Actions with the best intentions do not always result in the expected outcomes.But are good intentions enough to turn around minority unemployment? Probably not, because as it turns out this move may have exactly the opposite effect:
Currently, in an effort to lower minority unemployment and reduce discrimination, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is considering restricting or, in the most extreme case, eliminating the ability of employers to consider criminal background checks in hiring.
The commission has held two hearings on the matter with little fanfare, but great support from watchdog groups which argue that since African Americans and Latinos have higher arrest and conviction rates than whites, criminal background checks unfairly inhibit those protected classes’ job prospects.
Advocates for keeping the criminal background check guidelines in their current form have noted that the hearings the commission has held have leaned in favor of restricting employers’ use of background checks — as a way to increase employment in sections of the population hit hardest by the economic downturn.
Civil Rights Commissioners Peter Kirsanow, Gail Heriot and Todd Gaziano pointed to research from economists Harry Holzer and Stephen Rafael and public policy professor Michael Stoll, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, which showed that employers with access to background checks are actually more likely to hire African Americans, especially African American men, than those without access to that informaion.Liberals are full of ideas which have "good intentions", such as Obamacare or tax hikes on the "rich", but how many times do they actually work out well? Not often. Sadly for the left, the realities of the marketplace trump their good intentions.
“Their results suggest that, in the absence of criminal background checks, some employers discriminate statistically against black men and/or those with weak employment records,” the commissioners pointed out in their letter to the EEOC.