Race Discrimination

George Mason University President Planning on Illegal Race Discrimination in Faculty Hiring

|

That's the legal opinion from Hans Bader (Liberty Unyielding), which strikes me as basically sound.

The president of George Mason University wants to give minorities a big advantage in hiring until the faculty is as heavily minority as the school's student body and the future, mostly non-white U.S. population. This is illegal, say lawyers and law professors….

Institutions can't hire based on race to make their staff mirror society's current racial composition, much less its future more heavily non-white racial composition. That would be "outright racial balancing, which is patently unconstitutional," according to the Supreme Court….

Read Bader's post for many more details.

NEXT: N.Y. Police Officer Sues Protester Over Anti-Asian Insults, Alleged Spitting

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Can anyone be surprised with the widespread woke infection visited on university administrators

    1. circular woke infection

      1. Hire a crybaby minority, hire a lawsuit. These schools are being played by the lawyer profession for its enrichment. Academics are book smart, not street smart. They do not understand the thug lawyer profession.

        1. "Hire a crybaby minority, hire a lawsuit"

          This is why conservatives are underrepresented on campus.

        2. "Academics are book smart, not street smart."

          YMMV, and considerably.

    2. Its really a self reinforcing cycle. The previous admins caved to the demands radical brainwashers and students which rather than solved any problem only encouraged them to become even more unhinged. And then eventually the next generation brainwashed under the new regime comes in to cave to even more radical demands.

      1. I'm curious what your experience with academe, especially the fields you talked about earlier such as the humanities, social sciences and law, etc., is? How long have you worked in the relevant fields?

        1. Any minority applicant must be forced to provide a DNA analysis of their ethnic origin. We do not want half British Isles fakers gaming this system. Publish their genomes to the web on a new web site, Wikiwokegenome.

          1. Here's a cracker, Polly. Now go play.

            1. This mean spirited, hurtful, and triggering remark has been reported to Prof. Volokh for deletion.

              1. Looks like the bird has gotten into the coke again!

                1. Queenie is the same type of person who think's it's funny to call Senator Scott, "Uncle Tim".

                  1. AL, standing up for Parrot Civil Rights!

              1. Is it a reliable indicator of "British Isles fakers" that they spell "canceled" with two Ls?

                1. I spell "cancelled" with two "L"s in it and I've never even set foot on any of the British Isles.

        2. I have extensive experience in multiple roles in academia on both sides of the desk right down to the daily morning blast where our dear taxpayer funded leaders ramble on about the sjw nonsense du jour and weighing in on every political issue like some deep south pastor on Sunday to the exclusion of everything else, including like running the school and addressing basic routines and problems and stuff.

          1. Which academic discipline do you work in and in what capacity?

            For example, my doctorate is in a social science. My full time job is private industry (consulting firm) but I've taught adjunct at a nearby college for many years.

            1. I come from a 'harder' science background but I don't really see how that helps the argument you're trying to formulate since the woke virus seeping from your side into disciplines that are supposed to be based on objective reality and general education doesn't make things look better than if it was confined as a more niche concern.

              1. Which hard science and how long have you taught it in academe? Do you still currently teach?

                The only argument I'm trying to formulate here is whether you know of what you speak.

                1. Do you actually doubt the woke infection on campus is real or are you just being insincere?

                  1. I don't think these places are much more 'woke' than any organization that caters to the demographic academe caters to. I think a lot of people buy into a 'moral panic' about this because 1. they are for partisan reasons inclined to search for, magnify and remember negative stories about 'wokeness run amok' in academe and 2. they often lack first hand experience with the area and 3. their information is then filled in by inept and/or partisan information sources.

                    I mean, is wokeness run amok where you teach? How long has it been that way?

                  2. "Do you actually doubt the woke infection on campus is real or are you just being insincere?"

                    Do I doubt your interpretation of facts?
                    Why yes, it turns out that I do.

                2. lol as I basically already said my teaching experience and obviously my time as a student are several years each. Do you want my CV? What relevance is the specific hard science? Are you trying to dox me? Even if I was just joe average I don't really see what you are going for here since the problem is obvious outside and through mountains of evidence of which the article you're sitting on is just one.

                  1. I'm certainly not trying to dox you and don't want any CV, it's just interesting you can't answer a simple question like I asked: what field do you work in and how long have you taught in it? I mean, I work in psychology (one of the fields you pontificate about) and have, oh, I guess 8-9 years of it as a student and then about two decades of teaching. I haven't doxxed myself or whatever. But, if someone wanted to know if I have direct first hand experience in the area of academic psychology or social science I can say, yeah. I'm trying to ascertain if you can say the same.

                    "the problem is obvious outside and through mountains of evidence of which the article you’re sitting on is just one."

                    Oh no, this is very simplistic. Reports from the general press and partisan websites is hardly a reliable place to found judgements about many and broad fields. Anyone working in such a field can tell you that about the press coverage of their fields.

                    1. No, you don't want info in good faith, you want a pissing match or hoping that I reveal one detail that you will glom on to to try to discredit what I say. Unless you can provide a good logical reason why the details I've provided are not enough to allow me to weigh in about this as an insider compared to whatever x bar you've set its irrelevant and you are looking very silly acting like an FBI profiler on an internet thread.

                    2. Lol, asking if the person pontificating about fields X, Y and Z has, you know, any actual experience working in those fields is hardly 'acting like an FBI profiler.' It's common sense to wonder if the person knows what they are talking about or is full on a steady diet of sensationalist press reports with an accompanying fine partisan ax to grind.

                      Your dodging speaks volumes at present.

                    3. Well your premise is quite conventional Queenie. That only the insiders in an organization are qualified to criticize it and advocate reforming it.

                      The police have been saying that about police reform for years.

                    4. "No, you don’t want info in good faith"

                      Which matches up, because you're withholding info in bad faith.

                    5. " you [...] hoping that I reveal one detail that you will glom on to to try to discredit what I say."

                      Being evasive is what's discrediting what you say. And it's all you.

                  2. "Are you trying to dox me?"

                    Are you REALLY that paranoid or is it just a put-on?

                3. My experience at my university is that we try hard to open the door to broad set of applicant up to the short list stage. At that point the major question turns to "will s/he be able to be awarded tenure six years from now?"
                  In other works the major question becomes scientific potential

                  1. I worked in private, vocational education for ten years. Our basic question was "can this person teach?"

                    1. Fair question if you are training teachers

                    2. We were not training teachers. We were teaching Paralegals, Medical Assistants, nurses, accountants, and IT professionals. We taught people the knowledge and skills they needed to obtain employment in these fields. That's what "vocational education" means.

                      "Training" is something you do to animals, "Teaching" is something you do for people.

              2. " the woke virus seeping from your side into disciplines that are supposed to be based on objective reality"

                A conservative whining that the other guys won't stay contained by objective reality is pure, 100% irony. You should wind that all up into some kind of conspiracy theory.

        3. My concern is less about whether academia is "woke", in this instance, and more about the fact that the law is very clear that you can't have segregated educational facilities or positions open only to people of one race. It's like a lot of these people don't even understand that a lot of the stuff that "woke" people throw around as theory is not stuff you can legally implement in your hiring policies.

          They need in house counsels to tell them to stop and be more careful.

          1. Right, you're supposed to advocate "holistic" hiring, and then just coincidentally end up where the quotas dictate.

            1. That's an admissions standard (and a narrow one), not a hiring standard.

              1. If 'holistic' admissions can let you get away with racial quotas in admissions, why wouldn't 'holistic' hiring let you get away with racial quotas in hiring?

                Just claim to be deciding based on vague criteria, and never put down in writing that you're actually doing it on the basis of race, and you're golden.

                1. Or tell your hiring managers to always hire the best candidate, regardless of group affiliation.

                2. If ‘holistic’ admissions can let you get away with racial quotas in admissions, why wouldn’t ‘holistic’ hiring let you get away with racial quotas in hiring?

                  Because the legal standards are different.

                  For good or ill, SCOTUS allows consideration of race as part of a holistic approach in admissions. It does not allow consideration of race at all in employment, except as a remedy for past discrimination.

                  1. Pretty sure it was Congress, not SCOTUS, that set up the difference. SCOTUS just interprets the law (and, for acts of Congress, checks it for compliance with the Constitution.) They don't make proclamations.

      2. As higher education implodes.

        This stuff started 60 years ago, and is now finally coming to fruition. Higher education, as we know it, is not going to survive this.

        https://www.hoover.org/research/day-cornell-died

        1. How's your record of prediction, Special Ed?

    3. How can it be race discrimination if it only affects Whites, and possibly Asians (honorary Whites).

      1. True, as we all know, in the words of a former Chief Justice, whites are beings of an inferior order, (What else could critical race theory imply?) with no rights the woke man is bound to respect.

        1. "What else could critical race theory imply?"

          Uh, lots.

          What classics of Critical Race Theory do you think are the worst and for what reasons? Because surely you're not talking about something which you know of primarily through reporting from secondary (usually hostile) sources.

          1. You have to appreciate that Brett is an instinctual polymath. He just understands things with greater criticality than specialists who have devoted years of study to a subject. That's why he can be both glib and contemptuous on such a wide variety of matters. It's his blessing and his curse.

            1. Well, He IS the One True Prophet, with all Truth Revealed to him by divine presence. So you can't argue articles of faith with him, because he'll see that you're arguing in bad faith.

          2. "Because surely you’re not talking about something which you know of primarily through reporting from secondary (usually hostile) sources."

            Why, because that's something only people on the left are entitled to do, and limit others to doing by deplatforming?

            I'm judging critical race theory by what it's leading to: It always seems to end up as racism, only directed against whites. I say 'ends up', but really, I expect it starts there.

            Like the above referenced explicit racial quotas.

            1. How can you know that this comes from 'Critical Race Theory' when you know virtually nothing about what the latter says, calls for, etc?

              You're literally pontificating on something you don't know much about. Again.

              1. Critical race theory has been around for 30+ years now, and merely reading this book will tell you more than you ever want to know about it.

                https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B005I6EVT2/reasonmagazinea-20/

                  1. I thought that other book had more than you'd ever want to know about this topic, why waste time on this other one? Lol.

                    1. Because I think people should read both.

                    2. "Because I think people should read both."

                      If people have to read books, the white folks are going to rise up to overthrow the tyranny. You can see the signs already and the shooting civil war can't be far away now.

                    1. "Because surely you’re not talking about something which you know of primarily through reporting from secondary (usually hostile) sources."

                1. Anyone who tells you that you can learn more than you ever want to know about a broad academic movement from reading one book is a damned fool.

                  It's like the modern movement conservative desperately needs the world to be so simple a college freshman can have all the answers after reading a book or two.

                  1. This is kind of like the people who'll tell you you have to read a dozen books on Marxism and study it for years before you can say, "Hell, no!" to it based on gulags and about 100 million dead.

                    1. Well, yeah, when you have people yelling Social Security is Marxist it's because such people don't know much about Marxism. Pontificating about how bad 'Critical Race Theory' is without knowing what it says and calls for is very similar.

                    2. "This is kind of like the people who’ll tell you you have to read a dozen books on Marxism and study it for years before you can say, “Hell, no!” to it based on gulags and about 100 million dead."

                      Marx operated approximately 0 gulags. So if you're rejecting "Marxism" based on gulags it indicates that you are not very bright.

                  2. "It’s like the modern movement conservative desperately needs the world to be so simple a college freshman can have all the answers after reading a book or two."

                    If it requires more than reading a bumper sticker, it's too complex for movement conservatives.

              2. You're like the people on the Left who started blaming every conservative thing on 'Straussian' philosophy a while back without ever having read a thing that Strauss or his prominent followers wrote. It's just a talismanic word they heard in the left wing press, ditto so many of today's conservatives and the mantra 'Critical Race Theory.'

                I've had to read some actual 'Critical Race Theory' (it's a very, very broad movement btw, it would be like saying you've read 'Postmodernism' or 'Sociological Positivism') and then read some by choice. It's a much more complex bunch of thought than whatever Fox and Friends are talking about.

                1. It was garbage 30 years ago and it remains garbage...

                  1. If anyone'd know from garbage, it'd be you Crazy Eddie.

              3. "You’re literally pontificating on something you don’t know much about. Again."

                Yeah, but that's obvious from the top of the comment, where Special Ed's name appears as the author.

            2. "Why, because that’s something only people on the left are entitled to do, and limit others to doing by deplatforming?"

              Why do you perpetuate the habit of taking something your side has done for decades, and pretending that it's only the other guys what do it?

      2. "honorary Whites"
        a racist concept i itself.

    4. That 'Woke University Sickness" (WUS for short) virus seems to be a highly contagious virus, Don Nico. I don't suppose locking them down for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps months, would be the appropriate response...? 🙂

      1. The True Believers can spot them even if they have no visible symptoms.

  2. I was in an operations meeting for a big company recently. Part of it was about hiring and the presenter actually told hiring managers "diverse, minority applicants should be considered above other applications during the interview stages..." There was an audible amount of "rumbling" on Zoom when this was stated although no one directly questioned it.

    Literally two minutes after the call concluded every participant got an email that said, "(company) abides by all non-discrimination laws and managers should refer to those policies when hiring. Protected classes are never a qualification or disqualification unless specifically controlled by our written affirmative action policy..."

    I'm just waiting for this to all blow up in the Left's face which is going to happen in three....two.....one......

    1. Last time I was in a company meeting where blatantly illegal hiring practices were suggested the company founder shut that down on the spot.

      1. Yeah, but that meeting wasn't held entirely in somebody's imagination. Jimmy's was.

    2. It really means what you mean by 'considered.' I think it's fairly established that you can do things like expand advertising posts and such with diversity goals in mind.

      Remember, this push is not from some Soros funded conspiracy, it's from 1. companies want to make money by having better workforces and more customers/clients 2. there's evidence and reason to think more diverse workforces leads to more customers/clients and more money, in large part because the customer base is both more diverse and more likely to think diversity is valuable.

      1. "1. companies want to make money by having better workforces and more customers/clients"

        No it is from companies that don't want to lose money because they are targeted by race hustlers and it is better for the bottom line (currently) to give them what they want or at least look like you are doing so.

        1. Look, 'race hustlers' just don't have the power or presence to do that, or, maybe better put, they only have the power and presence commensurate to how much they might move sales from folks inclined to agree with them. Companies are not going to lose money to be woke for the fun or virtue of it. You're just going to have to accept that it's of growing popularity especially among key customer demographics. Conjuring and focusing on 'agitators' who are 'stirring up all the trouble' is a long losing hand.

          1. "is a long losing hand."
            Maybe in some product areas. But in many areas and depending on where the company's products are in the value chain, basic business considerations are likely to trump sociology.

            Using clearly discriminatory reasons to screen out candidates, should never be acceptable. I say that while I have always been willing as a top manager to put my thumb on the scale to keep a diversity into the short list.

            1. " basic business considerations are likely to trump sociology"

              Uh, Don, we agree on that. My losing hand referred to the political strategy of assuming conspiracy theories rather than real growing popularity.

              1. Very good. Thanks for saying so.

                1. No problem. I really think what many see as some conspiracy of 'wokeness' by many companies and universities is explained by simple broad sociological and economic forces: when you have an operation appealing to certain demographic groups that themselves value and resonate to and with that kind of talk/policy then the operations will push for it. It's more about the Benjamins than Malcom X.

                  1. Seeing businesses respond to what their customers tell them they want is shocking to ideologues.

            2. " I say that while I have always been willing as a top manager to put my thumb on the scale to keep a diversity into the short list."

              The cumulative consequences of which are inexorably leading to things which I doubt you will like.

              1. I have done that for 35 years and have never seen things that I don't like.
                Talk about things that you know, not about your imaginary bogeymen.

                1. Ed,
                  Just to conclude, of all the many hires that I have made, the only one that I had to fire was a white male.

                2. "Talk about things that you know, not about your imaginary bogeymen."

                  That leaves Special Ed with nothing to talk about.

              2. "The cumulative consequences of which are inexorably leading to things which I doubt you will like."

                Storm clouds on the horizon. Signs and portents. the shooting war is coming, any day now. At which time you're going to find that plenty of Democrats have guns, too. Probably the hard way.

            3. "Using clearly discriminatory reasons to screen out candidates, should never be acceptable."

              Depends on what you're discriminating on. Anyone complaining that midgets are routinely discriminated against in American professional sports? You don't see many 3'3" point guards in the NBA, or 4'1" linebackers in the NFL, and baseball has prohibited midgets since Eddie Goedel was put into a game to bat. It's a shame that these poor little souls are categorically excluded from such employment.

              1. James,
                Don't be absurd for the sake of arguing.
                I was talking about hiring PhD or MS level professionals, not short people for the NBA

                1. Don't be dense for the sake of sticking to a stupid claim.

                  1. James,
                    Your come back is as dense as your original objection.
                    We all know that certain "discrimination" is allowable if there is a bona fide business necessity. In that sense it has been ruled equitable by the courts in the US.
                    But you prefer to argue for its own sake or for the sake of posting snark. Both are wastes of time in my eyes.

                    1. "We all know that certain 'discrimination' is allowable"

                      But, earlier, you said
                      “Using clearly discriminatory reasons to screen out candidates, should never be acceptable.”
                      (so I corrected you back to the position you now claim.) Are you hinging your argument on parsing the difference between "allowable" and "acceptable"?
                      Or are you posing now, pretending that you didn't need to be corrected?

                    2. (so I corrected you back to the position you now claim.) Are you hinging your argument on parsing the difference between “allowable” and “acceptable”?
                      Or are you posing now, pretending that you didn’t need to be corrected?

                      Not only are you being an asshole, but one of your original claims was wrong. Baseball — one presumes you meant MLB, rather than a round object often thrown, batted, and caught — does not prohibit midgets. Rather, Eddie Gaedel's signing prompted MLB to enact a rule saying that all player contracts had to be pre-approved by the Commissioner. While the implication was that the Commissioner would not approve the signing of a midget, that was never made an actual rule. This rule was used by then-Commissioner Fay Vincent in 1990 to block the White Sox's proposed stunt of having a 65-year old Minnie Minoso appear in a major league game.

                    3. "Not only are you being an asshole, but one of your original claims was wrong. Baseball — one presumes you meant MLB, rather than a round object often thrown, batted, and caught — does not prohibit midgets."

                      No, there's plenty of little people on plenty of teams, in every level of professional baseball. (I did not say MLB because I did not mean MLB)

                    4. James, I never pose. In fact making a business justified distinction is allowable and is not discrimination in the first place. You did no correction of my position and I am sure that I have far more experience as a hiring and recruiting manager than you. I know what distinctions cam be made and which cannot.
                      For example an airline can legitimately decline to hire a Christian or Jew (or atheist) for flying routes that include Mecca and Medina in the KSA. I can decline to hire a person who can't lift 50 pounds if that is a position requirement, etc.

                    5. " I never pose." [...]
                      Then just a sentence later, the posing resumes: "You did no correction of my position"

                      Right, you don't "pose". You just lie.

                      The sentence I cut out needs correction. you conflate "discrimination" with "unlawful discrimination" thus magically converting "discrimination which is lawfully allowed" into "not discrimination"
                      Later, you go on to a false appeal to authority and repeat your earlier error.
                      You could choose to learn from this experience, but I'm betting you'll choose not to.

                    6. "Your come back is as dense as your original objection."

                      Someday, I aspire to reach your level of density. Doesn't seem possible, but a man can dream!

                  2. So you decided I was wrong based on your assumption as to what I was talking about.

                    1. I decided that you were wrong because you changed the obvious topic so that you could try to show that you are clever– which you're not.
                      As I wrote before, cut the juvenile arguments. Grow up.

                    2. You're doing it again.

                2. James,
                  Don’t be absurd for the sake of arguing.

                  That leaves James with nothing to talk about.

                  1. I could keep pointing out that you aren't quite as smart as you'd like to think. There's lots off opportunities for that, so I'll still have something to go with. (admittedly, it's not as easy as pointing out Special Ed's nonsensery, but neither are you omniscient.)

                    1. Also, quit complaining when you lift my snark to use yourself.

        2. "No it is from companies that don’t want to lose money because they are targeted by race hustlers"

          I want to learn more about these "race hustlers". Are you talking about organizations such as NASCAR?

      2. " there’s evidence and reason to think more diverse workforces leads to more customers/clients and more money, in large part because the customer base is both more diverse and more likely to think diversity is valuable."

        Or the customer base is united in its visceral opposition to violations of the Civil Rights Act and will boycott companies who do so.

        Boycotting is not something that conservatives have tended to do because it most hurts people who didn't have anything to do with the decision, but Target took a major hit for its Tranny Bathroom policy, with the extent of that somewhat concealed by Covid.

        1. "Boycotting is not something that conservatives have tended to do "

          Lol, hilarious. Blind, of course, the question is willfully or stupidly?

            1. NFL viewership is also at an all time low. I won't attribute that solely to an organized boycott, but playing into all the woke crap is causing people to turn it off for a bunch of different reasons.

              1. Yup. People tune into sports games to watch sports, not to get political punditry. If they want political commentary, there are channels for that.

                Nobody wants to watch NFL and MLB folks spout off in issues like police violence and the Georgia voting law any more than they want to watch Tucker Carlson and Joy Reid play basketball.

                1. "When my side boycotts it's because they're right to do so!"

                  And I like how the megacast of the National Anthem flanked by service men and women with huge flags as Air Force jets fly over with a 'Support the Troops' banner isn't political punditry but a player quietly kneeling on the sidelines is taking over the broadcast with politics.

                  1. "When my side boycotts it’s because they’re right to do so!"

                    You missed the, "I won’t attribute that solely to an organized boycott" part, I see.

                    1. Seeing where it's written doesn't make it true.

              2. "NFL viewership is also at an all time low."

                Imagine that. Wonder if it's at all related to the fact that it isn't football season? With no games being played, it's not a surprise to see that nobody's watching the games that aren't happening.

                1. Wanna bet on whether or not Sunday Night Football will be the highest-rated Fall television program?

          1. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-targets-companies-apple-nordstrom-google-2019-7

            I could go on and on, of course. Trump loved to call for and threaten boycotts, he did so often explicitly and implicitly (what do you think his constant talk about how companies that he criticized were doing poorly, losing in the ratings, etc?).

            1. My thoughts immediately went to the religious right groups who boycotted Disney in the 1990s because of its perceived support for gay rights.

              1. Disney got itself an exemption from Florida's new social-media deplatforming law. Would shutting down Disney World hurt Disney more, or Florida?

                1. There's a long history of preventing protests at Disneyland in California, and they don't like other production companies using D-land as a location for any filmed entertainment. There's a small number of protests that succeeded there.

        2. "Boycotting is not something that conservatives have tended to do"

          I'd love to see you try to explain this point to Natalie Maines.

      3. "2. there’s evidence and reason to think more diverse workforces leads to more customers/clients and more money,"

        This is the skin color equivalent of somebody reading in a business magazine that open office designs increase productivity, and issuing a memo mandating low cubicle walls. You can't manage with data on that level.

        1. "This is the skin color equivalent of somebody reading in a business magazine that open office designs increase productivity, and issuing a memo mandating low cubicle walls."

          Open office designs don't have cubicles in them. So are you claiming that businesspeople can't read?

    3. The problem Jimmy is that courts defer to "academic judgements."

      And how many people on that Zoom call will interpret it as "do it but neither document nor admit it"?

      1. He was clearly talking about a company not an academic institution.

        "I was in an operations meeting for a big company recently."

        1. "I’m just waiting for this to all blow up in the Left’s face which is going to happen in three….two…..one……"

          1. Your predictions are. never. right.

            I'm sure the left will overreach somewhere, as will the right. And I'm sure it'll be nowhere you are tracking, despite your attempts to point everywhere at once and predict doom/violence.

      2. "The problem Jimmy is that courts defer to “academic judgements.”"

        But not to your pseudo-academic judgment. That's not a problem.

    4. "the presenter actually told hiring managers “diverse, minority applicants should be considered above other applications during the interview stages…”"

      Unless the hiring managers are getting reviewed on the color of their employees instead of how many widgets they make, it doesn't matter what they tell them.

      1. Metrics of success are hard; you know this, we've talked about it.

        The meritocracy has far too much noise to function after a certain threshold.

        Whether that means you can take race into account as an alternate criteria or not is a separate question, but your reductive analogy misses basically the whole issue in service of making it seem easy.

        1. "Metrics of success are hard; you know this, we’ve talked about it."

          Lol, yes, we've talked about it, and also how much I get paid depends on metrics of success.

          "The meritocracy has far too much noise to function after a certain threshold."

          Bullshit. When I interview people I have a pretty good idea how well they're going to do. Usually they're are one or two candidates that kind of stick out.

          And unless I'm getting raises and bonuses based on the diversity of my team, I'm going to hire one of the guys who I think will do a good job, no matter what color they are, and regardless of what some presenter at a meeting says.

          1. " unless I’m getting raises and bonuses based on the diversity of my team, I’m going to hire one of the guys who I think will do a good job, no matter what color they are"

            Egads. You're woke!

          2. When I interview people I have a pretty good idea how well they’re going to do.

            Sounds dubious. There's little evidence that job interviews provide discernibly useful information. (Unless you're talking about 'interviews' which involve specific, objective tasks.)

        2. "Metrics of success are hard; you know this, we’ve talked about it. "

          They're measured in $.

          1. James,
            When you grow up, you'll learn that $ are only one metric and often not the most important one.

            1. When you master English, I'm sure your analysis skills will occasionally lead to an argument that has valid points in it. Until that day, keep trying, eventually (by chance alone) you've got to manage it at least once.

              1. Again blah-blah and snark for the sake to typing. Bye.
                Grow up

                1. "Grow up"

                  After you...

                2. "Again blah-blah and snark for the sake to typing."

                  Excellent argument that you can, too, read for analysis.

            2. " you’ll learn that $ are only one metric and often not the most important one."

              In business, $ are indeed the only metric. You either generate $ or you cost $.

        3. S_0,
          In America, where most professionals are not unionized, supervisors must measure performance and on that basis have the prerogative to give rewards in salaries, bonuses and perks accordingly.
          Unfortunately, many organizations or their sub-units are reluctant to do 1 to N ranking each year via open, transparent processes.
          In corresponding European organizations that freedom of action regarding monetary reward is highly restricted.

          But I agree that like all measurements, the measurement of value to the organization does have a sizeable noise that must be taken into account. Unfortunately most HR departments don't seem to understand this issue well enough to inform either supervisors or front-line employees.

  3. The idea that whites will be a minority is fake. It comes from a simple math error at the Census. Sorry, Artie.

    1. Whites ARE a minority, on this planet. Not sure about yours.

  4. Bader's treatment of what the GMU President said reads like an overzealous prosecutor's charging document rather than a careful, fair, academic analysis. People should click through if they are more interested in the latter.

    1. It looks like a mix of legal and illegal proposals. A previous employer wanted to mark off various liberal checkboxes. There was a stated goal to raise the number of women and minorities. There was not a quota. We did not say "from the people who pass the screening test we'll take a black lesbian if one is available." We did consider sending a recruiter to historically black colleges. I was not aware of any illegal discrimination. As it turned out traditionally male jobs tended to be filled by males, female jobs by females.

      1. The concrete proposals I see put forward were:

        Include inclusive excellence in the criteria we use for hiring
        Change our search processes to be more equitable

        I'm not sure either is illegal.

        1. Well, I should say the concrete overall goals, he suggests some more specific things (diverse seminar lists, search widening, etc.,) that fall under these two, but I don't see them as being obviously illegal either.

          From what I understand the law allows organizations to value and pursue more diverse workforces while barring using race, gender, etc., as a factor in making individual hiring decisions.

        2. The "above the bar" part strikes me as illegal. You have Mr. White and Mrs. Black who both clear the bar. White scores better but you hire Black for the sake of diversity.

          They might be able to design a legal policy to achieve the same effect. I have seen two examples in the Boston area recently. Harvard's admissions standards were said to disadvantage Asians, but a lawsuit against them failed despite statistical evidence. Just this week the First Circuit upheld a judge's finding that mandating geographic and economic diversity in exam schools was not illegal discrimination. Boston set a quota of students from each ZIP code and added points to an application for coming from a poor family. Both changes were likely to favor blacks over whites and Asians. Both changes had a plausible race-neutral justification. (http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/21-1303P-01A.pdf)

          1. The 'above the bar' part didn't read to me like a concrete policy but a more general, abstract idea about how achieving more diversity might not be seen as inequitable.

          2. Any word if the Boston Latin decision will be appealed to SCOTUS?

            1. The ink is barely dry on the First Circuit decision. It strikes me as a case the Supreme Court won't want, especially when a so-called "shadow docket" decision would be needed to grant effective relief for the 2021-2022 school year. There's nothing so obviously wrong that the Supreme Court needs to intervene. According to the First Circuit the plaintiffs handled their case poorly, making this a poor vehicle for the Supreme Court to decide whether the policy is discriminatory. The policy might change again post-COVID.

        3. QA,
          "to be more equitable"
          I find that reason to be very questionable in its formulation.
          What does equitable mean? Does it mean adding in blantantly discriminatory criteria?

          I have no problem to say "change search processes to cast a much broader net to include underrepresented groups."
          You my think that those are the same idea. Yes, but language matters.

          1. Given his later concrete examples it seems it has to do more with things like tweaking search processes.

          2. "What does equitable mean? Does it mean adding in blantantly discriminatory criteria?"

            "Equitable" means "fair". It might mean deleting blatantly discriminatory criteria, or reducing the weighting of discriminatory criteria. For example, is Mr. Rich White's application essay better because he hired someone to write it for him? Is Ms. Po Black's less well-written because Po's family can't afford a laptop for her to write on, so she had to use one at the public library?

            1. " It might mean deleting blatantly discriminatory criteria"
              You mean such as 'we have to hire a BIPOC for this position.
              Having said that, for professional positions your example is worse than absurd.

              1. "Having said that, for professional positions your example is worse than absurd."

                Did you notice that my examples aren't hiring criteria, they're admission criteria for getting into the schools that feed those well-paying jobs?
                I'd consider your inability to read for analysis a reason not to hire you.

        4. "Include inclusive excellence in the criteria we use for hiring
          Change our search processes to be more equitable

          I’m not sure either is illegal."

          Such policies certainly can be illegal if they have a discriminatory purpose. And according to Bader, "Companies can give minorities a racial preference to fix what the Supreme Court calls a “manifest racial imbalance” in “traditionally segregated job categories.".

          That doesn't mean that they can use preferences to try to achieve a balance base on what they think the future racial makeup of the school will be.

  5. Bonkers. Also, seems like a better and better idea for everybody to stop self-identifying as one "race" or another.

    1. They give you a list of choices to select from, and don't let you pick more than one. And if you pick "I choose not to answer this question" you just look like a malcontent.

      1. " And if you pick “I choose not to answer this question” you just look like a malcontent."
        I find such behavior on the part of hiring supervisors discriminatory on its face.

        1. And that's why they don't want to hire you.

          1. You don't KNOW that.

            1. It could be the fact that you actually ARE a malcontent.

              1. Or that you're unqualified.

  6. My advice to white men is to either convert to Islam or chop your penis off or do both and also chop off your balls...nobody wants to see those anyway. 😉

    1. Why do you think that such crudeness adds anything to the discussion?

      1. I consider what he wrote to be realistic, not crude.

        1. Then you're jaded by crudeness. Maybe that explains frequent lack of coherence in your posts.

        2. But you are a ranting idiot prone to fantasies of violence, and therefore your opinion is of no value to persons of at least normal intelligence.

          1. James, if you think calling someone "a ranting idiot prone to fantasies of violence" adds anything to the discussion, you're sadly mistaken.
            Chill.

            1. I know. It's almost like I think saying true things has a place in political argument, and you see no value in truth.

              1. I see not value in your ranting.
                Try responding substantively for a change.
                Grow up while your at it

                1. "I see not value in your ranting."

                  As if there's a reason to care what you value.

                  "Grow up while your at it"
                  Is this a request to correct your poor spelling?

                  1. You misspelled "you're".

                2. As Yoda would put it:

                  When wisdom you show, your advice I will take.

    2. I think white guys are going to be fine for quite a while...

      1. It is tone deaf statements like this that make people not really care about cases of real discrimination. You should be ashamed of yourself (if that is even possible...)

        1. White guys are overrepresented in most positions of power and wealth, they're doing fine. But I get that authoritarians are only upset when the underdog makes gains.

          1. Define "overrepresented"?

            I guess you're also fine with discrimination against Asians, Jews and Indians (ethnically from India), who suddenly become "white" when convenient to those who excuse racism from blacks, Hispanics and woke whites.

            1. "Define “overrepresented”?"

              They gots all the wealth and the power that comes from it.

              1. A BS description. Those folks from India are frequently people of more color than self-identified African-Americans

                1. Those folks from India pursue well paying careers as doctors and engineers, so they pry a bit of wealth away from the white dudes. But they don't tend to run large corporations.

                  1. You might try looking around Silicon Valley.

                    1. To see doctors and engineers originally from India?

                    2. Care to clarify why I'd have to travel 3000 miles to see that?

          2. QA,
            You better watch that lest you're accused of being a closet anti-Semite.
            At least in professional ranks Jews are by far the most "overrepresented" unless you define white male so broadly as to be meaningless.

        2. I'm a white guy, and I and many like me agree with QA.

          This victimization nonsense is about momentum, not position. Well, that and it's the only narrative that'll work for a party becoming increasingly all white dudes (but which hardly contains all the whites or dudes).

          1. And this is why white guys won't ever take you seriously and probably rightfully think that your intent is nothing but animus towards them for simply existing.

            1. Whereas white guys totally idolize you, right? Worship the very ground you ooze on?

    3. "My advice to white men is to either convert to Islam or chop your penis off or do both and also chop off your balls…nobody wants to see those anyway."

      After all, it worked out so well for you, right?

  7. I look forward to the DOJ filing suit immediately. A simple article alleging discrimination is the same as actual discrimination in this administration, right?

  8. The American fascination with skin color. Why not just pay coloreds to sit at home? If self righteous, woke, guilty, whitey feels so bad, why not just bow and print money for colored folks until the entire system collapses, bullets fly and whitey has to rebuild the place.

    1. "The American fascination with skin color. Why not just pay coloreds to sit at home? "

      That's the stuff!

    2. It’s a profession for many. They learned that claiming to be a victim was easier and paid better than productive work.

      Now they’re trying to capture more value by dividing up vastly overpaid rent-seeking jobs.

      1. Are you describing the poor, oppressed Christian white guys who are whining that the deck is stacked against them?

  9. I will mention this in passing. For many decades low-status white males have had to live with a system that tells them a fireman's job (or whatever) can go to a less-qualified black person (qualifications based on test scores, or whatever objective criteria), so long as that person has minimal qualifications to do the job. Outscoring the black applicant on measurable criteria gets dismissed as adding an impermissible discriminatory hurdle.

    Likewise, among white male applicants, civil service hiring in the federal government is all but beyond reach for jobs requiring less than advanced professional degrees as mandatory criteria. Affirmative action applicants get extra points added, as do white guys with military service. That fills the queue. It leaves nothing for a white male Harvard grad who wanted to take his magna cum laude BA into civil service, but could not get into the military because he failed a physical.

    During that same time interval, that system of calling minimal qualifications good enough has never been the rule in academia, nor among applicants for jobs in the learned professions. There, things can still be all about excellence. Get the minorities on the short list, but—a few token hires excepted—make the final decision the same way as always.

    If you look at the statistical result, you see some of the worst social equity statistics in the nation among the high-status male work force at the nation's most prestigious universities. That does not seem to budge much over time.

    I have been a defender of affirmative action during all those many years. I plan to continue. I think it has been worth the dislocations. But affirmative action has been terribly, unfairly managed. It has dealt far too much justifiable grievance into the lives of low-status white males. A lot of that could be corrected, and it probably would be if white males on the inside track for high-status policy-making positions were subject to the same rules as everyone else.

    1. Here is an article of faith: God distributes talents to individuals as He sees fit.

      Now, a verifiable statement: Ignoring people with talents and skills because they are a different social group is wasteful and counterproductive.

      Consider, at one point the idea that a black man could play organized basketball was wacky and worthy of ridicule. So black men were categorically excluded from major college programs and professional opportunities. With no playing experience, they were also effectively cut out of coaching, as well. Eventually, someone had to invent Harlem Globetrotters to counter the prejudice. Turns out, black men CAN play basketball, after all, and now they can even coach or manage pro teams.

    2. "qualifications based on test scores, or whatever objective criteria"

      Assuming that test scores are objective, and measure actual job skills.

    3. The problem with affirmative action was that it started out as a policy of making sure that you went out of your way to find minority candidates, but then still selecting among the candidates based on merit.

      It rapidly became obvious that this wasn't going to accomplish much in the short run, because for reasons of culture and disadvantage, blacks were disproportionately less qualified for such positions.

      So AA rapidly was modified into a non-merit system of preferences and quotas, a clear case of racial discrimination. And that is what "affirmative action" has meant, in practice, for most of our lives: Racial discrimination.

      You can persuade a majority group to adopt policies that disadvantage them, if the policies are clearly just a matter of equal treatment. It's hard, but it's doable, most people will in the end concede that they lost fair and fair if the competition was obviously unrigged.

      But once you openly adopt policies that are discriminatory, openly rig the system, you will be very hard put to persuade the majority to agree to be discriminated against, to agree to have the game rigged against them. Persuade people that rigging the game is acceptable, and they'll naturally want it rigged for them, not against, and you won't find much avail in moral arguments, because you've already abandoned the moral high ground.

      That's where we are now: Openly racially discriminatory policies that disadvantage the majority, clinging to existence only because they're already in place, and the elites who relentlessly gatekeep our democracy are not personally disadvantaged by them.

      But it's not a stable situation, it can't go on.

      1. Brett, are you admitting that you can't compete unless you have several advantages going in? Because that's what it sounds like.

  10. "If you look .. the worst social equity statistics ..[are]...at the nation’s most prestigious universities. That does not seem to budge much over time."
    That is a pretty arrogant statement especially if you have never been on a faculty at one of these institutions

    "would be if white males on the inside track for high-status policy-making positions were subject to the same rules as everyone else."
    Another one of your "religious" statements based on little direct knowledge. If yu have it, let's hear it.

    1. I took this for a Blackman Post till I got to the bottom.

      And I think we need affirmative action for conservatives in academia!

      1. "I think we need affirmative action for conservatives in academia!"

        The fundamental problem is that conservatives reject working in areas where actual performance matters.
        The problem is that the conservatives select themselves out of academia, if they have a choice.

    2. Don Nico, what percentage of Yale's tenured faculty positions are held by American-born black persons? Look it up, and tell me if I was arrogant to point it out.

  11. So why is this happening now? It's a question worthy answering. My instinct is we're seeing all these facially unconstitutional changes now for the same reason that we're seeing an explosion of facially illegal southern border crossings: they know the Harris-Biden Administration isn't going to come after them for it. Making hay while the sun shines.

    They have a minimum of 4 years to get their policy and procedural ducks in a row before they are challenged in court by the Justice Department. And even in the worst possible case, those cases will be litigated during a Republican administration, which Justice can slow-roll while giving the chattering classes something to blog about.

    It's a win all around for the #Disrupters.

Please to post comments