WorldWatcher
Platinum Member
There is no requirement to be an "expert", the reporting requirements are that if a person does not self-identify, then supervisory person can choose one for en employee.
I linked to the EEO reporting requirements. You are so wrapped up about not admitting you are wrong that you ignore the evidence on how EEO reporting is done.
That's not my problem.
You've been proven wrong, you should be a man about it and simply admit your mistake.
>>>>
There is no requirement to be an "expert", the reporting requirements are that if a person does not self-identify, then supervisory person can choose one for en employee.
If I am tring to get a job through Affirmative action program you better have an expert to decide my race or I will sue your ass for everything your company owns. See how that works?
It's against federal law to discriminate in hiring procedures based on race.
If your ancestry is white and you claim black, and the company found out about it, you'd be not hired for falsifying your employment records, then you wouldn't win the case. Lying on employment documents is cause for non-selection or dismissal and has nothing to do with race. You'd loose if you tried to sue, and more than likely the Judge would make you pay the employers court costs and legal fees.
You've been proven wrong, you should be a man about it and simply admit your mistake.
African was not a race in the 60's I have proven that Black or negro would be.
Wrong issue we were talking about. You claimed that people could not self-identify for race/ethnicity, I showed you the EEO requirements that mandated that people self identify, if they choose not to one was chosen for them.
You are now trying to switch the subject that we had gotten into once you were proven wrong.
And you have in no way proven that an native African who came to this country and was handed a form with a fill in the blank would not have but "African".
>>>>
Last edited: