Banning All Convicts Is Race Discrimination, Say Bureaucrats Gone Wild
show comments
  • Mrs. Davis

    Or this. These people are either divorced from reality or wish to destroy our economy and I’m beginning to believe either is equally likely to be true.

  • The Democrat Party is driving by client groups that expect preferential treatment in exchange for votes.

    EEOC and the clownish recent “equal pay for women” bill are all about the trial lawyer client group.

    The Dems have become season 6 of “The Wire”

  • KFJ

    Gee, if ex-cons don’t want to be discriminated against, maybe they shouldn’t, you know, commit their crimes in the first place.

  • Evilpa

    I will not comply!

  • Emerson

    Years ago i read a British coffee shop was in trouble for an employment ad that stated they were looking for smiling, friendly people. As if that discriminated against suicidal emo losers.

  • Corlyss

    Outrageous decision. I can’t wait for a new administration.

  • Corlyss

    Mrs. Davis,

    Here’s the deal: after we crushed the Soviet Union’s economic model, we decided maybe it didn’t have a fair chance, the Russians not being “nice people,” and we should give it another chance with people who really, really, really care.

  • Mick The Reactionary

    Disparate impact is the law or treated as law by the rulers.

    There is no need to prove actual discrimination, only that a hiring rule has disproportionate impact on minorities (apparently it is A-OK to step on whites).
    Blacks commit crimes 5-8 times more often then whites, Hispanics 3-6 times.

    Therefore it is a straight forward application of Disparate Impact logic to see that not hiring ex-cons is damaging to minorities as compare to whites.

    Therefore it is not allowed.

    There is no other choice.

    Either remove Disparate Impact rules/laws (preferable) or you will forever get nonsensical results as this one.

    I noticed that the Prof did not say if he supports Disparate Impact rule.

  • JKB

    To be fair to the small business owners, about 5 years ago, I asked my HR tech point blank if I could not hire someone who had criminal convictions and they didn’t know.

    But this was the federal government and we only hired about 10 or so people every month. Many with “colorful” backgrounds.

  • BT

    A tight labor market – one that actually enforced the laws against hiring illegals, cut down on the work visas, etc – would help ex-cons, but we don’t want to think about that.

  • Walter Sobchak

    The Federal Government is at war with itself. DEA wants to throw drug users in jail. EEOC want you to hold DEA’s work to be a joke. Innocent businesses are in the middle. The only possible effect is to throw another spanner into small business hiring.

    Another example of this effect was on Fox news tonight. EPA is threatening to fine gasoline retailers because they are not purchasing ethanol derived from wood and plant waste (as opposed to corn) to add to their gasoline in the amounts that Congress ordered them too.

    The problem is that nobody is making that product. Well, guess who will be paying the fines? If you did not answer the customers, you are an idiot.

    The Federal Government needs to drop everything that it is doing and to decide on what its policies and priorities are.

  • MichaelM

    A great many ex-cons — including those who are members of ‘some’ minority groups who are more likely to be arrested — are convicted of completely victimless crimes which wouldn’t effect their work performance if they had remained un-caught at all.

    The whole idea behind ‘guaranteed outcomes’ is wrong-headed and can only lead to some extremely bad places, but then again, the idea of blanket bans on hiring ex-cons when the War on Drugs and other law enforcement sprees that target innocent citizens are on-going is kind of bad, too.

    This is a case where both big sides of the issue are wrong and the victim is the little guy who doesn’t have much control over anything in his own life, let alone in the lives of others like the big dogs.

  • Tom T.

    How might this affect organizations like state bar associations, which generally refuse to let convicted criminals into the profession?

  • We have a non-democratic government.

    Sure we vote for representatives who pass the laws but interpretation of and the enforcement of the laws is handled by non-elected bureaucrats.

    It’s never the laws it’s the regulations that are used to impose dictatorship by “govbots”.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to and affiliated sites.