Civil Rights Act question

Miscellaneous History
1

So old guy just messaged me an article by Hasnas, who at one point he writes:

“Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, §2000e-2(a)(1)…makes it unlawful ‘to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,’…(and) permits an employer to voluntarily institute an affirmative action program giving preferential treatment to African-Americans.”

(The underlining is Hasnas quoting the Civil Rights Act, and the rest of the quote consists of his words explaining other parts of it.)

Obviously, on the one hand, it is wholly non-libertarian for the state to make it unlawful for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. On the other hand, however, it seems perfectly Libertarian for the state to “permit an employer to voluntarily institute an affirmative action program” because this implies that the employer may also choose not to institute an affirmative action program, should the employer justifiably feel it is reverse discrimination.

My question: is it actually voluntary for an employer to implement such a program, or has Hasnas simply employed poor wording, and employers are actually forced to implement such programs.

If it is a voluntary program in the de jure sense, is it, in actuality, just an involuntary program in the de facto sense; perhaps being a case where the state makes the employer “an offer he can’t refuse” through tax deductions, etc.? In other words, is this a case where the state simply makes it more profitable for an employer to institute an AA program than it would be to hire more qualified, merited workers willing to accept the same wage as perhaps less qualified minority workers?

Anyway, just curious…

Thanks,
-The Texas Trigger

(8) the class is asked to determine whether § 2000e-2(a)(1), which makes it unlawful “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” permits an employer to voluntarily institute an affirmative action program giving preferential treatment to African-Americans.

2

So you’re basically just asking what the Civil Rights Act actually says?

3

To some degree. Partly I wanted to verify if I was understanding Hasnas’ statement correctly.

I would be willing to go into the law directly, but I assumed it would be a nearly unreadable mess if the rest of it was as poorly worded as the portion quoted. I also know that the portion talking about AA program’s might not be right next to the portion quoted. In any case, I assumed someone on the forums might be able to give me the short answer, or at least tell me where I can find the text of the law as well as point me to where exactly in the law (what title, section, subsection) deals specifically with AA programs.

Thanks

4

If this is ignoring any employment regulations, as the latter half of the preceding paragraph suggests, sure. No one is aggressed against and the two consenting parties benefit. While such programs can promote discrimination, it’s not uncommon to discriminate against choices in actions -for instance, why am I using this interval of time to respond to this question and not another?- it’s human.

So this is assuming that the Act is in effect. I don’t think it’s involuntary in the sense of the employer in question choosing to accept the offer or not- but the program can be enforced by aggressive means (taxation and then fencing of stolen goods-- tax revenues-- in the form of subsidies; if there are tax deductions, then I don’t think that the prior remark follows). It could make the employer more profits and steer his production structure in a manner different from what would prevail in an environment absent this program, but this is a different subject from what you are asking. He’s not being forced to accept the benefits so much as he is being incentivized to follow guidelines set by the state with the reward of being given the benefits. While the funding of this program can be aggressive depending on the specific reward offered, I don’t see anything aggressive about the employer’s accepting the benefits that come with it. I could be wrong about this, though.

Glad the article caught your interest.

5

In that situation, yes, it would be voluntary. But that doesn’t make the employment process voluntary. The point of that part of the article is that it (apparently) contradicts §2000e-2(a)(1), where it makes discrimination based on race illegal. The only consistent position here, with respect to the belief that employment should be race-neutral and that discimination should be illegal, is the “conservative” position taken by Arnie in that article: that allowing affirmative action programs for Africian-Amerians only is inherently discriminatory. This is what is known as (as you mentioned) “reverse discrimination”, which is allowing discrimination in order to counteract previous (perceived) discrimination in the employment process.

As for whether or not being able to implement voluntary programs for African-Americans only is more libertarian than otherwise, I don’t think it is. Perhaps the employer has more options, but it amounts to statist social engineering, which I believe makes it less libertarian. But it is difficult to evaluate. When the law applies differently to different groups, the state gains support from those granted privileges under the law.

I think this part of the article is essentially correct in its analysis of CRA: