When is discrimination acceptable? The answer is, of course, never.
America passed a landmark law to prevent all discrimination, not just selective discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (1
) outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women. Nowhere does it say it is tolerable to discriminate against those who are not listed among the minority groups.
The Civil Rights Act does not give Colorado State Representative Angela Williams implicit justification to state the following in her commentary and get away scott free:
'A recent I-News Network study released before the eve of HB 1285's introduction shows us that many ''minority gains made during the 1960s and 1970s have eroded with time' and 'Partisans and ideologues on the right are quick to argue that all it takes is a simple "bootstrap" approach, as if the playing field is always leveled and people of color have never worked hard.' (2
Here's how that paragraph would read with two word changes:
"A recent News Network study released before the eve of HB 1285's introduction shows us that many "Caucasian gains made during the 1960s and 1970s have eroded with time and Partisans and ideologues on the right are quick to argue that all it takes is a simple "bootstrap" approach, as if the playing field is always leveled and White people have never worked hard".
This is wholly unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
Williams bemoans the loss of HB13-1285 a state business study for RACIAL OR ETHNIC MINORITY GROU
P; including NON-HISPANIC CAUCASIAN WOMEN -TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS A DISPARITY BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF QUALIFIED HISTORICALLY UNDERUTILIZED BUSINESSES
Stunningly, this racial attitude was blatantly touted in media coverage of the recent Aspen Advocates for Immigration Reform forum. When Aspen hotelier Warren Klug was asked why Roaring Fork Valley employers can't fill local jobs with U.S. citizens, he answered, 'They are hard jobs that, frankly, don’t attract as many legal Caucasians as we would like to think.' (4
Where is the outrage? Legal repercussions? Our own Colorado state attorney general, John Suthers, was seated on that panel. What say you Mr. Suthers? Perhaps an AG recommendation should have been made to Mr. Klug, Aspen employer, to read the Business Dictionary, Section One, Definition of Discrimination (5
) which states in part:
Bias or prejudice resulting in denial of opportunity, or unfair treatment regarding selection, promotion, or transfer. Discrimination is practiced commonly on the grounds of age, disability, ethnicity, origin, political belief, race, religion, sex, etc. factors which are irrelevant to a person's competence or suitability.
It turns out that not only is racial bias undesirable, but it is unlawful. No matter whether one is biased against Mexicans, Blacks, Chinese, or Whites.
Stating that Caucasians aren't attracted to hard work is outrageous. But had they stated that these low-income workers reduce wages to an unsustainable level without taxpayer paid services - that would be factual. It isn't the work, it is the pay scale.
Discrimination, even when written by State Reps and openly covered by the media is never acceptable.
Panel; Moderator Steve Wickes, Sarah Hughes of U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet's office, Nan Stockholm Walden of Green Valley Pecan Co., Aspen hotelier Warren Klug and John Suthers, Colorado state attorney general