Column of the Day: Disinvited EEOC Witness Reveals His Planned Testimony

At OpinionJournal.com Roger Clegg confirms what many of those who have been following the big-company corporate “diversity” movement have long suspected:
- That “diversity” all too often is code for “discrimination.”
- That it is hampering economic performance.

Here is most of his intro, followed by excerpts of what he had planned to say:

Last month, I received an invitation to testify before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission about affirmative action and diversity in U.S. companies. The testimony was scheduled for today, and I was asked to share my written statement to the commission beforehand, last Thursday, which I did. Late Friday afternoon I received a phone call from the commission, telling me that because of what I had to say, my invitation had been withdrawn by its chairman, Cari M. Dominguez.

….. The problem is that my testimony told the unwelcome truths that (a) American companies, in their “celebration of diversity,” frequently discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity and sex, (b) this violates the law, and (c) the EEOC is not doing anything about it. I was told that it would lead to a “mutiny” among the career people at the commission if I was given a “platform” to say such things.

(from planned testimony)

The point of my testimony today is that, too often, the corporate celebration of “diversity” becomes the opposite of true “equal employment opportunity.” It becomes, instead, a form of “affirmative action” that is really, to use Nathan Glazer’s phrase, nothing more than affirmative discrimination.

….. The issue, rather, is the narrow but crucial one of whether companies ought to be hiring and promoting with an eye on applicants’ and employees’ race, ethnicity and sex in order to achieve a predetermined and enforced diversity. The issue is whether some applicants or employees are more sought after or get more favorable treatment than others because of skin color, or what country their ancestors came from, or their gender.

It is clear that many companies weigh these factors, unfortunately, and it is clear that they should not. In a 1997 survey, for instance, eight out of 10 business executives said that affirmative-action programs had resulted in them giving jobs and promotions to applicants who were less qualified than others.

….. If the president of a company tells his middle managers that if they fail to meet their “goal” of hiring or promoting a certain percentage of this or that group, they won’t be getting a year-end bonus, that is discrimination.

If a company tells its outside legal counsel that it will be fired unless it fields a suitably “diverse” legal team, that is discrimination.

If the company announces that referrals of women are more welcome than referrals of men, or that applications from “underrepresented minorities” are more welcome than those from other minority and nonminority groups, that is discrimination.

If an internship or a mentoring opportunity is set aside for certain racial groups, that is discrimination.

America is becoming an increasingly multiracial and multiethnic society. That can be a source of great strength, but it can also be a source of division if people know that they aren’t all being held to the same standards. The only way to enforce the antidiscrimination laws in our multiracial, multiethnic society is by playing no favorites.

We cannot say that Latinos are more protected than whites, but less than blacks, and the same as Asians, unless the Latino is Mexican (but not if he is Cuban) and the Asian is Saudi (but not if he is Filipino). The way that Title VII is written plays no favorites, and that is the way it should be enforced.

….. Does that mean that minorities and women no longer suffer any discrimination? Of course not. There is certainly much less of such discrimination now than there was a generation or two ago, but it is not extinct–and it never will be completely unheard of.

But the solution is not to overlay a system of preferences on top of it. The solution, if the personnel manager in the accounting department at company X is a bigot, is not for the shipping department there to give preferences, let alone for company Y to do so. The solution is to enforce the law against such discrimination–and to do so with respect to discrimination against any racial or ethnic group, and against men or women.

….. I will be candid: The commission has been quite passive to date with respect to the company “diversity” policies I have described today, and it is hard for me to believe that it would have been this passive if the shoe had been on the other foot. You need to file some lawsuits that challenge some of the abuses I have described.