“Mimic The Demographics,” “Looking For Males,” (And Ignoring The Law?)

The Albemarle County (Virginia) school system needs new teachers. What kind of new teachers? Science? Math? Social Studies?

The remaining 35 positions the division has yet to fill consist of both full- and part-time jobs, for a range of subjects, for all the grades, in all the schools.

Even with the broad need, though, there are a few specific niches the division would like to fill. “We’re always looking for males, especially in the elementary schools, but of course they have to be well qualified,” [Steele] Howen [the county schools’ executive director of administrative services] said. “And clearly we want to be hiring a more diverse staff so we are looking for African-Americans and Hispanics and others who would help us with our diversity,” she added.

[Kimberly] Suyes [director of human resources at county schools] said the division examines demographics data for the county and the student base to determine how many teachers of a particular race or ethnicity county schools should aim for. “We try to at least mimic the demographics,” she said.

Since 2005, recruiting a diverse staff has been one of the goals of the division’s five-year Strategic Plan. In an effort to achieve that goal, the division has begun working with historically black colleges to attract recent graduates, and providing support for minority teachers already working within the school system.

What is striking about these comments is the utter lack of self-consciousness about regarding hiring a black or male or Hispanic (only Mexican, or will any Hispanic do?) as no different from hiring someone to each economics or French. All you do is “mimic the demographics” and, need a French teacher hire a French teacher, need a black hire a black.

Nor, it would appear, has anyone raised a question about the legality (leave aside the propreity) of “providing support for minority teachers already on the job.” In addition, I wonder if any women not hired have complained about the district’s “always looking for males.” I also wonder whether the organized elites in Michigan who keep trumpeting the need for gender preferences to help women would have any problem with the evident preference for male elementary school teachers in Albemarle County (and, no doubt, elsewhere, probably even in Michigan). (See here, here, here, and here for just a few examples of the Michigan feminist hysteria.) Do they think all “gender preferences” are fine, or only preferences for women?

In other words, Albemarle County is going about its business of “looking for males” and trying to “mimic the demographics” by hiring blacks, Hispanics, etc., as needed as though there were no civil rights laws on the books that barred just these sorts of discrimination.

For example, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 bars gender discrimination in all education programs at institutions receiving federal funds. We hear a lot about Title IX in the context of its impact on women’s sports, but surprisingly little about the fact that it is, at heart, an anti-discrimination statute.

Not to mention Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (If no one in the Albemarle County school system is familiar with Title VI, I’m sure someone at the UVa law school right up the street could provide some relevant information. It reads, in part:

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. [42 U.S.C. § 2000d]

As I pointed out here, in proposing what became Title VI President Kennedy stated, eloquently,

Simple justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all races contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes, or results in racial discrimination. Direct discrimination by Federal, State, or local governments is prohibited by the Constitution. But indirect discrimination, through the use of Federal funds, is just as invidious; and it should not be necessary to resort to the courts to prevent each individual violation. [H.R. Misc. Doc. No. 124, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. 3, 12 (1963), quoted here]

I believe the words of Title VI are crystal clear, but in case there is any doubt about them the Department of Justice’s own TITLE VI LEGAL MANUAL should clear up any confusion:

An intent claim alleges that similarly situated persons are treated differently because of their race, color, or national origin. To prove intentional discrimination, one must show that “a challenged action was motivated by an intent to discriminate.” … This requires a showing that the decisionmaker was not only aware of the complainant’s race, color, or national origin, but that the recipient acted, at least in part, because of the complainant’s race, color, or national origin. However, the record need not contain evidence of “bad faith, ill will or any evil motive on the part of the [recipient of federal funds].”

I doubt that the administrators of Albemarle County’s program “providing support for minority teachers” are unaware that all the beneficiaries are selected because they are minority teachers, or that such support is the sort of “benefit” covered by Title VI’s prohibition of discrimination.

If it wants to continue “mimic the demographics” in its hiring while “looking for males” and providing on the job benefits to certain teachers on the basis of race, shouldn’t the Albemarle County schools at least have the courgage of tiny Grove City College and attempt to refuse all federal funds of any kind? (See my discussion here.) If not, isn’t it teaching the lesson, by example, that being a scofflaw is a good thing?