The tale of Roger Clegg and how his criticism prompted the cancellation of an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission meeting is a perfect example of why our government needs a dramatic reduction in size and scope. The hubris of the bureaucrats on this commission is enraging, but hardly unheard of within our federal government in which every official sees his position of public trust as his own personal fiefdom.
Last month, I received an invitation to testify before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission about affirmative action and diversity in U.S. companies. The testimony was scheduled for today, and I was asked to share my written statement to the commission beforehand, last Thursday, which I did. Late Friday afternoon I received a phone call from the commission, telling me that because of what I had to say, my invitation had been withdrawn by its chairman, Cari M. Dominguez.I urged the commission to reconsider this decision because it would put the commission in general and the chairman in particular in a bad light. Yesterday I was notified that the entire meeting--not just my panel, but two others--has been "indefinitely postponed."
The problem is that my testimony told the unwelcome truths that (a) American companies, in their "celebration of diversity," frequently discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity and sex, (b) this violates the law, and (c) the EEOC is not doing anything about it. I was told that it would lead to a "mutiny" among the career people at the commission if I was given a "platform" to say such things. It might even turn the proceedings that morning into a "circus," and Ms. Dominguez, I was told, did not want the EEOC "to look like the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights back when Mary Frances Berry headed it."
So the chairman of the EEOC cancelled the meeting rather than allow Mr. Clegg to testify about the Commission's tolerance and encouragement of racial and sexual discrimination. This episode reflects morally disgusting behavior on the part of Cari M. Dominguez, a public servant in a free society, and should be profoundly disturbing to anyone who cares about "government of the people, by the people, for the people".
Some equal opportunities are more equal than others.
The guideline under the EEOC for an AAP (Affirmative Action Plan) is that it's not about quota. It's about locating the areas within your company that there may be discrimination in hiring, or promoting. For example, 50 qualified candidates apply. 40 are women. 25 are a minority race. A qualified white male is hired. That's "ok". However, an affirmative action plan is supposed to track those stats and see if there is an on-going trend. An affirmative action plan tracks the trends and then will serve to help remedy any past discrimination that may have occured.
An example of a trend would be a hiring manager who, over the last 10 years, only hired white males when other qualified candidates of other "classes" had applied, too. Or only hired hispanic workers. (called reverse-discrimination) The company uses that information to re-train and/or discipline that manager and then to seek a re-balance of those positions. "qualifications should always remain the constant of course"
So, the above is a broad and paraphrased example of an AAP plan that the EEOC audits for government contractors. (Companies with 50+ employees with $50,000+ in govt. contracts)
Out-and-out harassment of hiring, firing, or worker treatment, and promotions is technically a different matter regardless of the "classification of the employee". Harrassment is harrassment regardless of race, creed, color, ADA, etc.
I hope that helps you understand a bit more. In response to your post, I would say that it is very difficult for the EEOC to audit "intent" behind the results of most employer AAPs. The numbers from an AAP are very comprehensive and a good company knows how to properly respond to what their AAP is showing them. To that end, it helps to have a good Human Resources department that has the support of the executives in a company.
Affirmative Action and those who support it care absolutely nothing about 'qualified' individuals. I've been in the business world long enough to know that when somoene support AA and they speak on diversity in the workplace, what they mean is more blacks and or more women. You'll never hear someone who supports AA say "We need more qualified people". Only a conservative with their head on straight would say something like that. The truth is Ive heard it I dont know how many times "we need more blacks" or "we need more women" etc... and they neither mention nor care about qualifications. No one is fooled by this intellectual fraud.
And AA may have some documents somewhere that say soemthing relatively close to what you said SCott, but let's face it this is the real world and we all know that's BS. AA is about promoting discrimination period. Thats how it works. I hope this helps YOU to understand it a little better. Peace
I appologize if I came off patronizingly. That was not my intention. In fact, Tim, I'm just as passionate about your "side" of the story. I know that many businesses see it as a quota thing, or at least lean toward that mentality for "fixing" things.
It's a fine line between quota and AAP. Honestly, I think we agree, that if businesses and people would just do the right thing when recruiting, hiring, promoting, etc., AA would not be needed.
Side Note: I hate the term "reverse-discrimination". It's either discrimination or it's not, folks!
(Don't even get me started on the relativity of "good discrimination" vs "bad")
Clarification to my first paragraph of my second post: quota for ratio sake = bad
I also agree, that the public statement of "we need more minorities or protected classes" is not an acceptable thing to say.
Example: If you need to sell widgets to the hispanic population in your service area, you should hire someone who has the knowledge, skills and abilities to do so. You should not be looking to hire a hispanic.
Scott: The problem is that it's very hard to determine whether or not two people are equally qualified, but it's very easy to determine whether or not someone is, e.g., black or female.