I don’t think this is something that’s really fixable institutionally. Thus I advocate lawsuit after lawsuit with the goal of basically bankrupting and hence destroying such institutions. Think of it as the sequel to the dissolution of the monasteries. Fine them several hundred billions, and when they keep offending, fine them three times as much next time. I suppose it’s conceivable that they’ll genuinely repent, but frankly, I’d rather they didn’t.
This is certainly an interesting development. I'd be surprised if significant actions are required by the EEOC's new emphasis.
"Large corporations" and "Prominent universities" that have contracts with the US government have been required to have Affirmative Action plans for the last 55 years or so. These plans are required to establish numerical targets by race and sex for every category of employee. The employers are required to make "good faith efforts" to meet the targets. In practice, this requires hiring qualified minority candidates in order to meet the targets. If the employer establishes qualification criteria with disparate impacts, they can be sued by disappointed applicants, not just by the government. The Affirmative Action plans are not public documents, but must be disclosed to employees on request. Except for the actual targets, which can be kept secret by the employer. I don't know whether discovery in a lawsuit could require disclosure of the targets.
If the government now tries to overturn Affirmative Action plans, or their implementation, they leave employers in a no-win situation. Failing to meet the hiring targets (or quotas, if you will) leaves the employer vulnerable to enforcement action and lawsuit. Trying to meet the targets can also leave them vulnerable to enforcement action and lawsuit.
I think it's probably good to get the gory details into public view. The existence of the quotas, and the mechanics of selection processes, have been kept out of view, because there are few in the public who would support the system we have now. I don't doubt the many insidious methods used to achieve the targets. I can even imagine that some of them might be found illegal.
But we have over 50 years' history, including many lawsuits, that has mandated most of the system we have now. Overturning it would require both discarding the disparate impact standard and explicitly banning racial hiring practices. I don't think there's much political support, either among politicians or the public, for doing so.
Thanks for your comment, but it's working off a premise that expired. EO 11246 and the contractor affirmative-action setup was revoked in Jan. 2025. So the requirement to set race and sex targets is gone, and the no-win bind you're describing (sued if you hit the numbers, sued if you don't) doesn't really exist anymore. The pull only goes one way now.
As for disparate impact, the plan says the EEOC will stop bringing those cases. The thing you assume hasn't happened is exactly what the document does.
You're right that a four-year enforcement plan can't rewrite the 1991 statute, and nobody knows if this survives the next administration. But the framework you're leaning on isn't the one in effect.
I don’t think this is something that’s really fixable institutionally. Thus I advocate lawsuit after lawsuit with the goal of basically bankrupting and hence destroying such institutions. Think of it as the sequel to the dissolution of the monasteries. Fine them several hundred billions, and when they keep offending, fine them three times as much next time. I suppose it’s conceivable that they’ll genuinely repent, but frankly, I’d rather they didn’t.
This is certainly an interesting development. I'd be surprised if significant actions are required by the EEOC's new emphasis.
"Large corporations" and "Prominent universities" that have contracts with the US government have been required to have Affirmative Action plans for the last 55 years or so. These plans are required to establish numerical targets by race and sex for every category of employee. The employers are required to make "good faith efforts" to meet the targets. In practice, this requires hiring qualified minority candidates in order to meet the targets. If the employer establishes qualification criteria with disparate impacts, they can be sued by disappointed applicants, not just by the government. The Affirmative Action plans are not public documents, but must be disclosed to employees on request. Except for the actual targets, which can be kept secret by the employer. I don't know whether discovery in a lawsuit could require disclosure of the targets.
If the government now tries to overturn Affirmative Action plans, or their implementation, they leave employers in a no-win situation. Failing to meet the hiring targets (or quotas, if you will) leaves the employer vulnerable to enforcement action and lawsuit. Trying to meet the targets can also leave them vulnerable to enforcement action and lawsuit.
I think it's probably good to get the gory details into public view. The existence of the quotas, and the mechanics of selection processes, have been kept out of view, because there are few in the public who would support the system we have now. I don't doubt the many insidious methods used to achieve the targets. I can even imagine that some of them might be found illegal.
But we have over 50 years' history, including many lawsuits, that has mandated most of the system we have now. Overturning it would require both discarding the disparate impact standard and explicitly banning racial hiring practices. I don't think there's much political support, either among politicians or the public, for doing so.
Thanks for your comment, but it's working off a premise that expired. EO 11246 and the contractor affirmative-action setup was revoked in Jan. 2025. So the requirement to set race and sex targets is gone, and the no-win bind you're describing (sued if you hit the numbers, sued if you don't) doesn't really exist anymore. The pull only goes one way now.
As for disparate impact, the plan says the EEOC will stop bringing those cases. The thing you assume hasn't happened is exactly what the document does.
You're right that a four-year enforcement plan can't rewrite the 1991 statute, and nobody knows if this survives the next administration. But the framework you're leaning on isn't the one in effect.