Your federal government funds racial testers -- fake job applicants and fake housing applicants --  (with your tax dollars) to entrap you in a discrimination law suit!  These undercover agents arrive at your doorstep with falsified credentials and resumes.  They have no intention of accepting your job or your housing vacancy, and they are clearly guilty of deception and fraud.  See News, below

          "The cost of litigation in many cases can be very high, particularly in cases requiring extensive discovery.  Some legal services programs have little or no money to meet these costs, and cases must be refused because there is no way to finance them.   This is not the case with LAFC.  There is [plenty of federal] money available to meet discovery and other related costs.  ... the money is there when lawyers need it for depositions, other discovery costs, expert witnesses, etc."

          "LAFC attorneys represent tenants, not their landlords or real estate developers. [LAFC represents] the victims of race or handicap discrimination in employment, not their employers."

          "For many years the employees of LAFC have been unionized; they are represented by the United Legal Workers of Chicago."

          "LAFC also has a very strong commitment to increase the number of minority attorneys working with the program, and we especially encourage minority third-year law students and law school graduates to apply for a position with us."

Dubious 'racial tester' study alleges discrimination in Bay Area (07/29/99)
          "... [T]he validity of the year long study, which was sponsored by civil rights groups and foundations in the Bay Area, was questioned by some social scientists and employment industry officials. The research relied on a controversial technique known as "matched-pair" testing.

          "Researchers examined the employment agencies' hiring practices by sending, without the agencies' knowledge, pairs of black and white "testers" posing as job applicants for entry-level office positions. In each of the 45 cases included in the study, the testers' job qualifications were essentially identical, with the main difference between them being race.

          "One of the reasons that matched-pair studies such as the Impact Fund's are controversial is the difficulty in determining which testers truly have equal qualifications.

          "Despite training provided to the testers, 'it's difficult to make two different people have the same interview skills,' said Paul F. White, a labor economist with Economic Research Services, a Tallahassee, Fla., firm that provides consulting services and expert court testimony for companies accused of workplace discrimination.

          "Also, because of their high cost, matched-pair research typically involves a relatively small number of tests.   In the Bay Area study, 'you've only got 45 tests.  It's hard to make definitive conclusions about the whole [employment agency] industry based on these examples,' White said."

          In spite of these limitations, the racial and ethnic minority groups who sponsored the study claimed:  "Whites are three times more likely than equally qualified blacks to get preferential treatment when applying for jobs through employment agencies, often landing higher-paying jobs or receiving offers more quickly..."  (Quoted from LA Times story 07/29/99 by Stuart Silverstein)
[link http://www.latimes.com/HOME/BUSINESS/t000067370.html ]

Clinton Endorses Racial Testing, Gov't Collection of 'Anecdotal Stories' about Bigotry   (02/03/99 - dead link)
          Clinton's federal budget includes $10 million to be dispersed to various federal agencies in order to further study what bigotry does to peoples lives. One official said "That's kind of like spending $10 million to find out why children fall off bicycles."

          Christopher Edley, a black Harvard University law professor who is advising Clinton on racial issues, said "federal agencies have already begun looking at how they can incorporate the practice of "testing'' — that is, sending out teams of people who are evenly matched in virtually every aspect except their race and cataloging the reactions they get when they seek a job or a home."  (Various sources, see links.)
[former link **http://www.foxnews.com/js_index.sml?content=/news/wires2/0202/n_ap_0202_15.sml]
[and also former link:  *http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/034/nation/
Clinton_seeks_a_study_on_depth_of_US_prejudice+.shtml]

Chicago Business Sues 'Discrimination Testers' Posing as Job Applicants. (12/08/98) (dead link)
          Guardian Security Services is suing the fake job applicants as well as the Legal Assistance Foundation who employed them.   Guardian is charging that "racial testing" constitutes fraud insofar as neither woman possessed the job qualifications which they claimed in order to tempt Guardian into hiring one of them.  One applicant was a minority, and one was white.   They had almost identical (but fraudulent) resumes.  Guardian offered the job to the white applicant.  This scheme allegedly proved "racial bias" on the part of Guardian.  (Miami Herald 12/08/98)
[former link *http://www.herald.com:80/usa/digdocs/044247.htm]

See Also:  Suits test legality of job-bias testing
          "When Lolita Pierce, a black woman, applied for a job as a receptionist at a Chicago business in 1995, she was told selected applicants would be called later for second interviews.  A few hours later, Eve Loftman, a white woman with similar (falsified) credentials was tested, interviewed, and offered a job.  BUT these women weren't really looking for work!"  They were "racial testers" hired by EEOC or by its allied organizations and contractors!   (Bergen Record 12/08/98)

See Also:  EEOC Attempts to Justify Race-Tester Dishonesty!  (02/01/99)
          The Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago receives federal funding to send out bogus job applicants who falsely apply for jobs, using fictitious resumes, in order to trap businesses into hiring the non-minority, thus presumably establishing a prima facie case of racial discrimination.

           But Guardian Security, the target of this particularly dishonest practice, has sued for fraud, and it just might win.

          The EEOC, of course, is required to justify its dishonest, fraudulent practices:  " 'Employment testing is relatively new,'  said Ellen Vargyas, legal counsel for the EEOC in Washington.   'But there's a long history of the use of testers in housing discrimination and other contexts.'

          " 'In law enforcement they're called undercover agents. When an undercover police officer goes out to buy drugs, he's doing nothing different than what a tester does.'

          "Journalists do it, too, Vargyas noted. Even after the Food Lion case, in which a grocery chain won damages for fraud and trespassing after two ABC television producers wore spy cameras to document unsanitary food-handling practices, [Chicago's] Channel 2 did a hidden-camera expose of three Chicago restaurants that aired in November.

          "The Equal Employment Advisory Council, a nationwide association of employers that is backing Guardian in the litigation, says testing is bad public policy. First, the group says, testers aren't really engaged in a controlled scientific experiment because the testers have an interest in the outcome and can skew the results of the experiment through conscious or unconscious behavior. But perhaps more important, the EEAC says, there are significant costs to law-abiding employers and legitimate job-seekers, who may be passed over as hiring officials waste time with phony applicants."  (Chicago Tribune, 02/01/99, by Judy Peres)
[link http://chicagotribune.com/version1/article/0,1575,SAV-9902010068,00.html ]