How long until it's illegal in the US to discriminate during the hiring process based on education?

2/10

I’m actually serious. If you can’t discriminate based upon age or gender, why can you discriminate based upon education unless the educational requirements are directly applicable to the job?

Again, why can an employer require someone have a masters degree but not specify what field that degree is in? If any old degree will do how is that not a form of inappropriate discrimination just as it would be to require that someone is white when the work has nothing to do with being white?

Discrimination of another kind wrote:

I’m actually serious. If you can’t discriminate based upon age or gender, why can you discriminate based upon education unless the educational requirements are directly applicable to the job?

Again, why can an employer require someone have a masters degree but not specify what field that degree is in? If any old degree will do how is that not a form of inappropriate discrimination just as it would be to require that someone is white when the work has nothing to do with being white?

Companies (rightfully) have broad authority to decide what qualifications they seek in applicants. An employer might not always set perfect standards, but the government is in an even worse position than an employer to determine what qualifications are relevant and which qualifications are not.

I might require a college degree for a position simply because the employee will have to interact with educated clients, and I believe that a person with a college education will be more able to form those relationships. Maybe I'm right; maybe I'm wrong, but there's no reason that the government's judgement should be substituted for my own.

Discrimination of another kind wrote:

Again, why can an employer require someone have a masters degree but not specify what field that degree is in? If any old degree will do how is that not a form of inappropriate discrimination just as it would be to require that someone is white when the work has nothing to do with being white?

The OP is actually a decent argument, with a few flaws. That being said, this right here is an awful analogy that can't be applied directly to the issue at hand.

Also, I suspect they want someone that has shown they can work hard and focus with a goal in mind. A degree is a simple proof of this.

Actually, the law says there are certain categories like race that you can't use to discriminate in employment. Unless something falls in one of those categories, you can discriminate based on anything or nothing, at least if you're a private employer. If a private university wants to require a masters degree it's free to do so. Maybe it's dumb to require a qualification that won't be used, but employers are free to be dumb if they want to be.

The assumption you make in your example is that those without a degree are uneducated, although of course i understand it’s just a quick example. If most of a companies clients are white Christian men is it ok to post a job description with the same characteristics being one of the requirements?

I can use my own judgement wrote:

Companies (rightfully) have broad authority to decide what qualifications they seek in applicants. An employer might not always set perfect standards, but the government is in an even worse position than an employer to determine what qualifications are relevant and which qualifications are not.

I might require a college degree for a position simply because the employee will have to interact with educated clients, and I believe that a person with a college education will be more able to form those relationships. Maybe I'm right; maybe I'm wrong, but there's no reason that the government's judgement should be substituted for my own.

Could you explain why this is such a poor analogy and maybe offer up a better one? I’m not disagreeing with either of you but am curious as to why you think this is.

Good question, but wrote:

Discrimination of another kind wrote:

Again, why can an employer require someone have a masters degree but not specify what field that degree is in? If any old degree will do how is that not a form of inappropriate discrimination just as it would be to require that someone is white when the work has nothing to do with being white?

The OP is actually a decent argument, with a few flaws. That being said, this right here is an awful analogy that can't be applied directly to the issue at hand.

Also, I suspect they want someone that has shown they can work hard and focus with a goal in mind. A degree is a simple proof of this.

I understand there are laws against some forms of discrimination, but not others, which is why i was asking how long it will be until requiring a formally accredited education becomes illegal discrimination.

Free to be a dummy wrote:

Actually, the law says there are certain categories like race that you can't use to discriminate in employment. Unless something falls in one of those categories, you can discriminate based on anything or nothing, at least if you're a private employer. If a private university wants to require a masters degree it's free to do so. Maybe it's dumb to require a qualification that won't be used, but employers are free to be dumb if they want to be.

Discrimination of another kind wrote:

I understand there are laws against some forms of discrimination, but not others, which is why i was asking how long it will be until requiring a formally accredited education becomes illegal discrimination.

500 years.

We don't have that problem here in the USA, look at the "C", "worst student ever" who is our President.

I think that the government should mandate an open application process for all who want to apply. In fact, they should be required to select their employees based on a lottery system from anyone who wants to apply. This is only fair. Companies have been built on the mail room to the boardroom employee and everyone should have that opportunity. Merit based hiring is discriminatory and borderline racist.

discrimination of another kind wrote:

Employers supposedly can't discriminate based upon religion, race, gender or age, but they are allowed to discriminate based upon level of education even if the education required to get the job has nothing to do with the job itself.

I sincerely think the way things are going in the US this will not be legal at some point in the future. I can see why as well: you either know how to get the job done or you don't, right?

Case in point: small Christian college that requires their jumps coach to have at least a masters degree, although what they have a degree in absolutely does not matter so long as they have one.

https://olivet.csod.com/ats/careersite/JobDetails.aspx?site=4&id=153

The NFL is currently practicing education discrimination. Some of us who participated in both high school and college track & field know that some athletes reach their sprinter speed peak in their teens. Maurice Clarett took his case to US Federal Courts. He lost. He was the wrong person to take education discrimination case to US Supremes. NFL mandates all future NFL players have at least three years of college. Some athletes, especially star tailbacks are ground into hamburger during their college years. Eg. Billy Sims, Adrian Peterson, Bo Jackson, Herschel Walker, Earl Campbell, I could go on.

run with the wom wrote:

We don't have that problem here in the USA, look at the "C", "worst student ever" who is our President.

Is it still any time between the dates of Jan 20th, 2001 and Jan 19th 2017??? If it is, you are definitely correct.

This is interesting. Are they really trying to ensure that these young men have 3 years of college experience before playing in the NFL so that they have actual college experience or is this so that young talents won't get crippled playing against men in the NFL? Basically it's age discrimination, but they have to classify it as something else since that's supposedly illegal? What if someone like Usain Bolt had the ability and desire to play in the NFL? Would he have to go to college for 3 years first or is there an age exception?

There is no requirement to play in college or even to ever enroll in college.

3 years removed from HS is different than 3 years of college. I believe this may be a protective measure so that men who may have years of time doing androgens will not permanently damage some kid coming out of HS.

It’s age discrimination, but i can see the validity in looking out for their health if that’s why they do it. It likely has more to do with money though.

Maurice Clear It! wrote:

This is interesting. Are they really trying to ensure that these young men have 3 years of college experience before playing in the NFL so that they have actual college experience or is this so that young talents won't get crippled playing against men in the NFL? Basically it's age discrimination, but they have to classify it as something else since that's supposedly illegal?

With college football, the NFL gets someone else to pay for an elaborate farm club system vs. MLB, which actually has to pay minor leaguers, club organization, and baseball stadiums. Why would the NFL kill the goose that lays the golden egg and have to pay all of those development costs for itself?

discrimination of another kind wrote:

Employers supposedly can't discriminate based upon religion, race, gender or age, but they are allowed to discriminate based upon level of education even if the education required to get the job has nothing to do with the job itself.

I sincerely think the way things are going in the US this will not be legal at some point in the future. I can see why as well: you either know how to get the job done or you don't, right?

Case in point: small Christian college that requires their jumps coach to have at least a masters degree, although what they have a degree in absolutely does not matter so long as they have one.

https://olivet.csod.com/ats/careersite/JobDetails.aspx?site=4&id=153

From a philosophical standpoint (our laws are based on Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment/classical liberal tenets), the difference between the types of discrimination currently illegal in American hiring practices and discrimination based on education (which, as you note, is entirely legal) is that race, age, gender, etc. are conditions inhering in the person. At least until lately, these were seen as immutable characteristics, so if someone cannot change their age, gender, race, etc. then it is totally unethical to discriminate against them on this basis. As for religion, it is regarded as a sort of moral exemption: Our country was founded upon religious freedom so we can't discriminate against certain religions.

None of these categories have directly to do with professional merit. By contrast, one can argue that one's education/training is an amoral category, that it is highly mutable, and that it directly impacts one's professional merit. Therefore, it is fair game for employment discrimination.