Flaws of Equal Employment Opportunity
(Originally posted at damienmanier.com)
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the many following bills that
modified and added to it has been a great affront to property rights and
by extension individual sovereignty. Whether we examine the impacts of
“equality of outcome” the Civil Rights Act strives to implement or we
examine how the act contradicts core principles, such as an individual's
right to their own person and the fruits of their labor, we will find
that the government intervention required by the Civil Rights Act faces
serious challenges on both sides of the equation, principles and
practical effects.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically Title VII, prohibited
discrimination by employers, with over 15 employees, on the basis of
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or by association with an
individual of those factors. In 1967, persons over the age became a
protected group; in 1990, persons with disabilities gained protected
status; the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 prohibited
discrimination based on genetic information; and all of these bills
protect individuals from retaliatory discrimination. (1)
If one accepts that an individual has the right to his own person and
the fruits of his labor then one can not be in agreement with this
legislation and remain consistent in their principles. The concept of
this right is a “negative” one or a right to be free from coercion in
regards to your person and the fruits of your labor which creates a
situation where no one has the “right” to “compel someone to do a
positive act, for in that case the compulsion violates the right of
person or property of the individual being coerced.” (2) Many recognize
the impracticality of violating this principle when it is not applied
to employers. For example, while many find racism to be abhorrent they
would not necessarily advocate that individuals be forced to patronize
minority owned businesses equally and an ardent feminist would find it
difficult that men looking for jobs should be forced by threat of law to
submit their resumes to equally qualified female employers. In the
first case, many recognize that the consumer has the right to spend his
money where he pleases regardless of motivations or character flaws and
in the second instance most would see the flaw in coercing a person to
apply or accept a job against their will. However, segments of our
population choose to ignore these principles when it comes to employers.
Is an employer's person any less their own or is their money,
representative of their property and the fruits of their labor,
different than the property of the individuals seeking employment. I do
not see how one can claim one and not the other without being
disingenuous.
Milton Friedman argues that anti-discrimination laws are not
necessary to achieve the goal. He states that, “a businessman or an
entrepreneur who expresses preferences in his business activities that
are not related to productive efficiency is at a disadvantage compared
to other individuals who do not. Such an individual is an effect
imposing higher costs on himself than are other individuals who do not
have such preferences. Hence, in a free market they will tend to drive
him out.”(3) Another practical issue with this legislation is that it
uses often arbitrary standards in order to designate certain groups
“oppressed” or of “minority” status. Our text points out that numbers
are of little significance when designating a group a minority but
instead their level of “access to positions of power, prestige, and
status in society” should be the deciding factor. (4) What this will
lead to is endless lobbying from all groups in an attempt to shred the
label of “oppressor” in exchange for the benefits of being labeled
“oppressed.” Rothbard points out that the different ways to categorize
or class people is infinite and research can be done to demonstrate how
they all face various barriers to the “access” mentioned above. He also
note the impossible task of parodying this movement as a friend of his
tried to do by arguing that short people, suffering from “heightism”,
should be designated a minority or “oppressed class.” Unfortunately, he
was beat by a serious undertaking to do just that by “a sociologist at
Case-Western Reserve,” Professor Saul D. Feldman, who provided plenty of
convincing research and evidence to back up his case. (5)
The principles of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act are perfectly
acceptable from a moral standpoint. Employers are unwise to
discriminate based on race, color, sex, religion, or national origin,
but that does not give anyone the right to coerce them to act against
their will or to release their property to individual's not of their
choosing. Consumers, employees, peers, etc. are free to boycott,
ostracize, or shame employers who act reprehensibly but not coerce with
threat of law/violence to act morally.
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,"Equal Employment
Opportunity is The Law"; available from http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/upload/eeoc_self_print_poster.pdf;
Internet; accessed 23 March 2010.
- Murray Rothbard, The
Ethics of Liberty (New Jersey: New York University Press,
1998), 100.
- Milton
Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
2002), 109-110.
- Jacqueline M. Brux, Economic Issues & Policy
(Ohio: Thomson Higher Education, 2008), 114
- Murray Rothbard, “Freedom, Inequality, primitivism and the
Division of Labor”, available from http://mises.org/fipandol.asp;
Internet; accessed 23 March 2010.