These diversity laws are just as bad on employment. Fed discrimination regulations state that if you dont have the right % of each group (or at least a low % in any group that the feds track, they dont seem to worry if the % of white males is significantly low, and lately dont seem to worry much about asians either), you are automatically assumed to be guilty of discrimination, and must then affirmatively prove that your employment practices are NOT discriminatory. In effect, the traditional legal concept of innocent before proven guilty is reversed, and the defendent has the burden to prove themselves innocent, having to prove a negative, something that is normally almost impossible. It is no wonder that when facing legal liability like that, companies initiate rigid quota programs, to ensure immunity from discrimination lawsuits. They may not like treating people that way, in effect discriminating against anybody that is NOT in a protected group, but fed law forces them to, to avoid potential legal liability.
All these laws should be modified so having the wrong % can only be used as probable cause for initiating an investigation, but in court a low
% proves nothing, and actual individual discrimination must be individually and affirmatively proved, by actually discriminatory conduct, not just a disparity in outcomes (which could be caused by differences is % of qualified applicants in the various groups), but actual racist statements or practices, before they can be found guilty.
Exceptions should also be made for businesses and neighborhoods with an ethnic character. For example, an Irish pub should be able to hire a lot of Irish, a Chinese resteraunt lots of chinese, a German resteraunt lots of germans, etc, without then becomming vulnerable for not hiring enough of somebody else. (Interesting though, that an all black businesses, like the Harlem globe Trotters never got in any trouble).
