So if we attempt to change reality by using something like equal opportunity employment are you opposed?
You need to define what you mean by that term. Until we get the term defined let me add this detail about my position for I think that there are others who also hold this position.
I will actively support creating a society in which there is equal opportunity for children. I will fight strenuously to oppose mechanisms designed to create equal outcomes. If a community or their political allies feel that inequality is being fostered by unequal spending for education. I'll lend a hand to equalize spending, so long as more liberty is returned as a reciprocal gesture, meaning freedom for parents to send their children to the schools of their choice. If there is unequal access to food for children, then I'll pay increased taxes so that schools can feed the children. If there is poor access to medical care, then I'll do my part to equalize this factor for children. You get the picture - I'm all for giving kids a fair shake in life. I know that this won't reduce inequality but I won't puncture the dreams of others who believe that inequality can be eradicated.
When the kids become adults, then they're one their own. No more smoothing the way for everyone. Now it's competition time.
The issue that's dominated our discussion has been group stereotype and its accuracy and that's something that I believe has to be addressed by the affected community. They created the stereotype, speaking in terms of groups, and so I have no responsibility for trying to undo something I had no part in creating. This means that I reject efforts to force private institutions to ignore their own self-interests and pretend that this stereotype information doesn't exist. That information is either accurate or it's not. In a large society like ours there will always exist diverse strategies for how to address such issues and this creates a competition of approaches. If the stereotype information is inaccurate then those companies which ignore it altogether will be hiring fabulous employees while the companies who heed the stereotype will be bypassing these fabulous employees and instead hiring applicants who are not as talented. If the stereotype information is accurate, then the reverse scenario applies. The point is that the process will lead to a better understanding of truth and falsity. There will be winners and losers in the ranks of companies. Also keep in mind that this is mostly applicable to people just entering the workforce, for as people gain experience their performance history speaks much more authoritatively than group stereotypes, so the good performers will rise and the bad performers will sink.
In a nutshell, companies have already had too much freedom stripped away from them. I'm opposed to all anti-discrimination laws which impinge on freedom of association. I'm kind of a liberty extremist in that regard, not too many go as far as me. Governments, which must govern for us all, must be fair and non-discriminatory, but people should have the unrestricted right to form the associations of their choice. You're probably getting a clue about how I feel about your question of more equal opportunity programs being forced on companies.
Many people view discrimination based on age and race differently. One is common place while the other is actually considered unjust. You may think they are the same, but most people would disagree. If a barbershop gives a discount to seniors no one cares, if a barbershop gave discounts to whites it would piss a lot of people off.
My position is that they shouldn't feel differently and if they do feel differently I believe it's because they're used to the status quo. A 17 year old driver is being judged not on his driving record but on the driving record of his peer group. I'm ok with that because I believe companies should be able to do this but I still recognize that a price falls on the good and careful 17 year old driver.
As for the barbership restricting clientele only to white people, I say go for it. They should have the right to exercise their freedom of association and people can exercise their choice of whether to patronize the establishment or take their business to their competitor who doesn't discriminate. I don't think that that white barbershop would stay open for business for very long but I do think that they should have the freedom to form their own associations without associations being forced upon them. With freedom comes consequences.
That's true, but that is not the point. If your group is stereotyped as lazy that automatically puts you at the disadvantage. You have to now put forth an extra effort that someone else would not have to. It doesn't make it impossible to get a job, just harder. That fact might manifest itself in higher unemployment rates for your specific group than others...
Some problems don't have easy solutions. I can't see how penalizing employers by holding them legally responsible for ignoring information which can save them money is a preferable outcome. Better to let the marketplace of ideas battle it out. Some employers and their human resources departments won't believe in the value of stereotypes. Good for them. They can hire people just as though there was a law forcing them to ignore stereotypes. They can now reap the gains or suffer the losses which result from making their choice of hiring strategy.
