the free beacon

Only 6% of new S&P jobs went to white applicants after George Floyd, analysis reveals.

Findings raise questions ‌about the⁢ scope⁣ of corporate‍ race discrimination

(Getty‌ Images)

Only 6 percent of new ⁣S&P 100 jobs went ‌to white applicants in the year after George Floyd’s death, according to an analysis by Bloomberg News. This shocking statistic highlights the pervasive nature of legally questionable diversity programs in⁣ corporate America.

The analysis, based on data reported ⁤to the Equal Employment ‌Opportunity Commission, reveals that S&P 100⁤ companies⁣ added 323,094⁤ new jobs between 2020 and ‌2021. Astonishingly, 94 percent of these new ⁤jobs, totaling 302,570, were given⁢ to “people of color” ⁢- defined as blacks, Asians, ⁣and Hispanics – who⁣ make ‍up ⁣just 40 percent of the U.S⁤ population.

These disparities‌ raise concerns about the role⁣ of race in corporate hiring,⁤ especially in ‍light​ of ⁣the Supreme Court’s‍ ban on affirmative ⁤action in ​college admissions. With numerous companies and law firms ⁢facing lawsuits over ‍their⁢ diversity programs, it appears that race-conscious decision-making⁣ has permeated‍ routine employment ​decisions.

“These numbers are extraordinarily stark,” said​ Dan Morenoff, the executive director of the⁣ American Civil Rights ‍Project, which handles‌ reverse discrimination cases. “It’s very hard‌ to imagine this could be​ legally defensible.”

Morenoff added‌ that “disparate ​impact,” or‌ disparities in⁣ outcomes, can ‌be a basis for liability even ⁣without proof of intentional ⁤discrimination. The​ Justice Department utilized‌ this theory ​when it sued Meta,‌ Facebook’s parent company, alleging that the platform’s algorithms​ affect users​ differently based on ‌their race.

The shocking numbers may reflect the efforts by C-suites to incentivize workforce ‍diversity through financial means. Companies like ⁤Starbucks, ⁤Facebook, ⁤BlackRock, ‍and Verizon⁣ tie executive​ compensation to racial targets, and some even ‍ incorporate these targets into their credit agreements with banks, linking borrowing costs to minority representation.

“The⁣ more a ​company seeks to ensure diversity ‘goals’​ are⁤ achieved through significant financial pressure, the higher‌ the risk that a court might ⁣find that ‌such ‘goals’⁤ actually are unlawful quotas,” warned Andrea Lucas, ‍a commissioner‍ at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in an interview with ‌the Washington Free Beacon.

How can organizations achieve inclusivity and diversity without unfairly disadvantaging‍ any racial group

Eebeacon.com/education/students-union-sues-university-for-dismissing-activist-for-racist-tweets/”>universities implementing diversity initiatives and hiring ⁤practices that ⁤explicitly prioritize ⁢race,⁢‌ it is important⁣ to ⁣examine whether these programs are actually promoting equality ⁤or perpetuating discrimination.

The findings from the Bloomberg analysis suggest‌ that ​corporate diversity programs may be going too far in their​ attempts to ⁣rectify historical inequalities. ⁣While addressing racial ‌disparities and ‌promoting ⁤diversity and inclusion‌ are noble goals, it is imperative to ensure‌ that these efforts do not infringe on‌ the rights of individuals from other racial backgrounds.

Race should never be ‌the sole determining factor in the hiring process. Instead, qualifications, skills, and ⁣experience should‍ be the primary considerations for employment opportunities. It​ is concerning that companies‌ are seemingly prioritizing race over merit ‍when ‍making hiring decisions.

Moreover, these statistics raise​ questions about why white applicants are being disproportionately disadvantaged in the job market. Is it because‌ companies are actively ​discriminating against white applicants or because ⁣diversity programs have unintentionally created a bias⁤ against them?

While it is important to acknowledge and address historical inequalities, ⁤it is equally crucial to ensure that equality does not come at the ⁤expense of other individuals ⁣or groups. Affirmative action⁤ should aim to‍ level the playing field by providing equal opportunities for underrepresented minorities, but it should not become a tool for reverse discrimination ⁣or marginalization of other racial groups.

These findings also ⁢underscore the need for transparency and accountability in corporate hiring practices. Companies should be required‌ to ​report and justify their diversity initiatives, providing ⁤evidence of their effectiveness and adherence to equal opportunity⁢ principles.

It is essential for organizations to create inclusive work environments that value⁣ diversity, but they must do so in a ‍fair and unbiased manner. Achieving true ​equality‍ requires a careful balance that ensures equal opportunities for all without discriminating⁣ against⁤ any⁤ particular race or group.

The Bloomberg analysis⁤ serves as a wake-up call ‍for‌ corporate ⁢America ⁤to reevaluate the scope of their diversity ‌initiatives. It is time to⁣ reflect on the unintended consequences of these programs and determine whether they are⁣ truly promoting equality or​ perpetuating discrimination. Only by acknowledging⁤ and​ addressing these issues can we move towards a more just and ​equitable society.



" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button
Close

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker