Andy Driscoll wrote: > If the results of this testing are as Dane related them, I, > for one, have no reason to believe otherwise, these are clear > cases of employment discrimination and subject to legal action. > This is not a study, or a survey or a poll< it's a testing, > something civil rights monitors in the Twin Cities as well > as Milwaukee and other urban centers do all the time (and > have done for 50 years) because it's often the only way to identify > companies (as with realtors and landlords in the housing > arena) willing to weed out potential employees based on their color.
If the Black applicants all fail to communicate in standard English and instead use slang, then the differences in hiring rates are not discriminatory based on race (as long as the jobs require communication skills). Percentage differences do not constitute legal discrimination in and of themselves. I don't believe that anyone has shown that all factors other than race were accounted for and I'm still waiting for the origional reference for this "testing." > And that's the point: that people who care about these > issues will test the marketplace for sign of racial > discrimination in violation of local and state human right > laws in preparation for official complaints and, if > necessary, punishment. The ultimate goal is to change behaviors > or be penalized for breaking the law. Changing hiring practices to > make them more color-blind (or gender-blind, etc.) is the ultimate > goal because what we really want are jobs for traditionally excluded > peoples based on everything but their qualifications to do the work > required. This is old regressive rhetoric that focuses only on the employers. We haven't been provided with enough information to determine whether the differences in hiring rates are due to the skill sets of the applicants or the discriminatory behavior of the employers. I'm perfectly willing to accept that the actions of the employers are discriminatory, if more evidence is forthcoming. > If the results of this testing are as Dane related them, I, > for one, have no reason to believe otherwise..." If you want to think critically about this issue then you will have a reason to consider alternative explanations and seek more complete data. If on the other hand, you are only interested in confirming your own prejudices, then you indeed have "no reason to believe otherwise." Michael Atherton Prospect Park REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
