Jim Clarke, the mayor of Culver City, is a major supporter of the relatively recent and statewide job-applicant policy banning any mention of a criminal background until late in the process.
The motivation is obvious, and perhaps surprisingly, not shackled by controversy.
For all of the perceived anti-immigrant talk of the last year and a half, the message seems to be that America remains a global leader in giving all persons a second chance, in playing fair at the intersection of one of life’s most nerve-wracking moments.
Curiously, this sealed-lips policy starts as early as with university applicants.
After reviewing the dynamics of this huge change, Mr. Clarke wanted to experiment.
“If I suddenly say to you ‘pink elephant,’” said the mayor, “try not to envision a pink elephant.”
Instantly, he knew he had won.
“You did already, didn’t you?” Mr. Clarke said confidently.
Guilty, as charged.
“The same theory applies here, about criminal backgrounds,” he said. “If you say to someone, ‘Don’t consider that,’ it surely would be.”
That, the mayor concluded, is why the law is a good idea.
Why doesn’t the Mayor and the rest of the esteemed politicians in our city promote a no credit score consideration policy for job applicants? Most city jobs do not require handling funds, yet this is something that is used to assess applicants. If the fallout from 2008 proved anything, it is that the monetization of the credit industry’s services has grown unchecked. How does one prove that a credit score renders an applicant worth less consideration than a felon? Answer that riddle and you will see how political correctness, supporting the higher ups who wrote and promote the bill beats common sense and community values that until recently were part of Culver City’s charm.