4 ms·

It'll be interesting to see how that pans out. Intellectually, this isn't really any different to affirmative action (enforcing opportunities for long time disc

It'll be interesting to see how that pans out. Intellectually, this isn't really any different to affirmative action (enforcing opportunities for long time discriminated against classes), which has ultimately been approved by the supreme court.

fs2 7y ago
Except this is not about enforcing opportunities for a certain group but to prevent a group certain privileges based on their skin color and sexual orientation. Discrimination is not right because you think you have the right motives, the law is also very clear about this.
- jjoonathan 7y ago
  Doesn't federal contracting explicitly favor people on the basis of being female / minority / veteran? It always seems that the people who make the rules get to break the rules, so long as they can string together a plausible argument, which is a very low bar.
djohnston 7y ago
I think the core difference is that AA is supportive, whereas this measure is punitive. Since we're all dealing w finite resources you could argue they're the same but it doesn't seem as easy an argument.
- thu2111 7y ago
  AA is the same thing, surely. Creating opportunities for people based on some identity characteristic is invariably the same thing as denying those opportunities to others - resources, positions, and opportunities are in the instant zero sum games (not in the long run, but decisions on how to allocate opportunities aren't made over the long run but in the moment).
- corporate_shi11 7y ago
  Imagine if I owned a country club and it came out that I'm preferentially choosing people of one race over another, say actively excluding black people. How do you think that would be received? That's literally what affirmative action is.
  - notacoward 7y ago
    > That's literally what affirmative action is. No, it's not. Affirmative action does not prevent any company from hiring any white/male/etc. people. All it does is preclude them from hiring only such people when there are qualified minority applicants. Equating a preference (even a mandatory one) to a total exclusion is specious, as is equating situations with and without specific ability-to-perform requirements. It's a false analogy.
    - corporate_shi11 7y ago
      In my post I said "preferentially choosing people of one race over another". Sure the hypothetical Country Club lets in some blacks, but it really sets a much higher bar for them. It sets a lower bar for other races. That is affirmative action. Don't believe it? Look at the data unearthed from admissions data provided during the Harvard AA lawsuit. Asians must pass a much higher bar than certain other groups. The question is, if it's not ok for the Country Club, why is it ok for Universities?
      - notacoward 7y ago
        You also said "excluding black people". Don't gaslight.
        corporate_shi11 7y ago
        Not trying to gaslight, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. In this hypothetical we're not excluding all, just some. The point stands and it is revealing.
mlrtime 7y ago
There is a difference, Harvard (a private institution) enacted an affirmative action policy and was sued and won. This is the government FORCING affirmative action and is most likely unconstitutional.
- SamReidHughes 7y ago
  Harvard was also not an employment case (right?). So a different law. Right now as I understand it California and federal laws conflict.
- oarsinsync 7y ago
  A quick google suggests the government has done this before, (Executive Orders 10479, 11246). Admittedly I've done very little reading around the subject, so I'm unsure if it's relevant in this context or not, but figure it's worth adding to the conversation in case it is. Please shoot it down if it's not!

fs2 7y ago

Except this is not about enforcing opportunities for a certain group but to prevent a group certain privileges based on their skin color and sexual orientation. Discrimination is not right because you think you have the right motives, the law is also very clear about this.

jjoonathan 7y ago
Doesn't federal contracting explicitly favor people on the basis of being female / minority / veteran? It always seems that the people who make the rules get to break the rules, so long as they can string together a plausible argument, which is a very low bar.

djohnston 7y ago

I think the core difference is that AA is supportive, whereas this measure is punitive. Since we're all dealing w finite resources you could argue they're the same but it doesn't seem as easy an argument.

thu2111 7y ago
AA is the same thing, surely. Creating opportunities for people based on some identity characteristic is invariably the same thing as denying those opportunities to others - resources, positions, and opportunities are in the instant zero sum games (not in the long run, but decisions on how to allocate opportunities aren't made over the long run but in the moment).
corporate_shi11 7y ago
Imagine if I owned a country club and it came out that I'm preferentially choosing people of one race over another, say actively excluding black people. How do you think that would be received? That's literally what affirmative action is.
- notacoward 7y ago
  > That's literally what affirmative action is. No, it's not. Affirmative action does not prevent any company from hiring any white/male/etc. people. All it does is preclude them from hiring only such people when there are qualified minority applicants. Equating a preference (even a mandatory one) to a total exclusion is specious, as is equating situations with and without specific ability-to-perform requirements. It's a false analogy.
  - corporate_shi11 7y ago
    In my post I said "preferentially choosing people of one race over another". Sure the hypothetical Country Club lets in some blacks, but it really sets a much higher bar for them. It sets a lower bar for other races. That is affirmative action. Don't believe it? Look at the data unearthed from admissions data provided during the Harvard AA lawsuit. Asians must pass a much higher bar than certain other groups. The question is, if it's not ok for the Country Club, why is it ok for Universities?
    - notacoward 7y ago
      You also said "excluding black people". Don't gaslight.
      - corporate_shi11 7y ago
        Not trying to gaslight, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. In this hypothetical we're not excluding all, just some. The point stands and it is revealing.

mlrtime 7y ago

There is a difference, Harvard (a private institution) enacted an affirmative action policy and was sued and won. This is the government FORCING affirmative action and is most likely unconstitutional.

SamReidHughes 7y ago
Harvard was also not an employment case (right?). So a different law. Right now as I understand it California and federal laws conflict.
oarsinsync 7y ago
A quick google suggests the government has done this before, (Executive Orders 10479, 11246). Admittedly I've done very little reading around the subject, so I'm unsure if it's relevant in this context or not, but figure it's worth adding to the conversation in case it is. Please shoot it down if it's not!