Using Statistics (Fred Speaking)
						MAIN PATH: John
		Ann	John			Malik

It is unfair for several reasons: First, it puts a lot of pressure on employers to start hiring by the numbers in order to avoid the cost of litigation. The numbers become quotas. That's bound to result in discrimination against whites and in hiring less qualified people. Second, it puts the burden of proof on the employer. Essentially, your approach says that the employer is guilty until he or she can prove their innocence. We don't do that with other crimes. What justifies it here? Third, it puts the cost of proving that tests are closely related to jobs on the employer. That's not cheap. How can we justify that?

And besides, you are forgetting a very important fact. The 1964 Civil Rights Act forbids racial discrimination by employers. I'm not suggesting for a moment that we shouldn't enforce that law.

If any job applicant has reason to believe that he or she was discriminated against because of his or her race or color, that applicant can take legal action. And they should. If the applicant can show that there was discrimination, the same law provides that the employer can be required to hire that person and pay compensation.

Ariadne Home	Affirmative Action Bibliography	Affirmative Action Home