Checking the Boxes
Picking up where we left off last Friday, and really repeating something we discussed during the 2020 presidential campaign.
Let’s say you run a business, and you run an ad indicating that you are seeking an employee…but that only white males need apply. The lawsuits and government interference would be fast and furious; after all, you can’t discriminate—for or against—someone based on characteristics of birth such as gender or skin tone.
What if you posted that same ad and said you were seeking only a black female? It’s still wrong, it’s still illegal…but if you can say you’re trying to reach some level of diversity in the workforce, you might simply be asked to soften the language, to say “in the interests of a diverse workforce, black females are encouraged to apply.” The language is technically different, but it’s code and we all know what it means.
Regardless, for the President of the United States to say he’ll only consider black women for the open seat on the U.S. Supreme Court is offensive and pandering. I don’t care a bit about the gender or race of who he nominates; frankly, I’m more concerned about where they went to school in hopes of breaking that Ivy League stranglehold on judicial thought.
But he can get away with it and you can’t in your business.
Even worse…regardless of how well qualified the choice will be, and I have no doubt that the choice will be quite accomplished and qualified…the choice will be tainted because of the limitations he put on the choice.
And finally, worse still…as the Court continues to evaluate cases of possible discrimination in favor or—or against—people who are members of identifiable groups…should this choice recuse herself because she herself got the job based upon rules that she might declare illegal in a court case?
