A couple of weeks ago I discussed (here) the silliness of the New York Human Rights Commission finding human rights violations in New York’s advertising agencies. Now Fred Ray brings to my attention an article by Brian Anderson about that I missed, which makes the same points, except better.
Among his points:
It’s easier to find discrimination if you’ve got an expansive notion of it, of course, and the current commission has expanded its definition to the point of absurdity. Ask New York’s advertising firms. In early September, the commission trumpeted that it had reached agreements with several top agencies, forcing them to recruit and promote more blacks. The companies, seeking to avoid fines of up to $250,000 and litigation, will set numerical goals — quotas — for increasing black representation, establish “diversity boards” and submit to three years of monitoring.
Naturally, the commission offers zero evidence that racism is to blame for minority “underrepresentation” in advertising firms. An advertising executive quoted in the New York Times gives a far more plausible explanation: “Minorities are targeted broadly by everyone: Wall Street, Fortune 100 companies. Your top minority students have lots of opportunities outside advertising.” The notion that New York advertisers are bigots who won’t voluntarily hire and advance qualified blacks is preposterous in this day and age. It’s the commission’s retrograde racial-preference mandate that’s truly racist, since it likely will require the ad firms to hire certain job candidates — and reject others — simply because of their skin color.
Indeed.
