Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Equal Opportunity: EEOC not really interested in the truth
Posted by: mcq on Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Roger Clegg (president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity in Sterling, Va.) relates a bizarre story about an invitation to testify before the Equal Employment Opportunity Committee which was withdrawn when the committee was made aware of the gist of Clegg's testimony. Or maybe it really isn't bizarre, but more routine than we imagine.

What had he planned on presenting?
The problem is that my testimony told the unwelcome truths that (a) American companies, in their "celebration of diversity," frequently discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity and sex, (b) this violates the law, and (c) the EEOC is not doing anything about it.
And why was the committee hesitant to allow such testimony?
I was told that it would lead to a "mutiny" among the career people at the commission if I was given a "platform" to say such things. It might even turn the proceedings that morning into a "circus," and Ms. Dominguez, I was told, did not want the EEOC "to look like the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights back when Mary Frances Berry headed it."
Oh good. Bureaucracy 1, reality 0. Wouldn't want the careerists upset, would we? And of course we all know that testimony which goes against the bureaucratic conventional wisdom always turns into a "circus", which, of course, is to be avoided at all costs.

Obviously, Clegg isn't happy about this, and points to the irony in Ms. Dominguez's referal to avoiding the supposed mistakes of the Commission on Civil Rights as seemingly more important than hearing Clegg's testimony:
The irony is that the effort to silence a witness because of his political incorrectness is exactly the sort of thing that Ms. Berry might have done. Actually, it's worse. Ms. Berry, whatever her considerable shortcomings, actually did allow me to testify on more than one occasion.
Clegg has included a shortened version of his proposed testimony in the article sited (he's also included a link to the complete testimony [pdf] in there as well).

Your comments are solicited.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

(shrug) Par for the political course. The Bush administration has been doing this from the time they entered office. The next administration will do it, too, just on different topics.
Written By: Jon Henke
Lesson learned: Don’t tell them what you’re going to say until your sitting in the spotlight.

I hope this gets lots of MSM coverage. I’d love to hear the logic of these actions.

Not particularly surprised, but then Dominguez was supposed to be a correction for Berry. Now it appears that they are more worried about the career bureacrats getting upset if someone actually tells them their a waste of time and money.

Written By: Nylarthotep
He’s right....

And while it’s particularly annoying in a Republican Administration of any stripe (we’re supposed to be the color-blind folks, darnit!), it’s been going on for oh... at least the last few decades. Bureaucrats and grievance-lords don’t want to hear it, and will do their best to avoid ever hearing it.
Written By: Dave
URL: http://
The EEOC requires companies to file an affirmative action plan. That plan can say what ever the company wants. If the company is a computer firm in Oregon and says its goal is to hire 0% blacks and 50% woman, thats fine since there are no black computer programmers in Oregon and half the programmers there are women. If ther are in Detroit and intend never to hire a black programmer, there is a problem. If the goal is to "never hire a specific gender or race ever" or have a serious statitical discrepency between their applicant population and their workforce they need to present a good business reason for this. Hooters is allowed to hire only chesty girls, the Pistons are allowed to hire only large black males, but the Detroit Walmarts must have some black managers.

If the company doesn’t live up to its plan it puts itself at legal risk. If it never hires a woman programmer even though half of programmer programmers in its applicant pool are women it is viewed as evedence of discrimination.

If they say they are going to hire 50% whites and then hire 100% asian that is evidence of discrimination as well. Reverse discrimination cases are not rare.

Written By: cindy bravo
URL: http://
What are they doing about age discrimination? That would be useful!
Written By: Whitehall
URL: http://
I was told that it would lead to a "mutiny" among the career people at the commission if I was given a "platform" to say such things.
This could just as easily be about the Pentagon (Rumsfeld) the UN (Bolton) or CIA or State (Bush)

The careerists think they’re in charge...
Written By: shark
URL: http://
First, to Cindy Bravo, the EEOC doesn’t require all companies to file affirmative action plans. I don’t doubt that some are, for reasons I can’t say, but I know that not every company in America has or needs to file one.

Second, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the EEOC staff is in favor of quotas and the like (the types of things that Clegg would argue against). They’re government workers and, as such, tend to be on the liberal quota-favoring side. They specifically chose to work in a department that battles discrimination, a career path not generally chosen by anti-quota conservatives. They think that an unbalanced workforce can only be the result of discrimination. Thus, they’ll either be critical of arguments that a perfectly balanced workforce is in itself discriminatory or they’ll view such efforts to be a wrong that rights a wrong.

Third, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the political appointees backed down in the face of pressure from the staff.

Aside from that, I am shocked, shocked, shocked that the EEOC would do what they did.
Written By: steve
URL: http://
The careerists think they’re in charge...

They are in charge, as this story points out.
Written By: McQ
That is exactly what happened to me. My case was found to be true & The EEOC found the Company guitly as charged. The company, ATT, said they would "train" the offending manager. He disclosed & in a very derogatory manner, personal medical & financial information while I was off ill. He told very many people. His evaluations are signed 4 times every year, by his boss, that he understands & follows the guidelines of
EEOC. The giant companies, like ATT, know that the injured party can not afford attorneys fees to pursue further. EEOC found this "training" of a documented, already trained manager, to be a satisfactory solution. I wonder, would I break the law, can I just be trained?
Written By: 55
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks