The app for independent voices
Perhaps the EEOC forgot about Title VII of the Civil Rights Protection Act of 1964
It’s interesting that a government employment commission feels the need to speak out about the end of racist college admission policies.U.S. EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows on SCOTUS decision today (emphasis mine, my comments in brackets) (1):“will undoubtedly hamper the efforts of some colleges and universities to ensure diverse student bodies” [The point of the decision is to hamper (racist) efforts to admit on the basis of skin color.]
“businesses often rely on colleges and universities to provide a diverse pipeline of talent for recruitment and hiring” [Shouldn’t businesses rely on universities to provide a competent and meritorious pipeline of talent rather than a pipeline of skin colors?]
“Diversity helps companies attract top talent, sparks innovation, improves employee satisfaction, and enables companies to better serve their customers” [How do certain skin colors make someone better able to serve a customer?]
The EEOC page provides an additional unattributed statement:[decision] does not address employer efforts to foster diverse and inclusive workforces
It remains lawful for employers to implement diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility programs
Bear in mind these programs relate to hiring and firing practices, promotions, and training. Remember those corporate DEI training classes where white people aren’t invited?Remember those corporate vaccine mandates?Well let’s see what Title VII has to say about some of all that (original text):[unlawful] to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin [religious objections, e.g. to vaccines]
[unlawful] to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. [classifying according to religious objection status vis a vis vaccination status]
[training programs, unlawful] to discriminate against any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in admission to, or employment in, any program established to provide apprenticeship or other training. [DEI training]
it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for a school, … to hire and employ employees of a particular religion if such school, … is, in whole or in substantial part, owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a particular religion or by a particular religious corporation, association, or society, or if the curriculum of such school, … is directed toward the propagation of a particular religion. [no exemption for colleges on the basis of race]
"unlawful employment practice" shall not be deemed to include any action or measure taken … with respect to an individual who is a member of the Communist Party of the United States or of any other organization required to register as a Communist-action or Communist-front organization [fun fact: Communists are exempted from protection]
Seniority or merit system; quantity or quality of production; ability tests; compensation based on sex and authorized by minimum wage provisions [merit not unlawful, detailed text omitted]
Preferential treatment not to be granted on account of existing number or percentage imbalance [making the workforce look like the community - popular trope - is not lawful, detailed text omitted]
unlawful employment practice is established when the complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice [vaccine mandates and religious objections]
EEOC forgot.References:(1)(2)