Abolish the Civil Rights Act

It is nothing more than a social justice cudgel surreptitiously wielded to foment Idiocracy.

It is long passed the time to recognize that the American Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA) needs to be abolished entirely as it is bad legislation that continues to wreak havoc on the ability to maintain a legitimate civilization. Instead of protecting against discrimination, it has instead been another weaponized process that stratified society into pre-selected winners and losers based on their 'protected' status. Christopher Caldwell's book "Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties," nicely lays out how the path taken since CRA has led us to the constant farce on display in everyday life.

The "rule" of CRA is leading us down the path to Idiocracy.

The latest weaponization of the CRA comes in the form of actions taken by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Sheetz, a convenience store with over 600 locations in the Northeast region of America.

From a CNN article:

A federal agency accused a popular gas station chain of discriminating against Black, Native American and multiracial applicants in its hiring practices. The Sheetz criminal screening process disproportionately screened out applicants from those legally protected groups, the lawsuit announced by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Thursday alleged.

The gas station chain screens and rejects applicants who have criminal records, the EEOC said. Those employment practices violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,{Bold added for emphasis} which prohibits discrimination in the workplace, the suit said.

Hiring former criminals to handle money and goods is a civil right apparently.

Criminal records have been a barrier for certain workers to find jobs. More than half of unemployed men in their 30s have a history of criminal conviction or arrest that keeps them from fully participating in the labor market, a 2022 study from nonprofit research group RAND Corporation found. And minority groups who are incarcerated at higher rates relative to Whites can be put at even more of a disadvantage.

The lawsuit doesn’t claim Sheetz was actively motivated by race when rejecting applicants. In a statement, Sheetz said it “does not tolerate discrimination of any kind.”

“We take these allegations seriously.  We have attempted to work with the EEOC for nearly eight years to find common ground and resolve this dispute.  We will address the claims in Court when the time comes,” Nick Ruffner, PR Manager for Sheetz, said in a statement.

The EEOC said the case is going to court after failing to reach a pre-litigation settlement.

The alleged illegal hiring practices have taken place in Maryland since at least 2015, the lawsuit said.

As part of the hiring process, applicants must answer questions about their criminal justice history and go through a background check through a third-party vendor. Those who fail the screening do not get hired.

About 14.5% of Black applicants failed the screening, while less than 8% of White applicants failed, according to the lawsuit. Native Americans and multiracial applicants failed at a rate of about 13%.

“Black job applicants comprise a disproportionately high number of the total number of job applicants whom Defendants have refused to hire because of criminal justice history information,” the lawsuit said. The lawsuit added that according to published statistics, Black people and Native Americans in the United States “are subject to arrest, conviction, and incarceration at significantly higher rates relative to White persons.”

The EEOC said there are other screening methods available that wouldn’t discriminate.

The article doesn't elaborate fully how Title VII of the CRA gives carte blanche to agencies like the EEOC to enforce their mandates. From the

Civil Rights division of DOJ website:

Title VII also makes it unlawful to use policies or practices that seem neutral but have the effect of discriminating against people because of their race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity), or national origin.

Seem neutral?

Under this wording, it essentially puts everything up to the interpretation of whomever is tasked with deciding if a policy or practice violates CRA. It takes ‘spirit of the law’ to untold heights where the decider goes in whatever direction the spirit moves them. This is how the EEOC can claim with a straight face that a company like Sheetz can be forced to hire candidates with criminal backgrounds to handle cash and customers bank information, while at the same time also claiming federal jobs that require security clearances are perfectly fine under CRA requirements.   

Equality under the law (pun intended) is impossible with the Civil Rights Act and this recent display of its faults is another reason to eliminate the legislation.