Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> writes:

>   One of them is "innocent until proven guilty". If the basic assumption
> is that "if an employer doesn't hire enough members of a minority group,
> it's probably discrimination" that's an assumption of guilt by default,
> which is the completely opposite to what it should be.
>
>   The accuser (in this case the government imposing the quotas) has the
> burden of proof, not the accused (in this case the employer). That's
> judicial procedure 101. It doesn't matter what statistics may say. You
> can't go making guilty-by-default assumptions.

When I worked for the government I was not allowed to be involved in
decision making for projects if a relative was bidding on the contract
being offered.

Then when I worked for the private sector, I still couldn't.

Government regulators (e.g. those that regulate medicine, or media, etc)
are often forbidden from taking money or gifts from the folks they are
regulating.

Don't you think that's unfair? Shouldn't I get in trouble only if they
prove that these things influenced my decisions?

Post a reply to this message