Minnesota says government agencies must ‘justify’ hiring white men

Valletta · Thursday at 6:32 PM

Gov. Tim Walz’s (D-MN) government in Minnesota plans to discriminate in hiring with a new policy next month that requires “hiring justifications” if someone from a “non-underrepresented” group is hired.

Minnesota says government agencies must ‘justify’ hiring white men

Minnesota wants government agencies to write "hiring justifications" any time they choose to hire a white man.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Why doesn't Tim Walz step down so some DEI candidate can take his place?

ThatRobGuy · Thursday at 6:41 PM

Normally I'm a tad skeptical about WashingtonExaminer as a source...

But in this case, they brought the receipts

https://mn.gov/dhs/assets/hiring_justification_4100.250_tcm1053-694336.pdf

This is the document they're referring to.

Normally, when Washington Examiner posts something that's exaggerated, out of context, or false, PolitiFact and Snopes are quick to pounce, they're eerily silent on this one.

This is one of those times where the examiner didn't have to exaggerate a thing....

There's no other way to interpret this than "If you plan on hiring a straight cis white Christian guy, you need to take a demographic headcount of the current departmental makeup, and need special justification for not picking someone else"

Yeah...this kind of crap is where democrats shoot themselves in the foot.

Perhaps I'm just getting old, but I'm feeling more and more like Bill Maher is a kindred spirit. I'm actually pretty liberal on a lot of things, and the Democrats used to be my party, but this kind of stuff just reinforces why I didn't cast a presidential vote in 2024.

Valletta · Thursday at 7:19 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
Normally I'm a tad skeptical about WashingtonExaminer as a source...

But in this case, they brought the receipts

https://mn.gov/dhs/assets/hiring_justification_4100.250_tcm1053-694336.pdf

This is the document they're referring to.

Normally, when Washington Examiner posts something that's exaggerated, out of context, or false, PolitiFact and Snopes are quick to pounce, they're eerily silent on this one.

This is one of those times where the examiner didn't have to exaggerate a thing....

View attachment 367307

There's no other way to interpret this than "If you plan on hiring a straight cis white Christian guy, you need to take a demographic headcount of the current departmental makeup, and need special justification for not picking someone else"

Yeah...this kind of crap is where democrats shoot themselves in the foot.

Perhaps I'm just getting old, but I'm feeling more and more like Bill Maher is a kindred spirit. I'm actually pretty liberal on a lot of things, and the Democrats used to be my party, but this kind of stuff just reinforces why I didn't cast a presidential vote in 2024.

Someone close to me not long ago was turned down for getting into the University of Wisconsin. In high school she was in the National Honor Society, a National Merit finalist, top-top grades, multi-talented and in many activities, an ACT of 35 out of 36, and all I could think of as a reason for denial was that she put down she volunteered at a Christian camp.

Fervent · Thursday at 7:24 PM

Is this for the state offices, or is this going to apply to every employer in MN?

NVM, re-read it and see it is for government positions.

I'm not sure the outrage, though what justifications are considered legitimate? This seems to be an all-else-equal, prefer the candidate from an underrepresented group. Which doesn't seem like a terrible thing.

Valletta · Thursday at 7:32 PM

Fervent said:
Is this for the state offices, or is this going to apply to every employer in MN?

I don't know what Governor Walz has directed. The Department of Commerce has similar policies:

"This agency will continue to actively promote a program of affirmative action, wherever minorities, women, and individuals with disabilities are underrepresented in the workforce, and work to retain all qualified, talented employees, including protected group employees."

Affirmative Action/ADA / Minnesota.gov

This Affirmative Action Plan meets the requirements as set forth by Minnesota Management and Budget, and contains affirmative action goals and timetables, as well as reasonable and sufficiently assertive hiring and retention methods for achieving these goals.

mn.gov

Fervent · Thursday at 7:37 PM

Valletta said:
I don't know what Governor Walz has directed. The Department of Commerce has similar policies:

"This agency will continue to actively promote a program of affirmative action, wherever minorities, women, and individuals with disabilities are underrepresented in the workforce, and work to retain all qualified, talented employees, including protected group employees."

Affirmative Action/ADA / Minnesota.gov

This Affirmative Action Plan meets the requirements as set forth by Minnesota Management and Budget, and contains affirmative action goals and timetables, as well as reasonable and sufficiently assertive hiring and retention methods for achieving these goals.

mn.gov

I don't see an obvious issue with this, as it's not giving pure preferential treatment from representation but instead it at least appears to be a matter of identifying qualified candidates, and then if all else is equal tipping the scale in favor of underrepresented groups. I could understand if it was promoting unqualified/underqualified candidates at the expense of qualified candidates, but it at least appears to require the establishment of minimum qualifications.

Bradskii · Thursday at 8:35 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
There's no other way to interpret this...

So if you don't have any women in your office and there are two applicants for a job who are both equally qualified, then it's proposed that you hire the woman over the man. This horrifies you?

Valletta · Thursday at 9:22 PM

Fervent said:
I don't see an obvious issue with this, as it's not giving pure preferential treatment from representation but instead it at least appears to be a matter of identifying qualified candidates, and then if all else is equal tipping the scale in favor of underrepresented groups. I could understand if it was promoting unqualified/underqualified candidates at the expense of qualified candidates, but it at least appears to require the establishment of minimum qualifications.

It's written to give a better appearance than the discriminatory policies of Minnesota Human Services, they don't come out and specify white Christians, but it is still discrimination.

Fervent · Thursday at 9:27 PM

Valletta said:
It's written to give a better appearance than the discriminatory policies of Minnesota Human Services, they don't come out and specify white Christians, but it is still discrimination.

No one is entitled to a position, and "discrimination" isn't necessarily negative. It's not prejudicial discrimination, though perhaps it creates room for abuse. It is simply adding an additional means of weighing candidates, such that should all else be equal in terms of qualifications a non-arbitrary standard can be applied to settle the matter. If there is some circumstance that qualifications alone do not account for, there's a built in procedure for explaining those additional circumstances. Whether or not it plays out like this, I fail to see what's objectionable about the guidelines.

Valletta · Thursday at 9:59 PM

Fervent said:
I don't see an obvious issue with this, as it's not giving pure preferential treatment from representation but instead it at least appears to be a matter of identifying qualified candidates, and then if all else is equal tipping the scale in favor of underrepresented groups. I could understand if it was promoting unqualified/underqualified candidates at the expense of qualified candidates, but it at least appears to require the establishment of minimum qualifications.

It's still a violation of the Civil Rights Act. You can't discriminate based upon a person's race.

Fervent · Thursday at 10:02 PM

Valletta said:
It's still a violation of the Civil Rights Act. You can't discriminate based upon a person's race.

That's up for interpretation, and whether this would qualify for the prohibition is questionable given that the judiciary have affirmed that race can be part of the evaluative process, it simply cannot be used to give pure preferential treatment. Which as written this wouldn't be, since it's a criteria that follows establishment of minimum qualifications and there is a clear procedure for other considerations to take precedence.

Valletta · Thursday at 10:11 PM

Fervent said:
That's up for interpretation, and whether this would qualify for the prohibition is questionable given that the judiciary have affirmed that race can be part of the evaluative process, it simply cannot be used to give pure preferential treatment. Which as written this wouldn't be, since it's a criteria that follows establishment of minimum qualifications and there is a clear procedure for other considerations to take precedence.

It would be much better to focus on the failure of the liberal approach to education and crime which so has abandoned minority children. The Supreme Court ruled against discrimination by race for those entering universities. What they left open was a person's background. For example, if a person had to walk ten miles to school each day because they were part of a minority community, that person could write an essay about their experiences. Such an essay could be taken into account for admissions.

Fervent · Thursday at 10:20 PM

Valletta said:
It would be much better to focus on the failure of the liberal approach to education and crime which so has abandoned minority children. The Supreme Court ruled against discrimination by race for those entering universities. What they left open was a person's background. For example, if a person had to walk ten miles to school each day because they were part of a minority community, that person could write an essay about their experiences. Such an essay could be taken into account for admissions.

That's not quite what the ruling meant, and it was the function of the considerations in privileging applicants on the basis of race by giving it equal weight to standard factors that rendered it discriminatory. The court affirmed the ability of the use of racial considerations to remediate past discriminatory practices, which it would likely be argued that these provisions are intended to accomplish. These guidelines don't appear to give privileged status on the status of race, both because they are built in as a remedial action as the requirement to establish speccific underrepresentation in the field the position is in and the provisions that allow for justified subversion of the consideration.

Valletta · Thursday at 10:28 PM

Bradskii said:
So if you don't have any women in your office and there are two applicants for a job who are both equally qualified, then it's proposed that you hire the woman over the man. This horrifies you?

It doesn't horrify me that such would be considered unlawful under the Civil Rights Act.

Bradskii · Thursday at 11:55 PM

Valletta said:
It doesn't horrify me that such would be considered unlawful under the Civil Rights Act.

Feel free to point out that the relevant clauses in the act from where you developed that conclusion.

Landon Caeli · Friday at 12:37 AM

Is there any way Trump can punish Minnesota for this? I would hope he can.

Fervent · Friday at 12:41 AM

Landon Caeli said:
Is there any way Trump can punish Minnesota for this? I would hope he can.

Funny how quick the idea of states rights goes out the window for some on the right.

Used to be that was a pretty essential plank of the party platform.

Landon Caeli · Friday at 12:43 AM

Bradskii said:
Feel free to point out that the relevant clauses in the act from where you developed that conclusion.

Just because something is or isn't constitutional, doesn't mean 'nothing can be done about it' by the Federal government. We know Trump threatened to hold federal funds for Maine, because the governor refused to comply with DEI mandates.

Landon Caeli · Friday at 12:44 AM

Fervent said:
Funny how quick the idea of states rights goes out the window for some on the right.

True. I guess I could have waited til at least the second page

Fervent said:
Used to be that was a pretty essential plank of the party platform.

No, it was Tea Party platform, not really a Republican platform per se.

Valletta · Friday at 1:18 AM

Bradskii said:
Feel free to point out that the relevant clauses in the act from where you developed that conclusion.

UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer - 1) 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; or

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

www.eeoc.gov

Minnesota says government agencies must ‘justify’ hiring white men

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

I ♡ potato pancakes

Well-Known Member

I ♡ potato pancakes

I ♡ potato pancakes

Well-Known Member

UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES​

Similar threads

UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES