Merit, Schmerit: Pending Illinois law will change ‘affirmative action’ to ‘positive action’ and cover, well, everything! – Wirepoints

By: Mark Glennon*

How about we expand preferences in hiring and promotion to base them on any characteristic whatsoever that might disadvantage somebody, regardless of whether the characteristic is inherited or self-inflicted?

That’s in a bill moving full steam ahead in Springfield and it’s a doozy. It’s House Bill 3914, the Positive Action Act. It already passed the Illinois House and is moving in the Senate.

It would have state agencies give hiring preference to anybody with a “protected characteristic.” The bill’s definition of that term is the key. It includes “any characteristic which may be used, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate against or place at a disadvantage such persons having that characteristic.”

So, it’s not just involuntary traits like race or gender, it’s anything that would disadvantage somebody, even if self-imposed. Anything.

As you think about examples of how absurd this is, it’s important to remember this is not about nondiscrimination. It’s about creating new preferences for anybody with a “protected characteristic.”

Consider, for example, people who are obese, short or unattractive. You probably think, as I do, that they usually should not be discriminated against in hiring and promotions.

But giving them a special preference is an entirely different matter, and that’s what the bill would do. Obesity, shortness and unattractiveness all fit under the bill’s definition of “protected characteristics.” It’s easy to find research confirming that those traits are penalized in the labor market. Some of that research was discussed in a New York Times article here.

To make the point, that article says Gregory Mankiw, an economist at Harvard and the former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, facetiously proposed taxing taller people more, since someone 6 feet tall can be expected to earn $5,525 more a year than someone who is 5-foot-5.

Mankiw was kidding but the bill is no joke. It’s serious about essentially the same concept, but far more broad.

What about graduates from certain failing Illinois schools? They could just point to under-funding according to the “adequacy” rules in Illinois’ “evidence-based” funding formula, which the state itself endorsed. The could fit within the definition.

Or what about applicants who are unintelligent, even those who are so because they haven’t been motivated enough to educate themselves? And what about those who simply lack experience? They, too, generally fare poorly in the labor market and those traits also fit within the definition of “protected characteristics.” The bill would call for them to get a preference over those who are smarter or more experienced, and no distinction would be made if those traits stemmed from simple lack of effort.

What about people with “generalized anxiety disorder” like the woman who bragged about having it in that widely-ridiculed CIA recruitment ad? Definitely qualifies.

The bill does include one supposed limitation. It does not apply if the characteristic makes the person less qualified than other applicants. Specifically, the bill says that favorable consideration in the process of recruitment or promotion shall only be allowed if “the person having the protected characteristic is as qualified as the person not having the protected characteristic.”

But that’s all the bill says on this and that’s not much of a limitation.

For one thing, traits like intelligence, education and experience often only bear on qualification up to a certain point, especially for entry-level and low-skill jobs. The “as qualified as” standard therefore often loses any meaning.

Moreover, even beyond those circumstances, if the limitation were really meant to have meaning, it would contradict the clear purpose of the bill. Is the point to hire the most qualified person under all circumstances or to give a preference to others? Obviously, the purpose of the bill is to provide preferences and override blind selection based on qualifications and merit, so that’s how it would be interpreted and applied.

Another fundamental problem with the bill is that its concept of protected characteristics is impossibly vague. Countless traits arguably disadvantage some people in life, but the bill would call for state agencies to identify those traits and reward them. It’s important to note that the definition of protected characteristics is not limited to traits related to the job at issue. Any trait that makes life worse in or out of the workplace can be covered by the bill.

Beyond authorizing special preferences, the bill requires all agencies to “take positive action” to help those with protected characteristics and submit reports on their “positive action” progress.

The bill amends some 50 existing statutes to replace the term “affirmative action” with “positive action.”

Finally, the bill would require each state agency to perform an internal examination to identify all “eugenics-inspired policies” and other policies with a discriminatory impact, and issue an annual report to the Governor and the General Assembly.

Props to McHenry County Blog for calling this bill to our attention.

*Mark Glennon is founder of Wirepoints.

This article was updated to add more examples.

36 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
TL
2 years ago

The Positive Action Act happily reaffirms my move out of the state of Illinois.

Bixnood Muhdik
2 years ago

[Blocked]

GQP
2 years ago
Reply to  Bixnood Muhdik

Another thoughtful comment from your followers Mark. So rare. Are you going to delete this comment like last week? Don’t forget to complain about the censorship of Trump after you censor comments here.

Platinum Goose
2 years ago
Reply to  GQP

Funny how you mysteriously show up here after a new poster posts something that gets blocked and you try to associate everyone here with the blocked commenter. 99% of the people here are intelligent and insightful even the ones I don’t agree with. Then there’s that 1% which is the group I put you in. I don’t need to defend Mark but he does censor inappropriate posts and unlike other sites allows opinions which differ from the majority here. Evidence of that is him allowing your idiotic post. I generally don’t feed the trolls but I couldn’t help pointing out… Read more »

debtsor
2 years ago
Reply to  Platinum Goose

GQP is always the offensive commentator. I wonder if he is Oswego Willie too.

Platinum Goose
2 years ago
Reply to  debtsor

Oswego Willie never posts in a complete or coherent sentence so I don’t think it’s him.

heyjude
2 years ago
Reply to  Platinum Goose

GQP never actually comments on the stories, only wants to be the thought police.

NB-Chicago
2 years ago

I was thinking the other day…what entity in illinois has most to gain from all the wackie woke legislation—-the TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOC!!!,,, this bill’s a lawyer wet dream, if passed you’d have anyone appling for ill gov job be able to file suit that they were discreminated agaist because there to fat, to short, or some other nonsense..all on the taxpayers dime

IllinoisHomeOfTheSwamp
2 years ago

Ah, whatever… For what do we fight? The idea of an America based on personal agency, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is dead. And, looking around at society, more than 2/3 of which are not intelligent enough to understand the impact of their vote, I kinda think we deserve demotion to the 3rd world…

Last edited 2 years ago by IllinoisHomeOfTheSwamp
Bulldog55
2 years ago

After living in Illinois all my life and reading this garbage I am thoroughly convinced they write this convoluted crap so that anyone who feels the slightest bit offended can sue someone else. That’s how a lot of these people make their living. The way this law is written it’s way, way, way open to interpretation and will ruin small business. Why would anybody in their right mind want to own a small business in Illinois, the government has it out for you

debtsor
2 years ago
Reply to  Bulldog55

The government has chosen and enemy, and it is you. Remember when during the 1990’s the Hutus called the Tutsi cochroaches for controlling everything; and then macheted a million of them to death? I remember this.

With these new bills everyone is a disadvantaged minority compared to the white man, who is nothing more than a cockroach parasite stealing the labor of the oppressed, and hoarding all of the resources for themselves and their children.

They’re only in the early stages of what comes next.

nixit
2 years ago

Also sponsored by Camille Lilly. You might remember Camille from other boondoggles such as the “Gas Station Attendant Act”

https://edgarcountywatchdogs.com/2020/02/illinois-state-rep-lilly-wants-to-make-it-illegal-to-pump-your-own-gas/

Karen Madigan
2 years ago

The Illinois Black Caucus are drafting all of these left-wing bills! The Black population in Illinois is approximately 14%. How did this caucus attain the power to control this state? It is truly mind boggling!

Fed up neighbor
2 years ago
Reply to  Karen Madigan

Pritzker and the Springfield legislators

Joey Zamboni
2 years ago

Woo Hoo…!

I’m short, obese & unattractive…

I hit the trifecta…!

Now, where’s my high paying, do nothing state job…?

Fred
2 years ago

I’m 5’6″ and 200 pounds. It has been my lifelong dream to play first base for the Cubs.

M.H.
2 years ago

If you remain in Illinois, is that a “self-inflicted” characteristic? Let’s consider Chicago and Cook County whose executives are exclusively black and female: Preckwinkle; Lightfoot; Foxx. And all mothers to boot. Doesn’t strike me as being diverse, really more monochromatic. Nary a word breathed about qualifications or competence which are apparently tertiary qualities. Will this “paint by numbers” method of governing continue until Illinois is a husk of its former self? Who’ll be left to wave goodbye to the CME, when tumbleweeds blow through LaSalle St.?

SteveOh
2 years ago

Affirmative Action appears to be illegal and unconstitutional. Sandra Day O’Conner did not like AA but was the deciding vote to KEEP it, in 2003. In her opinion for the Court, she wrote, “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary.”
That means it should expire in 2028 and SCOTUS should finally end it. We’ll see !

Illinois Entrepreneur
2 years ago
Reply to  Mark Glennon

I’d love to believe that, but I doubt it. They are afraid of the Democrats taking away their own power with court packing and mob action.

They will punt on the issue, just like they have anything else that is controversial in the last few years.

linda
2 years ago

More political BS!

Gemini
2 years ago

All affirmative action ever did was stain POC with a presumption they were not good enough to make it on their own. This bill will only re-enforce that.

Helen Corsentino
2 years ago

Why aren’t these bills debated more aggressively in the House and Senate and then open to discussion with the press present. Then the people of Illinois can read about this bill that has profound consequences to all resident of Illinois.

Wolfgang Schultz
2 years ago

Since Illinois has been under Mike Madigan’s reign, it has basically become a communist state. When one party is the majority, that’s communism. I hope the population of Illinois declines even more by the next census.

Joan
2 years ago

This is so insane it is hard to believe. I just searched for other articles about this bill and could only find one small one that doesn’t really describe it well.

debtsor
2 years ago

No bill in Springfield is too whacky or crazy, as legislators have an open conspiracy to vote for each other’s bills in the name of equity.

Gemini
2 years ago

This ship is going down. Time to move to Florida.

Goodgulf Greyteeth
2 years ago

What puts the “lie” to the sponsor’s “equally qualified” claim is the fact that supervisors interviewing candidates really can’t ask any probing questions that actually illuminate an applicant’s job-task capability.

That, and the reality of how the questions they are permitted to ask are too often based on ambiguous job descriptions, full of subjective nonsense masquerading as what applicants will actually be required to do when they start work.

thee jabroni
2 years ago

So,once this bill gets passed,and it for sure will,i can self identify as a black female,so they will have to give me all kinds of preferential treatment when looking for a job,right!?

Rick
2 years ago
Reply to  thee jabroni

No just the female part, its acceptable to wear a dress, get the plastic surgery, hormones, etc. to convince others you are a girl, and force them to believe you are now a girl with jail time if your thoughts doubt their womanhood. But the left has not gotten progressive enough yet for race fluidity, maybe, but there’s that whole black face thing. Its acceptable to devise a convincing girl disguise though.

rick1099
2 years ago

Isnt it wonderful that the demoncrats feel that all black people are incapable of success without government mandated assistance. Isnt it amazing that regular people who have seen race based promotions really dont have any respect for those who are promoted. Isnt it amazing that many times those race based promotions end up being disastrous when the promotee falls flat on their face and ends up being an embarrassment to the company or orgznization. Isnt it amazing that a POC who actually earns their position thru hard work feels disgusted when they see what’s happening because their hard work doesnt… Read more »

Gemini
2 years ago
Reply to  rick1099

Well said!

Jay Fled
2 years ago
Reply to  rick1099

Rick, do you work for the Chicago Police Department?

SIGN UP HERE FOR FREE WIREPOINTS DAILY NEWSLETTER

Home Page Signup
First
Last
Check all you would like to receive:

FOLLOW US

 

WIREPOINTS ORIGINAL STORIES

A statewide concern: Illinois’ population decline outpaces neighboring states – Wirepoints on ABC20 Champaign

“We are not in good shape” Wirepoints’ Ted Dabrowski told ABC 20 Champaign during a segment on Illinois’ latest population losses. Illinois was one of just three states to shrink in the 2010-2020 period and has lost another 300,000 people since then. Ted says things need to change. “It’s too expensive to live here, there aren’t enough good jobs and nobody trusts the government anymore. There’s just other places to go where you can be more satisfied.”

Read More »

WE’RE A NONPROFIT AND YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS ARE DEDUCTIBLE.

SEARCH ALL HISTORY

CONTACT / TERMS OF USE