4 ms·

I don't think income is a protected class, therefore the government shouldn't care and Harvard could pick and choose based on that freely. Also, it's not a 'rac

by lalos 8y ago

I don't think income is a protected class, therefore the government shouldn't care and Harvard could pick and choose based on that freely. Also, it's not a 'race' to have money so it's not racist.

khrbrt 8y ago
Were you born yesterday?
- dang 8y ago
  Please don't post like this to HN. The idea here is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
jakelazaroff 8y ago
> Also, it's not a 'race' to have money so it's not racist. Wealth and race are highly correlated. See https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/09/14/racial-wealth-inequality-in-the-u-s-is-rampant-infographic/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/09/14/racial... > A new study by Prosperity Now and the Institute for Policy Studies has found that white households in the middle-income quintile own nearly eight times as much wealth as middle-income black earners and ten times as much as middle-income latino earners.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  Does that make every consumer product vendor in existence racially discriminatory? You have to draw the line somewhere.
  - eesmith 8y ago
    I believe jakelazaroff was objecting to lalos' description that "income [isn't] a protected class, therefore the government shouldn't care and Harvard could pick and choose based on that freely." Anti-discrimination laws don't depend only on explicit selection of a primary characteristic, but also disallow discrimination based on secondary characteristics which are correlated with the primary ones. For example, can a company have an anti-beard policy for its employees? The answer is "it depends". There may be legitimate work-related reasons, in which case the company may do so, even if, for example, there is a religious objection from an observant Sikh who lets his hair grow naturally as one of the symbols to profess his faith. On the other hand, if there isn't a legitimate work-related reason then it might be found discriminatory against race. Quoting the example from https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/race_color.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/race_color.cfm : > An employment policy or practice that applies to everyone, regardless of race or color, can be illegal if it has a negative impact on the employment of people of a particular race or color and is not job-related and necessary to the operation of the business. For example, a "no-beard" employment policy that applies to all workers without regard to race may still be unlawful if it is not job-related and has a negative impact on the employment of African-American men (who have a predisposition to a skin condition that causes severe shaving bumps). jakelazaroff's observation isn't simply that wealth is correlated with race and therefore any selection which depends on wealth must necessarily be discrimination based on race. Rather, it is an objection to lalos's incorrect characterization of how US civil rights law works. If someone were to make argument that wealth is correlated with race, and therefore expensive goods are discriminatory, then that may have some merit. However, it does not have legal merit. Companies are allowed to select what goods to offer and the pricing. A store can decide to only offer goods which are primarily used by men, or primarily used by members of a specific religion. Similarly, the law doesn't prevent a store from discrimination based on poverty. Also, this Harvard case isn't related to consumer products, and different sets of laws apply to student admissions, to employees, and to consumers, so your objection doesn't seem that relevant to this topic.
    - whatshisface 8y ago
      The example you gave about shaving bumps is a perfect example, because it has nothing to do with race - a no-beard rule that was unrelated to the business would be equally discriminatory against black and latino people who happened to have that condition. In that case the correlation with race is immaterial. Admittedly the courts have probably made a few mistakes in the past when ruling on this issue.
      - eesmith 8y ago
        A "perfect example" of what? I can interpret what you wrote as being a perfect counter-example to lalos' description, showing it to be incorrect, or a perfect example of how the law is wrong and mistaken. The EEOC guidelines are invariably based on case law to highlight examples. The specific court case is Bradley v. Pizzaco of Nebraska, Inc. The Wikipedia entry for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudofolliculitis_barbae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudofolliculitis_barbae comments that the court "found that Domino's Pizza's no-beard policy created a disparate impact by excluding a quarter of black males from employment but almost no white males." The court case at https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15419717270098274681 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=154197172700982... says "The record shows PFB almost exclusively affects black males. White males, however, rarely suffer from PFB or other skin disorders that make shaving difficult. Medical witnesses for both sides testified that as many as forty-five percent of black males have PFB." The Wikipedia page further adds "Both occur frequently in black men in the military, where it is so common that services often have widely known protocols for management". Your comment about "latino people" appears to be an irrelevant hypothetical. It also muddies the waters as it requires pointing out that "race" and "ethnicity" are (quoting the OMB) "social-political constructs . . . and should not be interpreted as being genetic, biological, or anthropological in nature", that "Black or African American" and "White" are treated as a race category, and 'Hispanic or Latino' is an ethnic category, while all three fall under US Civil Rights law. That's a very long way for me to say that there's nothing about being Latino which makes one more more prone to PFB - black Latinos will have an higher incidence rate than white Latinos. In a very real sense, whatever you answer is irrelevant. Neither EEOC law nor consumer law are the same as the laws regarding enrollment decisions. All I'm trying to show is that lalos' characterization of "protected class" - one which you seem to want to be true - is not a valid interpretation of US case law. Here is another example from the EEOC, if you don't like the shaving one: "since sickle cell anemia predominantly occurs in African Americans, a policy which excludes individuals with sickle cell anemia must be job related and consistent with business necessity". https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/task_reports/best_practices.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/task_reports/best_practices.cfm Here are some more, from https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/race-color.html https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/race-color.html : > Height and Weight: Standards for height and weight sometimes are challenged as having an unlawful adverse impact. For example, a requirement that employees be at least six feet tall might have an adverse impact on Asian Americans due to average height and weight differences, and thus such a requirement would need to be job-related and consistent with business necessity.(152) > Dress: An employer can impose the same dress code on all workers in similar jobs, regardless of their race or ethnicity, as long as the policy was not adopted for discriminatory reasons and is enforced evenhandedly. However, an employer must treat racial or ethnic attire that complies with the dress code the same as other attire that complies with the dress code.(153) For example, Title VII prohibits employers from banning the wearing of traditional Hawaiian dress that complies with the employer’s dress code requirements. > Hair: Employers can impose neutral hairstyle rules – e.g., that hair be neat, clean, and well-groomed – as long as the rules respect racial differences in hair textures and are applied evenhandedly. For example, Title VII prohibits employers from preventing African American women from wearing their hair in a natural, unpermed “afro” style that complies with the neutral hairstyle rule. Title VII also prohibits employers from applying neutral hairstyle rules more restrictively to hairstyles worn by African Americans.(154)
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > Wealth and race are highly correlated. Certainly you understand that correlation does not imply a cause, and it makes absolutely no sense to make racist accusations just because some people are able to buy their way into being admitted to a school. This line of argument, based on shoe-horning baseless accusations of racism with no substance whatsoever, onlu contributes to not take race-based accusations seriously, and that's a major problem because there are clear race-based problems in the US.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    Whether it's correlation or causation doesn't matter: that question can be rephrased as "is there a difference between de facto and de jure discrimination?" and the answer is no. "Accusations of racism" slightly mischaracterizes my argument. I'm not accusing any individual of racism, I'm saying that the college admissions system in many ways privileges white applicants.

by lalos 8y ago

I don't think income is a protected class, therefore the government shouldn't care and Harvard could pick and choose based on that freely. Also, it's not a 'race' to have money so it's not racist.

khrbrt 8y ago

Were you born yesterday?

dang 8y ago
Please don't post like this to HN. The idea here is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

jakelazaroff 8y ago

> Also, it's not a 'race' to have money so it's not racist. Wealth and race are highly correlated. See https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/09/14/racial-wealth-inequality-in-the-u-s-is-rampant-infographic/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/09/14/racial... > A new study by Prosperity Now and the Institute for Policy Studies has found that white households in the middle-income quintile own nearly eight times as much wealth as middle-income black earners and ten times as much as middle-income latino earners.

whatshisface 8y ago
Does that make every consumer product vendor in existence racially discriminatory? You have to draw the line somewhere.
- eesmith 8y ago
  I believe jakelazaroff was objecting to lalos' description that "income [isn't] a protected class, therefore the government shouldn't care and Harvard could pick and choose based on that freely." Anti-discrimination laws don't depend only on explicit selection of a primary characteristic, but also disallow discrimination based on secondary characteristics which are correlated with the primary ones. For example, can a company have an anti-beard policy for its employees? The answer is "it depends". There may be legitimate work-related reasons, in which case the company may do so, even if, for example, there is a religious objection from an observant Sikh who lets his hair grow naturally as one of the symbols to profess his faith. On the other hand, if there isn't a legitimate work-related reason then it might be found discriminatory against race. Quoting the example from https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/race_color.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/race_color.cfm : > An employment policy or practice that applies to everyone, regardless of race or color, can be illegal if it has a negative impact on the employment of people of a particular race or color and is not job-related and necessary to the operation of the business. For example, a "no-beard" employment policy that applies to all workers without regard to race may still be unlawful if it is not job-related and has a negative impact on the employment of African-American men (who have a predisposition to a skin condition that causes severe shaving bumps). jakelazaroff's observation isn't simply that wealth is correlated with race and therefore any selection which depends on wealth must necessarily be discrimination based on race. Rather, it is an objection to lalos's incorrect characterization of how US civil rights law works. If someone were to make argument that wealth is correlated with race, and therefore expensive goods are discriminatory, then that may have some merit. However, it does not have legal merit. Companies are allowed to select what goods to offer and the pricing. A store can decide to only offer goods which are primarily used by men, or primarily used by members of a specific religion. Similarly, the law doesn't prevent a store from discrimination based on poverty. Also, this Harvard case isn't related to consumer products, and different sets of laws apply to student admissions, to employees, and to consumers, so your objection doesn't seem that relevant to this topic.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    The example you gave about shaving bumps is a perfect example, because it has nothing to do with race - a no-beard rule that was unrelated to the business would be equally discriminatory against black and latino people who happened to have that condition. In that case the correlation with race is immaterial. Admittedly the courts have probably made a few mistakes in the past when ruling on this issue.
    - eesmith 8y ago
      A "perfect example" of what? I can interpret what you wrote as being a perfect counter-example to lalos' description, showing it to be incorrect, or a perfect example of how the law is wrong and mistaken. The EEOC guidelines are invariably based on case law to highlight examples. The specific court case is Bradley v. Pizzaco of Nebraska, Inc. The Wikipedia entry for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudofolliculitis_barbae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudofolliculitis_barbae comments that the court "found that Domino's Pizza's no-beard policy created a disparate impact by excluding a quarter of black males from employment but almost no white males." The court case at https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15419717270098274681 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=154197172700982... says "The record shows PFB almost exclusively affects black males. White males, however, rarely suffer from PFB or other skin disorders that make shaving difficult. Medical witnesses for both sides testified that as many as forty-five percent of black males have PFB." The Wikipedia page further adds "Both occur frequently in black men in the military, where it is so common that services often have widely known protocols for management". Your comment about "latino people" appears to be an irrelevant hypothetical. It also muddies the waters as it requires pointing out that "race" and "ethnicity" are (quoting the OMB) "social-political constructs . . . and should not be interpreted as being genetic, biological, or anthropological in nature", that "Black or African American" and "White" are treated as a race category, and 'Hispanic or Latino' is an ethnic category, while all three fall under US Civil Rights law. That's a very long way for me to say that there's nothing about being Latino which makes one more more prone to PFB - black Latinos will have an higher incidence rate than white Latinos. In a very real sense, whatever you answer is irrelevant. Neither EEOC law nor consumer law are the same as the laws regarding enrollment decisions. All I'm trying to show is that lalos' characterization of "protected class" - one which you seem to want to be true - is not a valid interpretation of US case law. Here is another example from the EEOC, if you don't like the shaving one: "since sickle cell anemia predominantly occurs in African Americans, a policy which excludes individuals with sickle cell anemia must be job related and consistent with business necessity". https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/task_reports/best_practices.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/task_reports/best_practices.cfm Here are some more, from https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/race-color.html https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/race-color.html : > Height and Weight: Standards for height and weight sometimes are challenged as having an unlawful adverse impact. For example, a requirement that employees be at least six feet tall might have an adverse impact on Asian Americans due to average height and weight differences, and thus such a requirement would need to be job-related and consistent with business necessity.(152) > Dress: An employer can impose the same dress code on all workers in similar jobs, regardless of their race or ethnicity, as long as the policy was not adopted for discriminatory reasons and is enforced evenhandedly. However, an employer must treat racial or ethnic attire that complies with the dress code the same as other attire that complies with the dress code.(153) For example, Title VII prohibits employers from banning the wearing of traditional Hawaiian dress that complies with the employer’s dress code requirements. > Hair: Employers can impose neutral hairstyle rules – e.g., that hair be neat, clean, and well-groomed – as long as the rules respect racial differences in hair textures and are applied evenhandedly. For example, Title VII prohibits employers from preventing African American women from wearing their hair in a natural, unpermed “afro” style that complies with the neutral hairstyle rule. Title VII also prohibits employers from applying neutral hairstyle rules more restrictively to hairstyles worn by African Americans.(154)
geezerjay 8y ago
> Wealth and race are highly correlated. Certainly you understand that correlation does not imply a cause, and it makes absolutely no sense to make racist accusations just because some people are able to buy their way into being admitted to a school. This line of argument, based on shoe-horning baseless accusations of racism with no substance whatsoever, onlu contributes to not take race-based accusations seriously, and that's a major problem because there are clear race-based problems in the US.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  Whether it's correlation or causation doesn't matter: that question can be rephrased as "is there a difference between de facto and de jure discrimination?" and the answer is no. "Accusations of racism" slightly mischaracterizes my argument. I'm not accusing any individual of racism, I'm saying that the college admissions system in many ways privileges white applicants.