“We’re scratching our heads,“ says Shirley Wilcher, who heads up something called the American Association for Affirmative Action.

We’re concerned about the impact on employers who want to comply with the law and do not want to discriminate ... and it’s not clear how to do that.

Precisely. That was the case before the Ricci decision and probably afterward. Employers can’t do anything that has a disparate impact on minorities, but many things they might do to avoid a disparate impact could be discriminatory as well. Good luck to ‘em!

P.S. Many of those quoted in the story say they want clarity, and who can blame them? But clarity shouldn’t automatically win the day. Jim Crow was pretty clear. Apartheid was pretty clear. Didn’t make them right!

P.P.S. What’s wrong with the bright-line clarity of “Thou shalt not discriminate on the basis of race, period”?

P.P.P.S.What’s wrong with it (say some) is that it does not produce the outcomes desired by those who view justice in terms of outcomes rather than processes:

In a 1971 decision, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a test that was “fair in form, but discriminatory in operation” could violate Title VII even without proof that the discrimination was intentional. Congress eventually amended Title VII to codify that decision, Griggs v. Duke Power. The rule was clear: if a job requirement produced a “disparate impact,” the employer had the burden of showing that the requirement was actually necessary.

Federal agencies, in turn, stepped forward to define the statistical disparity that prompted the further inquiry. Under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s “four-fifths rule,” a test that one racial group passed at less than 80 percent the rate of another group would place an employer in presumptive violation of Title VII.

Sorry: “soar with eagles when we work with turkeys”

Agree, “soar with eagles when we work with eagles”. It does not matter what facts are presented in favor of no race-based decisions, the liberal crowd simply ignores them. Just like with the anti-global warming report recently quashed by the EPA. Facts and/or science only get in the way of the liberal agenda.

“In respect of civil rights, common to all citizens, the constitution of the United States does not, I think, permit any public authority to know the race of those entitled to be protected in the enjoyment of such rights.  Every true man has pride of race, and under appropriate circumstances, when the rights of others, his equals before the law, are not to be affected, it is his privilege to express such pride and to take such action based upon it as to him seems proper.  But I deny that any legislative body or judicial tribunal may have regard to the race of citizens when the civil rights of those citizens are involved.  Indeed, such legislation as that here in question is inconsistent not only with that equality of rights which pertains to citizenship, national and state, but with the personal liberty enjoyed by every one within the United States.“

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 554-55 (1896) (Harlan, J., dissenting).

A race that has an average IQ of 80 is incapable of understanding why a merit based society will prosper or why merit-based hiring and promotion, are the most equitable means for promoting and rewarding high performance and achievement.

In short, we can’t soar with eagles, when we work with turkeys!

Nothing is true or believable when it comes to race, essentially black vs. white in the United States. Given white guilt over slavery, all laws must be tilted towards favoring blacks. Qualifications and merit in hiring is no longer a factor, afterall who wants to be sued?

Interesting that the same laws do not apply to college and professional sports teams. If they are based on merit, then why aren’t activities in the rest of society?

Post Your Comments: