Your second point shows that you still don't understand the debate. It isn't about employers being racist and intentionally setting out to not hire people of a certain color.
Employers should instead utilize a targeted screening process that takes into consideration the nature of the crime, the time elapsed since the conviction, and the nature of the job held or sought. The EEOC further recommends that employers study recidivism data to determine whether a particular conviction should be considered, rather than rely only on generalized concerns. By way of example, the Guidance states that a 15-year-old misdemeanor conviction for misrepresenting income on a loan application likely would not be sufficient grounds to disqualify an applicant from a customer service job at a bank, unless the employer can demonstrate that there is an increased likelihood for that person, who has been crime-free for more than 10 years, to commit a financial crime.
I don't agree with this method of encouraging companies to hire people with issues on their background check as I think that the guidelines are really cumbersome ~ I also don't think that its as simple of an issue as saying "our government is SO STUPID" or, "hey don't be a criminal if you don't want a bad background check". I can see that there is or could be a valid issue here, but I don't necessarily agree that these new guidelines are the best way to fix it.
The Guidance builds on the EEOC's long-held position that, although Title VII does not protect individuals with criminal records as a class, an employer's reliance on arrest and conviction records in deciding whether to hire or retain employees may result in illegal discrimination based on race and national origin.