer to my question would expose .

 

I am in the fortunate position of not having to obfuscate, because I am against discrimination in all its forms. 

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Nothing should be of more paramount importance to a media company than diversity of opinion and that means diversity of contributors.

 

Not discriminating against candidates based on race should be of paramount importance.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

 

I said you should answer the question directly, and honestly.

 

Obviously you are aware exactly what a direct and honest answer to my question would expose .

 

I am in the fortunate position of not having to obfuscate, because I am against discrimination in all its forms. 

 

I suspect you are only against positive discrimination.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

 

Not discriminating against candidates based on race should be of paramount importance.

 

QED.

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

I suspect you are only against positive discrimination.

 

I am against "all" forms of discrimination.

 

Unlike those who support "positive" discrimination. 

[Chomper Higgot]

26 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

said you should answer the question directly, and honestly.

 

Obviously you are aware exactly what a direct and honest answer to my question would expose .

 

I am in the fortunate position of not having to obfuscate, because I am against discrimination in all its forms. 

You are not in any position to assume my views on anything or instruct me in how I should respond to posts.

 

Refer top of thread for subject of discussion. 

[JonnyF]

21 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You are not in any position to assume my views on anything or instruct me in how I should respond to posts.

 

Refer top of thread for subject of discussion. 

 

The thread is about positive discrimination. I know your views. You stated them on other threads many times.

 

The fact you won't repeat them here tells me everything. You know they are flawed and that I will expose the hypocrisy just as I did before. 

 

It's simple. I oppose all forms of racial discrimination. You think it's OK in certain circumstances and try to rebrand your preferred flavour of racial discrimination as postive. That's it. Simple. 

 

If you oppose positive discrimination then just come out and say it. If you are indeed ashamed of supporting racial discrimination then there is no need to reply with more deflection. 

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

The thread is about positive discrimination. I know your views. You stated them on other threads many times.

 

The fact you won't repeat them here tells me everything. You know they are flawed and that I will expose the hypocrisy just as I did before. 

 

It's simple. I oppose all forms of racial discrimination. You think it's OK in certain circumstances and try to rebrand your preferred flavour of racial discrimination as postive. That's it. Simple. 

 

If you oppose positive discrimination then just come out and say it. If you are indeed ashamed of supporting racial discrimination then there is no need to reply with more deflection. 

If you have evidence of positive discrimination in this case sent it to Brian, he needs it to back up his allegations.

 

 

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

I am against "all" forms of discrimination.

 

Unlike those who support "positive" discrimination. 

 

The socioeconomic condition of minorites in the US following a century or two of negative discrimination demands some form of action to correct the wrongs. There are two forms of such action, either direct wealth transfer or positive discrimination.

 

You may sound like you're virtue signalling here but you "against all forms of discrimination" is a naked rejection of any action to corrects many decades of extreme racial discrimination. That's negative discrimination in a nutshell regardless of your false appeal to equality. It's only those at the top of the heap who want nothing to change.

[JonnyF]

17 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

The socioeconomic condition of minorites in the US following a century or two of negative discrimination demands some form of action to correct the wrongs. There are two forms of such action, either direct wealth transfer or positive discrimination.

 

There is a third. Equality of opportunity. Not to be confused with equality of outcome. There is no need to punish white kids today for what happened 200 years ago. That type of thing simply transfers the resentment from one group to another. It solves nothing and simply prolongs the cycle of division.

 

17 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

You may sound like you're virtue signalling here but you "against all forms of discrimination" is a naked rejection of any action to corrects many decades of extreme racial discrimination. That's negative discrimination in a nutshell regardless of your false appeal to equality. It's only those at the top of the heap who want nothing to change.

 

The answer to racism is not more racism. It's a vicious cycle. In 30 years from now will you be "positively" discriminating towards the children of white people who missed out on a University place in 2024 simply because they are white? 

 

But kudos for admitting you support racial discrimination. It's much better than simply hiding your objectionable views behind countless diversions like the other poster. 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

But kudos for admitting you support racial discrimination. It's much better than simply hiding your objectionable views behind countless diversions like the other poster.

And considerably better than making up views on behalf of others then arguing with the views you just made up.

[JonnyF]

29 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And considerably better than making up views on behalf of others then arguing with the views you just made up.

 

I know your views already, you've stated them on other threads. 

 

You are posting on a thread about racial quotas but you are not prepared to repeat/confirm your views on so called "positive" racial discrimination even when asked multiple times. 

 

If you are too ashamed to repeat these objectionable views, why bother posting on the thread? 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

I know your views already, you've stated them on other threads. 

 

You are posting on a thread about racial quotas but you are not prepared to repeat/confirm your views on so called "positive" racial discrimination even when asked multiple times. 

 

If you are too ashamed to repeat these objectionable views, why bother posting on the thread? 

Alleged ‘racial quotas’.

 

I’m sure the views you imagine me to have are objectionable. 
 

But they are by definition objectionable views you imagine me to have, hence the product of your own thinking.

 

Edited March 6 by Chomper Higgot