I've been wanting to start a topic about this for a little while now, and the recent Dodgers talk has finally given me the impetus needed. I'd like to inititiate some discussion on a topic everyone deals with but few actually think about on a daily basis. The topic is this: Are anti-discrimination laws just? The questions seems obvious but can lead to some interesting thoughts. If I am a private business owner, under what right can the government tell me who I must hire with MY money? If I am the chancellor at a private university, who is the government to tell me who I must admit to MY school? I don't believe government has that right to affect private institutions. If you are talking about public institutions, there MUST be anti-discrimination laws. I do not believe public universities should be allowed to admit only white students, or only straight students, or only men even. The same standard applies to governmental offices and programs. The post office should not be able to discriminate, and neither should local police and fire fighting offices. I hear you asking, "But dylan, if private businesses are allowed to discriminate won't they actually do so?" The answer is they probably will. But I think it is a person's right to be ignorant and stupid if it doesn't interfere with the rights of another person. That being said, I belive people who own business have a right to hire who they want, but nobody has the right to demand employment at a particular job. If I own a business and I decide I don't like blacks (or whites, or gays, etc.), I should be allowed to not hire those people. If my business fails because I don't hire the most skilled workers, then my own ignorance led to my downfall and nobody else's. What can society do to keep such situations in check? I think the answer is to use one of the most powerful, but underutilized tools, available in a capitolistic society such as ours: the boycott. If Business XYZ is hiring only white people and you think that's bad, talk to people about it. If there are enough people who agree with you then you can start a boycott and hit XYZ where it hurts - it's bank accounts. In this way society itself remedies the wrongs. It doesn't depend on government to save us, it gives us the ability to save ourselves. I realize this is a somewhat long and rambling post but I am genuinly interested in hearing thought-out replies. One caveat: please don't waste your time calling me a racist, mysoginst, or homophobe. Just because I belive that it should be legal for people to have these attitudes does NOT mean I think they are good or that I endorse them. dylan ------------------ [This message has been edited by dylan (edited August 27, 2000).]
The government doesn't tell you who you have to hire, that's illegal. They tell you that you can't not hire someone because of these conditions, which I think is a good idea. A racist shop owner may never want anything to do with people different from him. He/she has a help wanted sign in the door. A person different from them walks in, he wants to slam the door in his face, but is afraid of a lawsuit of some sort. So he must talk to this person. Lo and behold, the stereotypes he's taken as truth are dissolving in front of his eyes. This may not happen often, but you never know. Most racist or discriminating people are that way because of ignorance. If they have to give someone different from them a chance (interview, not job), they might learn something. ------------------ "I'll drop kick those f*ckin' dogs if they come anywhere near me." visit www.swirve.com
Rocketman -- I think you have really good intentions, but I disagree with this method of implementation. What you're talking about is social engineering. This is the government saying they know the right way and what's best for us all, and if we don't agree, we're penalized. I have a problem with that. Especially when they involve social situations like this. In my experience, right now you're less likely to get a better job out of school than minorities are. One of my best friends at law school was a black guy. He used to joke how he didn't have to worry about his grades because the oil companies would go crazy to get him!! Sadly, he was right. Places that wouldn't even give me an interview were making him offers before he got out of school...and I had better grades than him!!! He ended up deciding between working in the corporate legal departments of about 5 energy companies here in Houston. I'm proud of him and certainly happy for his success. He's a great friend and totally deserving...but what does this say about our society?? ------------------
MadMax, What does your post have to do w/ dylan's question? What sort of law do you practice? You always seem to be missing the point. Gee guys, I have this anecdote about how my friend that is gay is against the hate crime laws. Does that answer your question dylan? dylan, Perhaps there is a business lawyer that can discuss the migration of protective laws from the public sector to the private sector. In my intuition (not my legal expertise), I would believe that since companies receive the benefit of operating & using tax funded structures (roads, etc.) that they would operate under the same restrictions that the public sector does. IMO, if you're driving on a road that I paid for, you'd better not be at liberty to discriminate against my wife, merely b/c she's female. Obviously, it is alot less easy to enforce laws on my little granny running a photography studio than it would be Texaco, but you get the point. ------------------ I've posted so much that what I say must be true. The latest on Maurice Taylor
I don't think the taxation issue is relevant. Sure we all use public roads, services, etc. However, we pay for these services with taxes. By paying for these services, any further obligations are met. In other words, since I'm paying for my use of the road with my own taxes I'm not obligated to hire your wife. dylan ------------------
See, that's just's it. I agree that not discriminating is a good idea but I don't think that gives me the right to tell another business owner what to do with his money. Regardless of whether you think it is right or wrong, it is society that has to answer that question. If society says it is wrong, they will take it upon themselves to punish the business by not giving it any money. If society doesn't deem it wrong, then by forcing your opinion of right and wrong on the business you are exerting more authority than you have. dylan ------------------
Point taken. My argument in hindsight seems somewhat silly, but I'm trying to figure out how the government 'made the bridge' to enforce these laws on people. It seems as if at some point that the people (the government) intoned 'we have these values. As part of the social contract, we will make sure that each constituent company that takes part of the contract abides by these criteria. If you do not like our morality, then leave'. I'm not professing that this is the actual argument that the people would make in suggesting such a law, I'm just trying to figure out how they got there. Either way, I think that the law is honorable and nobel. Technically, my grandma is never going to be busted if she doesn't hire someone b/c they're not like her. Obviously she could get away with it, as I'm sure millions of small (smaller than small will ever be) businesses do. To tie into what MadMax said, it is great to see companies like Texaco get busted when they commit the very atrocities that conservatives argue no longer exist (in the conservatives arguments against affirmative action). ------------------ I've posted so much that what I say must be true. The latest on Maurice Taylor [This message has been edited by Achebe (edited August 28, 2000).]
Dylan, Do you consider this argument to extend to all forms of discrimination covered by the act? Age, race, sex, disability? Should it be OK to discriminate against old people? Blind People? People in Wheelchairs? Women? What about discrimination once hired -- should private businesses be able to hire token Hispanic employees, then treat them differently. ------------------ Stay Cool... [This message has been edited by dc sports (edited August 28, 2000).]
Just to clarify I don't think it should be "okay" for businesses to do so, but I do believe is should be legal for a business (whether a small one a large corporation) to discriminate any way it wants to. That is their right. The same philosophy would apply to treating employees differently. As long as it is not a governmental program and breaks no laws, they can do what they want. I'm not saying, for instance, that a business can beat its Mexican employees to make them work harder or anything like that. However, a business could may Mexican workers less than white workers. If they don't like they can either try to get a new job or explain their situation to a hopefully sympathetic neighborhood. If enough people have a problem with it, the business will lose money and change their policy. dylan ------------------
"That being said, I belive people who own business have a right to hire who they want, but nobody has the right to demand employment at a particular job. If I own a business and I decide I don't like blacks (or whites, or gays, etc.), I should be allowed to not hire those people. If my business fails because I don't hire the most skilled workers, then my own ignorance led to my downfall and nobody else's." dylan expressed a sentiment here that is not uncommon. A business owner that percieves that he is forced to hire someone less qualified due to anti-discrimination laws will resent both the law AND the person he feels he is forced to hire. The person hired will then learn to resent his employer. Sure, the person gets the job, but at what price? I do not support laws that perpetuate racism as these anti-discriminatory ones clearly do. ------------------ stop posting my damn signature
I think there may be a misunderstanding here. Perhaps it is mine. Anti-discriminatory laws merely maintain that you cannot factor in someone's sex/religion/race/etc. into account when evaluating someone's merit to do a certain job. If you have issues w/ affirmative action, that's a different issue. Affirmative action laws are proactive laws to fix a problem (e.g. Texaco's 'problem' two years ago) versus merely a guarantee that you will not be discriminated against because of your race/sex/religion/etc.. ------------------ I've posted so much that what I say must be true. The latest on Maurice Taylor
Exactly Achebe, many people think these laws require that you hire minorities whether they are more qualifed or not. That simply isn't the case. All these laws do is say that businesses cannot take race, sex, religion, etc. into consideration when hiring. Actually, that's all affirmative action policies really are since quotas have been deemed illegal, rightfully so. ------------------ Cheerleaders are just dancers who've gone r****ded. visit www.swirve.com [This message has been edited by Rocketman95 (edited August 28, 2000).]
But do they promote racism? In my experience, (at least for the private sector) they don't seem to have an impact beyond making hiring managers take a second look to make sure they aren't discriminating, and making sure they careful in their documentation. The arguments keep getting separated into two different issues: 1) Do the anti discrimination acts make it harder for people to discriminate on the basis of race -- not hire people because they don't like their race, sex, age, color, or national origin. You bet. You can't deny someone employement / promotion based on these factors. 2) Do these acts force people to hire people less qualified because of their race, sex, age, color, or national origin. No they do not. If a company sets down qualifications for a job that make clear business sense, they can base their hiring on those guidelines -- and select the most qualified person for the job. They just need to keep good records to back up this decision in case their motives are ever questioned. ------------------ Stay Cool...
Well, if nothing else, I think these make people think twice about their hiring policies and that is a good thing. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
What do you guys think of let's say a less qualified minority student getting into a public University over a more qualified white student ? I think it could dilute the school's education and be harmful to the school's reputation nationally. Fact is, a school with students who average a 1200 on the SAT (I know it is culturally biased) is viewed as more prestiguous then a school with students who average a 950. Do y'all think schools should have lower standards for minorities ? ------------------ "The road to hell is paved with Republicans."
That's a sticky situation. You have to take into account that a lot of minorities go to schools that don't have the ability to properly teach them. A 900 score at an inner-city school may equal a 1200 score at a suburban school. ------------------ Cheerleaders are just dancers who've gone r****ded. visit www.swirve.com
I agree R95. But, I think it would be better for all sides if the 900 SAT guy/gal goes to a Junior College and gets a 3.5 Then, he/she will be ready for a University like UT. ------------------ "The road to hell is paved with Republicans."
If the governement can't regulate who a business owner hires then what's to stop businesses from deciding who they can serve? Will we have white-only restaurants again? Will landlords be able to refuse to rent to an applicant based on ethnicty?
outlaw's, of course, right. I was making the silly error of thinking of a way in which this law jumped from the public to the private arena. This is of course, ridiculous. The law came into effect to strengthen disenfranchised groups. The liberties that dylan hints at are ignored by the government, and rightfully so. Again, if you operate a business here, you implicity agree to the social contract. Cultural relativism is dead. That is, we will enforce the aforementioned rights of others and make sure that you don't take part in some non-excepted custom that you brought here (genital mutiliation, infanticide, etc.). If you don't like this morality, then leave. ------------------ I've posted so much that what I say must be true. The latest on Maurice Taylor <font color="dedfdf"> [This message has been edited by Achebe (edited August 28, 2000).]
Outlaw, I see your point. But bigotry isn't as prominent or looked as a positive these days. If a restaurant only serves whites these days, I think their business would flounder. They would be a country club restaurant. btw, I do think that alot of restaurants do choose their clientele/ workers. ------------------ "The road to hell is paved with Republicans."
