Affirmative Action

I have written about Affirmative Action on a previous blog. The current heightened media coverage, however, prompts me to do it again. Even the most liberal of media outlets do not cover this topic correctly - and it surprises me. Affirmative Action is completely misunderstood by the vast majority of US citizens. This is not opinion -- it is a fact. I am not a lawyer, but I happen to be associated with a Washington D. C. law firm that specializes in employment law. The following are facts:

• Discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin is illegal.
  [Notice that sexual preference is not a legally protected class of citizens. This is one reason gay rights is currently such a hotly debated topic.]


• So-called 'Reverse Discrimination' is also illegal. There is absolutely no distinction in the law that provides preferential treatment for anyone.


• Quotas are illegal. Quotas favoring women over men, for example, are obviously reverse discrimination. Discrimination against a white man is exactly as illegal as discrimination against a black woman. Discrimination is illegal.

Affirmative Action is designed to prevent discrimination... not institutionalize it. The Affirmative Action reporting requirements for federal contractors do sometimes result in the establishment of placement goals. These goals are based upon the percentage of minorities and females (aka 'protected classes') in the qualified labor pool using census data by geographic area and occupation, as well as, the labor pool inside the company for internal promotions. These goals are only established when the incumbent population of a protected class for a given group of employees is significantly less than the qualified labor pool. The following are facts regarding these placement goals:

• Expressed as a percentage, the goals represent the expected rate at which the protected class would be hired/promoted based upon the qualified labor pool.


• Goals are not quotas.


• Goals do not provide justification for:
  1. Extending preferences to any individual
  2. Selecting any particular individual
  3. Adversely affecting any individual's employment status on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin


• Goals may not be used to supersede merit principles

In other words, employers have the full legal right to always and only hire the absolute best qualified candidate for the job. Period! If a placement goal was not met, the employer is only obligated to demonstrate with adequate record keeping the reasons that one candidate was chosen over another. As long as these reasons are merit-based, an employer has broken no laws and has nothing to fear.

If anyone believes they have been discriminated against or been given preferential treatment because of Affirmative Action, they are factually mistaken.

If your employer has stated or behaved otherwise then your employer has acted illegally. Though I am confident in my facts here, I am also confident that the gross misunderstanding of these facts certainly extends to employers who have violated these laws. My intent here is not to deny the reality of reverse discrimination. Rather, my intent is to inform. Reverse discrimination certainly exists. Like ALL discrimination, however, it is illegal.

If you think I'm wrong, consult a good labor attorney. I'm not. If you care about facts instead of propaganda, you will spread these facts in any conversation about Affirmative Action and call out the propaganda for what it is!

Justice Souter retirement

The moment I've been waiting for has arrived. The supreme court is the single most important reason that I so emphatically hoped for a Democratic president. I believe strongly that the whole constructionist/activist argument is wholly bogus. To say that there is exactly one correct interpretation of the constitution is ridiculous. It is as ridiculous as saying there is only one literal interpretation of the Bible. Language is always imperfect and imprecise. All words are necessarily interpreted based upon the receiver's values and life experience and our rightfully revered constitution is no different.

The second amendment is a hotly debated current example. The text is quoted here exactly:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

My opinion on gun ownership is irrelevant. The point here is that there are easily at least two interpretations of this sentence. One argument is that the individual 'people' are granted the right to bear arms, the other is that the collective 'people' in the form of a 'well regulated Militia' have the right to keep and bear arms. Regardless of anyone's personal belief it is undeniable that the other argument exists among constitutional scholars. To say a 'strict constructionist' judge would only interpret for the individual right and would call the collective militia argument 'activist' or 'legislation from the bench' is simply without merit. Either is fully in keeping with the strict letter of the constitution and depends on your point of view. To believe that the language of laws is self-evident, requiring no interpretation, denies the very need for a judiciary and blasphemes the very core of our constitution. By the way - Obama has stated, as a constitutional lawyer, that he personally believes the right to bear arms refers to the individual right. No hard core liberal there!

I dread the inevitable onslaught of propaganda as President Obama nominates his first supreme court justice. It is the price we pay for freedom of speech. Obama's remarks today laying out his criteria for selecting a judge were absolutely perfect from this voter's perspective. I would generally label myself as a center-left voter. More left socially and more right fiscally. I have agreed with nearly every word I have heard from President Obama even though he is often slammed from the left as well as the right. In this case, however, I will be hoping for as liberal a judge as can possibly be appointed. Justice is not and never should be blind. True justice must see the suffering of humanity. True justice must see the raping of our planet. Yes, true justice must even see the abhorrence of abortion. That does not mean legal decisions are made from a bleeding heart perspective, but it does mean that judges seeking true justice must temper the necessary and constitutionally mandated interpretation of literal law with the entirety of their being.