So yesterday, State Rep. People Pourier was out on Facebook doing some hiring. And made a statement that’s catching some by surprise:
– Outgoing & comfortable speaking to strangers
– Native preference
– Located in Pine Ridge Reservation or Rapid City
In most cases, talking about race in hiring is going to end you up in a civil rights lawsuit, or being pursued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
But in this case, the answer is a little more complicated, and the Federal Government actually provides for a carve out to allow a racially based preference in some instances. According to the EEOC:
Section 703(i) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(i)(1982), provides an exception to Title VII’s general nondiscrimination principles allowing certain employers under certain circumstances to exercise an employment preference in favor of American Indians.(1) That section provides as follows:
Nothing contained in this title shall apply to any business or enterprise on or near an Indian reservation with respect to any publicly announced employment practice of such business or enterprise under which a preferential treatment is given to any individual because he is an Indian living on or near a reservation.
The statutory language makes it clear that an employer seeking to avail itself of the Indian preference exception must meet three conditions: (1) the employer must be located on or near an Indian reservation, (2) the employer’s preference for Indians must be publicly announced, and (3) the individual to whom preferential treatment is accorded must be an Indian living on or near a reservation. Neither Section 703(i) nor any other section of the Act, however, defines the terms “Indian reservation” or “near.”
So.. The civil rights act allows “preferential treatment” if an is “an Indian living on or near a reservation.” That’s pretty clear. Ok.. but is Rapid City near for employment purposes under the act?
If you dig into it, in their Q&A, the US Department of Labor also talks about the topic, noting..
My company has facilities across the United States in areas with a large American Indian or Alaska Native population, but these facilities are not near an Indian reservation. Can the company still extend an Indian preference in employment?
No, contractors may extend a publicly announced Indian preference only for employment opportunities on or near an Indian reservation
Pine Ridge would clearly meet what’s allowed in Federal regulations as near.. But.. is Rapid City considered “near?” Well, that’s a good question. Here’s where it gets murky.
The EEOC gives some guidance but stops short of drawing a hard and fast line on what “near” means. And if you read it, it also discusses what a reasonable commute is for these purposes. Seems like these are the things that generate at least a moderate amount of debate.
At the very least, with a sitting state legislator offering racially based preferential hiring for a statewide ballot measure, there’s a good chance that others with far more knowledge on the topic may take a deeper look at the nuances of what is and what is not allowed.
It’s difficult to pin down race/ism.
But preference based on heritage is clearly bigoted.
I love and revere the Lakota, but I yearn for meritocracy.
Maybe a smarter way to word it is, “someone with keep sensibilities for Native ways and culture”, which would qualify Natives by default, assuming that’s what’s needed; a way to interface productively with the tribes.