In reading some of the Libertarian oriented GD threads I’m amazed at how some bright (mostly young) dopers making otherwise logical and pointed arguments get all googly eyed and disbelieving when when you tell them that many private businesses would quite probably re-discriminate in a heartbeat if they could get away with it legally.
They refuse to believe this is possible. Their insistence that this is impossible is as endearing as a child insisting that Santa Claus lives because of all the presents. They cite that their friends would *never *do business with such an establishment, and thus no business like that could possibly thrive and exist.
I’m 52, and as a commercial real esate agent I’m granted entry to many parlors and boardrooms up and down the social spectrum, and I am here to tell you that many white conservatives, and a good chunk of otherwise progressive people are privately quite racist. Some of the most vehement racists are in positions where they make nice to black people all day in social and business interactions, but disdain black people in private.
This is hardly a news flash to black people, but I’m amazed at the strength of the belief among young white dopers that all that hard core discrimination stuff is in the past across demographic lines.
Well… it’s not. Not even close. You may not have cross burnings anymore, but there is a huge chunk of middle aged and older whites who think blacks are useless social parasites, and if they had the opportunity to go to a “whites only” bar or nightclub they might well take it.
Nope. As I’ve said in other threads, I’m sure that whites-only establishments would spring up like weeds; there would be whole towns and larger that would be essentially all white. Just like the old days.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if some whole states would force non-white populations out at gunpoint if they could.
I agree, and as I mentioned in another thread recently, sexism is not a thing of the past either. There’s still a chunk of the population who thinks women should stay out of the workforce and focus on child raising. We’ve come a long way baby, but not long enough that we can take the Civil Rights Act for granted.
And interestingly you’d think dealing with those attitudes might make women more sympathetic to black people. In my experience in private they’re not … at all.
If businesses were allowed to discriminate based on age, no one would but the business owners would ever work somewhere long enough to earn a pension. It’s damn close to that already, with all kinds of employers firing senior people to get in cheaper cog people.
I think lots of neighborhood bars and restaurants would discriminate against one minority or another, or all of them. If we’re lucky, most national chains will decide discrimination among customers isn’t a good business model.
I think many or even most employers wouldn’t hire mothers of young children, or women in their childbearing years. They have no interest in subsidizing families and parenthood. I kinda feel that one myself. I practically never miss work, and I can’t count how many times I’ve had to cover for a parent with a sick kid, or a kid with a doctor’s appointment, etc.
As a member of the corporate world, I can confidently say my company (and it is typical) takes quite seriously an obligation to be inclusive and extend a helping hand to minority groups–particularly blacks–who would otherwise find themselves under-represented.
For businesses, this is often a decision to take a less-qualified candidate over a more-qualified one. While it is easy to pretend that there is no real difference between candidates who have performed well in rigorous academic programs and those who have done less well, in point of fact most businesses want to hire the smartest employees they can if other factors are equal, and they see academic performance as a proxy for the ability to learn business-related skillsets.
Most businesses are in business to make money. They care about being competitive more than they care about solving society’s inequities. If they were allowed to set their own rules, they would simply hire the most qualified candidates, independent of race or sex. If a given racial group was unable to compete, then it would be even more under-represented.
Most NBA teams have thrived because they are allowed to ignore any external constraints to be proportionally represented racially. A team that decided its members needed to reflect racial proportions in the US would fail. Were such laxity of enforcement extended to other businesses, I have no doubt we would see an even more disproportionate representation than we see now.
However the effort to be more inclusive does not typically cause ordinary businesses to “fail” even if it makes them less competitive than they otherwise would be, and surely the greater good for society is to compel most ordinary businesses to set aside a specific number of race-based opportunities for those who would not otherwise be offered a position.
Of course some institutions would try to reduce the numbers of non-Asian minorities. Even rich liberals don’t like to send their kids to “bad” (read: minority-dominated) schools, rather preferring to send them to private schools where the few NAMs have not a shred of lower-class culture.
I do take seriously the idea that businesses who discriminate irrationally (passing over qualified minority candidates) will be at a competitive disadvantage. But this doesn’t matter if certain minority groups are in fact underqualified on average. So rational discrimination could in fact pay.
But given that people already spend a lot of effort avoiding NAMs - in liberals’ case, while maintaining plausible deniability through things like zoning regulations - I would see the trend running somewhat in the direction of greater separation than already exists today. Free markets let people get what they want.
Or even a currently oppressed minority. Racist women, homophobic African Americans, anti-semitic Jews, misogynist transsexuals, immigrant-hating homosexuals… prejudice is a kneejerk reaction, especially when times are tough, and it doesn’t help if you believe you’re a token and lending a hand to anyone else will do you damage.
As for the OP, in areas where people would be willing to risk social suicide by being openly racist (or know that it is no risk at all), I’m sure there are already establishments that are basically ‘No [insert race/gender/sexuality here]’ already, by reputation.
Prejudice is certainly still real. And I think a lot of people would act on it if they were free to do so. In many cases, they probably would not consciously tell themselves, “I’m not going to hire any black people” but when they were making their hiring decisions they would always choose somebody who wasn’t black. And they would probably tell themselves that it was always something other than race that was involved.
Same thing with women or Hispanics or Jews or gays or whatever. They’d just get quietly passed over.
Seeing this, and similar threads I’m really curious about something. If white only is racist, does that mean businesses like Curves, a woman’s only gym, is sexist?
Anymore, they don’t always have to fire people. They simply lay them off. Then, when (or if) business picks up, they pick and choose someone else to “invite” back. It’s harder to prove “bad things” that way. Or, in some cases, long standing employees with good records can either be reassigned to areas they know nothing about (forced incompetence with the accompanying bad appraisal), or they magically and suddenly become “problem people” and get really bad appraisals just before they can retire. Then, there are those states where the employer doesn’t need any reason to can anyone at any time.
Blah. If I think a company is discriminating or doing shitty things, I don’t buy from them. It doesn’t matter to them, but it’s about all I can do about it.
I’m sure a few businesses would start discriminating if they could, but I think it would be a small minority. Most business owners know that a dollar is a dollar, no matter who gives it to you. And if blacks were not allowed, the number of missed sales to black and sympathetic others, would probably damage their bottom line.
Imagine you own a car dealership in a town with 60% white, 20% black and 20% Hispanic and other minority. If you have a ‘whites only’ policy you would alienate 40% of your customers, plus the large number of whites who don’t chose to do business with racists. Cutting your customer base in half is never a wise business move. Most would continue to serve everyone.
Some states allow single-sex private clubs, some don’t. In states where single sex health clubs are prohibited, Curves admits men. In states where single-sex health clubs are permitted, there are separate facilities. So why talk about Curves like it invented single-sex clubs?
If a state wanted to outlaw single sex private clubs, they’d have include men’s only clubs, like, for example, Augusta National. They couldn’t permit men’s only facilities while outlawing women’s only facilities. Apparently, the men of Georgia are comfortable with single sex facilities.
Personally, I think the interest of equality and equal access is more important than being able to exercise when the opposite sex isn’t looking (we all have homes, don’t we?) I don’t know that I’d go so far as to mandate that every gym should have a larger and a smaller version of each machine. It wouldn’t trouble me if a gym wanted to invest in smaller equipment, as Curves has done. But if a man wanted to participate, I’d let him. I’m sure there are men who’d appreciate smaller equipment and the regimented training routine you find in Curves.