Thanks in large part to the way judges have interpreted employment-discrimination statutes, a pervasive “human resources” industry long ago attached itself to nearly every aspect of American life outside the home. It enlists us all in its elaborate game of litigation-avoidance, demanding of everyone a diligent and circumspect self-censorship during the considerable percentage of our waking hours we spend at work. Many people, it seems, end up internalizing the politically correct dictates of corporate risk-avoidance culture and thereby mistakenly come to believe that all kinds of interesting things the HR Department warns us not to talk about are somehow illegal or even immoral. And so this enervating regime of workplace speech-policing spills out of the office, infecting the broader culture.
American industry and American government spend many billions every year on the economically unproductive pursuit of compliance with the labyrinthine dictates of employment law. Judges and bureaucrats, not legislators, built the labyrinth. The economic loss represented by the expenditures required to navigate it pales in comparison to another unwelcome consequence of modern employment law. More difficult to calculate, but no less real, are the economic and social consequences of converting so many American workplaces from lively engines of innovation and competition into sclerotic bureaucracies whose prime directive is to avoid litigation rather than to achieve excellence.
Very little of this could have been envisioned by the legislators who voted for Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act or Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code. Very little of it is compelled by the text of these laws. Those who lament the suffocating and sterile culture of many modern American places of employment can justifiably direct some of their complaints to the judges and to the executive branch regulators. We did much of this, and we should think about how to undo it.
The two people sitting across from each other in a job interview are flesh-and-blood human beings trying to get to know each other—not performers in a kabuki dance choreographed by the HR Director. Questions will be asked. Someone might even get uncomfortable. Life goes on. Fortunately, this meritless litigation does not.
Justice Blackrock, joined by Justice Young, concurring | “Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center–El Paso v. Loretta K. Flores” | December 31, 2024
RESOURCES
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
Heidelblog
The Heidelblog has been in publication since 2007. It is devoted to recovering the Reformed confession and to helping others discover Reformed theology, piety, and practice.
More by Heidelblog ›
Unfortunately, this sort of behavior has spilled over into some congregations nowadays, as well. I’m familiar with one very sad case where a person’s career with para-church organizations was ruined by the quick over reaction of a group of elders who took the “legal” approach to a situation that involved unproven accusations by having him removed from his post. When the air finally cleared – years later – and he was found to be a victim of a “cancel culture” plot, it was too late. This “legal approach” was contrary to what the scriptures have to say about how someone should be treated in the instance of a “non-legal” issue. Very disappointing.
Fascinating item, Dr. Clark, and thank you for posting. I read the whole court opinion at the link and it’s frankly horrifying, much worse than the excerpt posted.
For people working in corporate environments or major government entities, or perhaps considering whether to take a job offer in one, reading the attached link is a very good idea to see just how much the “Human Resources bureaucracy” has gone far beyond the actual laws in causing a “risk avoidance” approach that has the effect of severely limiting people’s Constitutional rights outside of work.
What the Texas Supreme Court justices don’t state, because it wasn’t relevant to the specific facts of this case involving a public medical school, is that what the government can’t do by official orders, private companies often can accomplish via their HR departments, especially if they are afraid of having to defend themselves against a lawsuit. The practical effect is censorship of conservatives while liberals, who are far more likely to litigate, win by creating a “risk avoidance culture” in which companies fear to offend one side while people on the other side, who have been trained (correctly) to respect order, authority, and private business, quietly leave or submit.
Xlnt, Darrell! I’ve experienced this w/county and state positions here in Cali! I was ‘guaranteed’ a position in Sacto back in the mid 80s, only to experience the head hiring lady (rank New Ager) in an HR interview, which I know was well done in spite of her crystals, prisms, & scary looking wall and desk new age pics & idols as she was wincing, snarling, & glaring wickedly at my simple small silver cross in the middle of my tie!
To this day that was the most obvious & glaring display of Christian ‘hatred’ I’ve experienced in that scenario, & that being throughout my 57 years’ working career. I’ve now been retired for 3 years. I can still see that face & eyes of her hatred in my mind! I can laugh now, but as a young Christian man w/3 young kids-including twins-I can easily state that it was not enjoyable at all!
Praise God from Whom ALL Blessings flow✝️📖
The link is broken.
It might take a second to load. It works for me.