Politically Correct Bean-Counters Everywhere | Center for Equal Opportunity

Despite the overwhelming consensus among Americans that it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, and sex, we see it all the time—in the name of political correctness. And we see it in the government at all levels and in the private sector. Here are just a few examples from recent news stories.

The Fed’s PC Bean-Counting

You would think that, of all federal agencies, the Federal Reserve would want to focus on hiring the best economists it could find, and would forget about politically correct racial, ethnic, and gender bean-counting. Alas, that is apparently not the case, thanks in part to the execrable “diversity” provisions of the Dodd-Frank bill. Read all about it here.

Promotion Quotas at Procter & Gamble

Next up is Bob McDonald, who is president, chairman, and CEO of Procter & Gamble, and had this to say in a recent interview about the importance of “diversity” in deciding whom to promote at his company: “We’d always insist that you get a diversity candidate. Unsurprisingly, the diversity candidate wasn’t selected enough because people didn’t know the candidate. We had to put in place a much more deliberate system of making sure the diversity candidates get exposure.”

Now, this of course is an admission that Procter & Gamble violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, and religion in employment. If anyone denies this, then just change the word “diversity” to “white male” and then defend what Procter & Gamble is doing: “We’d always insist that you get a white male candidate. Unsurprisingly, the white male candidate wasn’t selected enough because people didn’t know the candidate. We had to put in place a much more deliberate system of making sure the white male candidates get exposure.”

Discrimination against Asians in College Admissions, and Hispanics in Contracting

But the victims of this politically correct bean-counting are not limited to white males. It is widely known, of course, that Asians (along with whites) are discriminated against in university admissions. What is less well-known is that it is more and more common for Latinos (again, along with whites) to be discriminated against in government contracting.

Consider this newspaper column out of Milwaukee. The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce last month called for the repeal of the city’s new measure purportedly designed to ensure the participation of minority contractors in getting city business. According to the chamber’s president, the ordinance is “based on the results of the disparity study which said that Hispanic- owned and Native American-owned firms are overutilized in the area of construction.” She added, “It means we’re being penalized for our success and hard work.”

Now, it’s good to make sure contracting programs are open to all, that bidding opportunities are widely publicized beforehand, and that no one gets discriminated against because of skin color, national origin, or sex. But that means no preferences because of skin color, etc. either—whether it’s labeled a “set-aside,” a “quota,” or a “goal,” since they all end up amounting to the same thing. Such discrimination is unfair and divisive; it breeds corruption and otherwise costs the taxpayers and businesses money to award a contract to someone other than the lowest bidder; and it’s almost always illegal—indeed, unconstitutional—to boot. The “disparity studies” used to justify this discrimination are usually bogus and, even when they are not, they are no excuse for adding a layer of politically correct discrimination; rather, as Chief Justice Roberts recently wrote, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

As America becomes more and more multiethnic and multiracial, it also becomes likely that more and more racial and ethnic minority groups will find themselves at the wrong end of politically correct racial and ethnic preferences. The only tenable system is one that treats all racial and ethnic groups equally. E pluribus unum, anyone?

A “W” Is Not Just an Upside-down “M”

Finally, sex rears its ugly head. This news story describes the important distinction in Baltimore municipal contracting between a Woman-owned Business Enterprise (WBE) and a Minority-owned Business Enterprise (MBE): “The penalty to a contractor who misclassified a minority firm in a city sewer project—loss of a nearly $6 million contract. The penalty to taxpayers—an extra $340,000 handed to a politically connected contractor. … [T]he mistake was a result of Best Fence being sold by its female owner to an African-American buyer, which changed its classification from a WBE to a MBE. The contractor, Daisy Concrete of Wilmington, Del., was unaware of the sale and had placed Best Fence in its bid papers as a WBE instead of a MBE. This meant that the bid had 16% MBE and 2% WBE participation, instead of the 14% MBE and 4% WBE participation stipulated in the bid.”

The Center for Equal Opportunity opposes all of this nonsense, and is the only national organization dedicated to fighting it. But we need your support.

Related posts: