Allen supports "Affirmative Recruitment." I initially thought it a distinction without a difference.......not
According to the University of RI, here are the definitions of terms.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN: The written document through which management assures that all persons have equal opportunities in recruitment, selection, appointment, promotion, training, discipline and related employment areas. The plan is tailored to the employer's work force and the skills available in the labor force. It prescribes specific actions, goals, timetables, responsibilities and describes resources to meet identified needs. The plan is a comprehensive results oriented program designed to achieve equal employment opportunity rather than merely to assure nondiscrimination.
AFFIRMATIVE RECRUITMENT: Special recruitment efforts undertaken to assure that qualified protected class members are well represented in the applicant pools for positions from or in which they have been excluded or substantially underutilized. Such efforts may include contacting organizations and media with known protected class constituencies. Open job posting and advertising and "equal opportunity employer" statements necessary in many situations are matters of nondiscrimination rather than measures of affirmative recruitment.
As I read these definitions, there are very important differences. Allen did not use the words "I oppose affirmative action" and immediately went on to that which he supports. Along the way, took some serious shots at Webb's "outrageous statements" on affirmative action.
Help me understand these terms. If an employer contacts a minority group, places "equal opportunity employer" in his ads, presto...their obligation is done? Don't worry about hiring qualified minorities, just place that ad. Go ahead and not change a darn thing, just say you are an "equal opportunity employer" and you have fulfilled your obligations.
Aside from all the well publicized racial problems in Allen's past, is he trying some verbal gymnastics to cover up his opposition to offering "affirmative ACTIONS" to redress past hiring discriminations?
Just askin'
Spun in a more positive light, this could be considered a classic Republican position - smaller government, less regulation of private business.
On the other hand, it also provides a gaping loophole for any company that chooses to discriminate. Recruiting, and even interviewing, does not really address an equal shot at a job. And it certainly does nothing for any employee if they are hired.
I'd be interested to hear more about this from people who are more familiar with these concepts. But on the surface it sure sounds like Allen's supports a weakened version of the equal opportunity laws.
Thanks!