"Uniform Guidelines" - INTRODUCTION

The Uniform Guidelines Enforce Reverse Discrimination

The History and Theory of the Uniform Guidelines

Not active < PREV: Inactive
UGESP
DOWN: Uniform Guidelines Index
Index
NEXT: Parts 60-3 thru 3.3 > Next: 60-3 thru 3.3

History and Theory:  When Congress adopted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 it was a race-neutral document which simply and eloquently mandated non-discrimination in the selection, hiring and promotion of employees.  The original, unamended Civil Rights Act prohibited the use of race as a reason to grant or deny an employment opportunity or any other opportunity in this country. Down:
DOWN:  Table of Contents
Table
of
Contents

          The original, unamended Civil Rights Act of 1964 thus explicitly prohibited the use of racial preferences, racial quotas, racial targets or racial goals -- or any other form of racial discrimination or preference.  The Act was initially a good and noble piece of legislation.

          Unfortunately, Congress and the federal agencies responsible for implementing,   monitoring, and enforcing compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 wasted little time in writing regulations which imposed racial and gender quotas and preferences upon all government agencies, government contractors and private employers.

          By 1966 several federal agencies had devised "guidelines" pertaining to the original Civil Rights Act.   These various agency guidelines had the force of law and enshrined the "disparate impact / adverse impact" and "proportional representation" theories which underlie most of today's racial quota laws, as follows:

(1) The various agency guidelines stipulated that any employment test or selection procedure which resulted in a higher failure rate by protected races and genders vs. the failure or success rates of non-protected groups (especially white males) constituted de facto discrimination against minorities and was therefore automatically presumed to be evidence of illegal discrimination; and

(2) Any employer who failed to employ the same proportion of protected minorities and genders as in the general population (vs. white or non-preferred racial / gender groups) was presumed to be guilty of de facto discrimination.

          Between 1966 and 1978 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), and the Civil Service Commission (now the Office of Personnel Management) had implemented their own "guidelines" for minority selection and hiring.  But the various agencies' regulations were somewhat inconsistent and sometimes in conflict with each other.

          Therefore, in 1978, these agencies got together and issued the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP).  These Uniform Guidelines resolved the differences between the EEOC, DOJ, DOL and the old Civil Service Commission (now the OPM) versions and today they remain the standard government reference on the subject. 

JOB-RELATED CRITERIA:

          One of the ways in which the Uniform Guidelines enforce racial preferences and quotas is through the definition of "Job-Related Criteria".  Essentially, the Uniform Guidelines define valid "Job-Related Criteria" as any measure of abilities, personality, personal background, and biographical data which result in the "correct" proportion of protected minorities being hired while at the same time nominally meeting the technical requirements of the job.   Conversely, any selection or testing procedure which fails to result in the hiring or promotion of a "proportionate" number of protected minorities is deemed by the Guidelines to constitute illegal discrimination unless the employer can prove otherwise.  In layman's terms, the latter is known as "guilty until proven innocent".

          In an effort to disguise the racial quota agenda behind the Uniform Guidelines, the Guidelines contain extensive rules and statistical procedures regarding how an employer may determine if their selection criteria are, in fact, "job-related" as defined by the Guidelines.  The Guidelines specify in great detail the means by which employers are allowed to construct employment tests and selection instruments which result in the "right" number of protected minorities being hired.  This process is known euphemistically as "minimizing or eliminating adverse impact".

          The Guidelines also impose intrusive, burdensome racial record keeping requirements upon employers so that federal regulators and enforcement agencies can tell at a glance if the employer has, in fact, hired the right number of protected minorities.

          Each agency which participated in development of the Guidelines is governed by a different title of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), each with a slightly different structure but with the exact, same content.  Each agency's CFR title for the "Uniform Guidelines" is as follows:

  • Equal Employment Opportunity Commission cites the guidelines as 29 CFR Part 1607
  • Department of Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs cites the guidelines as 41 CFR Part 60-3
  • Department of Justice cites the guidelines as 28 CFR 50.14
  • Civil Service Commission (now the Office of Personnel Management) cites the guidelines as 5 CFR 300.103(c)

The version of the Guidelines reproduced in these pages uses the U.S. Dept. of Labor version (41 CFR Part 60-3).


Uniform Guidelines on Employment Selection Procedures (1978)
Abbreviated Table of Contents

Table of Contents/Authority for Part 60-3 DETAILED (p 01) >
60-3.1 - Statement of purpose. (p 01) >
60-3.2 - Scope. (p 01) >
60-3.3 - Discrimination defined: Relationship between use of selection procedures and discrimination. (p 01) >
60-3.4 - Information on impact. (p 02) >
60-3.5 - General standards for validity studies. (p02) >
60-3.6 - Use of selection procedures which have not been validated. (p 02) >
60-3.7 - Use of other validity studies. (p 02) >
60-3.8 - Cooperative studies. (p 02) >
60-3.9 - No assumption of validity. (p 02) >
60-3.10 - Employment agencies and employment services. (p 02) >
60-3.11 - Disparate treatment. (p 02) >
60-3.12 - Retesting of applicants. (p 02) >
60-3.13 - Affirmative action. (p 03) >
60-3.14 - Technical standards for validity studies. (p 03) >
60-3.15 - Documentation of impact and validity evidence. (p 04) >
60-3.16 - Definitions. (p 05) >
60-3.17 - Policy statement on affirmative action (see section 13B). (p 05) >
60-3.18 - Citations. (p 05) >

Not active < PREV: Inactive
NEXT: Parts 60-3 thru 3.3 > Next: 60-3 thru 3.3

Main Site Index:

Top:
Go to Top of Page
MAIN NEWS
Index

by category
DONATE
Contributions are tax-deductible
HORROR
STORIES

and case studies
TERMS
and Definitions
SEARCH
Site
LEGAL HELP
Firms and Resources
LINKS MESSAGE
Board
GO:  Home Page
Home
Page Index
URL's and page names for site
Favorite
EDITORIALS

National opinion
DIRTY RACIAL
POLITICS

How Quotas are Enforced
EDITOR'S DESK
What's Hot!
RACIAL
PROFILING

D.O.J. Requires It!
EDUCATIONAL
TESTING

News Analysis
CENSUS 2000
Racism
ABOUT US

Copyright 2002 Adversity.Net, Inc., an IRS 501(c)(3) tax-exempt educational organization.  For problems or questions regarding this web contact editor@adversity.net    Last updated: January 05, 2004.

Go to Adversity.Net Home Page

*  We use the term reverse discrimination reluctantly and only because it is so widely understood.  In our opinion there really is only one kind of discrimination.