11 ms·

Honest question: is it actually legal is the US to discriminate by race like this, and “invest in black and brown companies”? I thought they ended this in the

Honest question: is it actually legal is the US to discriminate by race like this, and “invest in black and brown companies”? I thought they ended this in the education system (“affirmative action”) because it was illegal?

zpeti 6y ago
Maybe with the democrats winning everything, plus the obvious power tech now has, they don't think there's much risk in actually breaking the law in this. But hey at least they're banning apps that haven't actually been proven to break the law.
- k4c9x 6y ago
  Isn't HBCU funding the exact thing Trump claimed was one of the great things he did for the Black community?
  - blisterpeanuts 6y ago
    He locked in funding over multiple years so that they didn't need to reapply for grants every year.
  - nitsky 6y ago
    From Wikipedia: > Although HBCUs were originally founded to educate black students, their diversity has increased over time. In 2015, students who were either white, Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander, or Native American made up 22% of total enrollment at HBCUs, compared with 15% in 1976.[42]
admiralspoo 6y ago
It doesn't matter if it's illegal, there won't be any consequences from the incoming regime.
- myspy 6y ago
  A regime? Pretty absurd comparison, isn't it?
  - fwn 6y ago
    Not the parent but pretty sure they intended to use "regime" in the other sense, as it fits here much better. > Contemporary academic usage of the term "regime" is broader than popular and journalistic usage, meaning "an intermediate stratum between the government (which makes day-to-day decisions and is easy to alter) and the state (which is a complex bureaucracy tasked with a range of coercive functions)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime Our dead and flagged parent probably thinks that there will be some broader paradigm change in the social justice approach between the Trump and the Biden administration and that the latter will be more supportive on affirmative action. I think that's not particularly controversial.
matthewmacleod 6y ago
You can reasonably assume that a large company such as Apple has done enough due diligence to decide that its actions are broadly legal, particularly given the backdrop of similar projects across the country. It is not the case that "they ended this in the education system", and the reality is quite a complex mix of overlapping rules and systems in different circumstances.
- Grustaf 6y ago
  Of course they did the research, it’s just extremely surprising to me that open racial discrimination is legal, so I wonder if that’s a general thing, or if there’s some special case they’re using. I mean surely it can’t be legal to open a coffee shop and refuse service to some racial groups?
  - matthewmacleod 6y ago
    I would gently suggest then that you take some time to read up on the history of racial discrimination, as well as the efforts that have been taken to stop it and attempt to undo some of the long-lasting damage. Discrimination and the tools to fix the outcomes have been extensively discussed and debated in society for decades, and simplistic comparisons like "but if opened a coffee shop…?" don't add any value.
    - Grustaf 6y ago
      I’m not American, I guess this is all obvious to Americans but to most Europeans it’s pretty baffling. And I’m not sure what the problem with my coffee shop example is, are the rules different for shops than for universities, or why is it irrelevant?
      - matthewmacleod 6y ago
        I'm European, and it's not that hard. Racial discrimination is a longstanding and complex issue, with lots of different factors feeding into the situation that the US now finds itself in – and there are related (but different) situations all over the world. It's worth taking a step back and thinking a bit about the parts that you are missing. Your specific example is simplified to the point of irrelevance. Coffee shops and universities are different places. Denying service to a group based on their characteristics is a different thing from investing in a program targeted at that group. Actions involving underrepresented groups have different impact from the same actions involving majority groups. It's like pointing out that "you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre so freedom of speech doesn't exist!" when in reality the whole situation is way more complex, and simple examples don't have any relevance.
runako 6y ago
More likely what is happening in the investment part of this is something similar to what's happening in the other components of the announcements. Which is investing in geographic areas that typically are not places where white people typically frequent (and which often get shut out of other investment opportunities). Edit: to expand on this a little: if you solicit investment proposals only from businesses headquartered in downtown Detroit, you will get a different makeup of founders than if you only solicit from those within an hour drive of e.g. Sand Hill Road. This is legal. Investing in HBCUs isn't racial discrimination because any student is welcome there. And obviously anyone can go to the Developer Academy in downtown Detroit, but Detroit is obviously an intentional choice. And choosing to invest in "companies with diverse founders" would seem to be more defensible than what the Northern California VCs typically do. Read it as "invest in Black and brown companies also" as opposed to the prevailing standard of "invest in Black and brown companies rarely."
- Grustaf 6y ago
  Sure, that makes sense. Investing in companies based in predominantly black neighborhoods is easy to see that it’s legal. But then announcing you’ll invest in “black businesses” seems questionable. But to your last point, there is no “prevailing standard” to “invest rarely” in black businesses. At least I don’t think many VCs have that as an explicit policy.
  - runako 6y ago
    > But then announcing you’ll invest in “black businesses” seems questionable. Again, read it as investing in "Black businesses also". That's what makes it different than mainstream investing, which invests in "Black businesses rarely, if ever." (And controversial! See other comments here.) > I don’t think many VCs have that as an explicit policy. Search for VCs explicitly saying they look for entrepreneurs who "pattern match" or "look like Mark Zuckerberg" etc. They are as explicit as possible without breaking the law. Regardless of intent, even accidental disparities create gaps that bring opportunities.
    - Grustaf 6y ago
ziaddotcom 6y ago
How is Apple giving 100MM to "invest in Black and Brown companies" discriminating against anyone?
- nitsky 6y ago
  Publicly stating that investments from a fund will only be given to particular racial groups likely meets most people’s definition of “discrimination on the basis of race”.
  - ziaddotcom 6y ago
    Go ahead and say which racial groups that would be against, particularly relative to Apple's total investments in a given year.
    - nitsky 6y ago
      These are the only investments I’m aware of that apple makes that are targeted at particular racial groups. The others are available without racial discrimination. While the racial composition of the recipients may not be in proportion with each race’s representation in the general population, I do not believe that makes them “racist”. In my view, “racism” is when race is made an explicit criterion in decision making, as apple is demonstrating here.
      - ziaddotcom 6y ago
        Are reservations for Native Americans racism by your definition then, since they are explicitly for Native Americans?
        nitsky 6y ago
        No, reservations are not given on the basis of race, they are part of peace treaties negotiated between "countries" such as "the cherokee nation", "the navajo nation", etc. They are no more racist than treaties signed with other nations whose population is mostly one particular race. See wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation
seneca 6y ago
Joe Biden, the president elect, just gave a speech saying "Our priority will be Black, Latino, Asian, and Native American owned small businesses, women-owned businesses..." regarding pandemic recovery. This is a very popular approach with a large cultural group in the US.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- seneca 6y ago
  I think perhaps I'm being downvoted because I failed to provide a source. Here is the speech segment: https://t.co/pIyDuhf5pH https://t.co/pIyDuhf5pH
- KraftKacke 6y ago
  Honest question: Do you think there _is systemic racism and sexism to any extent exceeding discrimination against white men?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Grustaf 6y ago
    Sounds like Biden is definitely planning it, if nothing else.
nablaone 6y ago
Second question is: Do HR departments record employee race?
- bluedino 6y ago
  When you hire a new person in the US, they can self-identify (or refuse to identify) their race. https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo-1-survey/eeo-1-frequently-asked-questions-and-answers https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo-1-survey/eeo-1-frequently...
  - nablaone 6y ago
    Thanks. "No. Self-identification is the preferred method of identifying the race and ethnic information necessary for the EEO-1 report. Employers are required to offer employees the opportunity to use self-identification to complete the EEO-1 report. If an employee declines to self-identify, employment records or observer observation may be used." This will illegal in Europe.
  - Grustaf 6y ago
    This is so crazy for Europeans. If an employer asked you about your race I'm pretty sure you could sue them. Hell it's not even legal to ask your age or sex as far as I know.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
eplanit 6y ago
Creating actual institutional racism is the best cure for perceived institutional racism, I guess.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  Note the OPs use of the word discrimination. Racism and Discrimination are different (but related) concepts. Discrimination is making choices that negatively impact a group based on some criteria. Racism is discrimination plus systemic power imbalances that enforce this discrimination. One can be discriminatory towards the powerful group (e.g. white people in the US for instance), but not racist towards them.
  - eplanit 6y ago
    So one can discriminate against a group, defined by race ("white people in the us"), but you say that's not racist? That's amazing anti-logic (a.k.a. nonsense).
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      You don't see a taxonomical difference between what Apple is doing and policies like redlining and Jim Crow laws? I'm happy to drive to why it is not, as you describe, nonsense if you are willing to have a critical and rational discussion.
  - seneca 6y ago
    > Racism is discrimination plus systemic power imbalances that enforce this discrimination. > One can be discriminatory towards the powerful group (e.g. white people in the US for instance), but not racist towards them. Just for anyone reading this who isn't familiar: this is a radical theory and isn't at all a generally accepted idea.
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      It is an academic and critical view, and not what a layperson understands racism to be. I'll acknowledge that. And it's also a viewpoint that is more commonly held by the political left. I'll grant that too. Describing it as 'radical' is something I'd disagree with.
illuminati1911 6y ago
I think private companies can decide themselves what companies they want to invest in. Whatever the reason is, even outside of US. So I'm pretty sure this is legal. As European (we don't have this racial segregation fetish so please excuse my lack of knowledge on the subject) I'm more interested how they define black and brown companies? What if the company is owned by 3 people, 2 black, 1 white? Will they invest 33% less because the company is partially owned by a person of wrong race? What if it's 50/50? What about muslims? Women? LGBTQ? What if the company is owned by white people, but upper management is fully black? Where do they draw the line?
- runako 6y ago
  This is actually fairly easy. Typically in tech, management and ownership % for white men approach 100% in the limit. So companies will typically count as investing in a minority business all of the edge cases you can think of, because the norm is ~100% white men in positions of power in a company. > if the company is owned by white people, but upper management is fully black This is an intellectual creation that does not exist in the real world as a company that has received institutional capital.
  - Grustaf 6y ago
    Well, would you count Jews as “white” in this context? Because Google, Facebook and Microsoft are all managed and/or mostly owned by Asians and Jews.
    - runako 6y ago
      Jews come in many ethnicities. I would imagine that for example Jews from Ethiopia are not considered "white." But I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
      - Grustaf 6y ago
        The point was that you claimed that close to 100% of businesses were owned and managed by “white men”. Clearly that’s not remotely true.
travisoneill1 6y ago
Yes it is legal with the caveat that it has to be in favor of black, hispanic, or native americans. And that racial discrimination is allowed to extend to much more tangible things like hiring/promotions and university admissions. However, I don't think targeted investment like this is discrimination, though. In this case it is legitimately an undeserved market and potentially a gain for Apple to go after it.
- Grustaf 6y ago
  So there are legally enshrined advantages for certain racial groups? That’s astonishing to hear.
xoa 6y ago
>Honest question: is it actually legal is the US to discriminate by race like this, and “invest in black and brown companies”? Yes. I don't know why this appears to be such a common form of confusion on HN (same principle applies to recent free speech debates too), but you have no right to a private entity's resources. Public resources, those of the government which are backed by force and come from us all, those have strong limits. But private entities are free to invest however they like, or not. Public serving companies do face requirements when it comes to providing general service, and employment to Protected Classes [1]. But when it comes where to actively invest their time or money, the government generally has no role to play except in the civil enforcement sense, though society of course always does. >I thought they ended this in the education system (“affirmative action”) because it was illegal? Actually that's still an ongoing debate, but that aside "the education system" almost always means "the public education system", including any institutions that are nominally private but depend significantly on federal grants or loans. Taking money often comes with strings attached, and public institutions are often quasi-government legally. Public universities are bound by the 1st Amendment for example in ways that private ones are not. Apple is in no way a public institution. Also, again investment and their own speech is not the same as "providing service". ---- 1: These are specific things under US federal law, and states are free to have additional requirements for local businesses as well. The federal ones are: Age (40+), Disability status, Familial status, Genetic information, National origin, Pregnancy, Race, Religion, Sex, Sexual orientation & gender identity, and Veteran status. Most of these come directly or indirectly from the Civil Rights Act of 1964, though there have been later laws for some (genetic information being added was sometime in the 2000s).
- Grustaf 6y ago
  It’s probably confusing because it seems absurd, in how many western democracies is it legal to discriminate based on race?
  - xoa 6y ago
    >It’s probably confusing because it seems absurd, in how many western democracies is it legal to discriminate based on race? In how many is it not? Not sarcasm at all, I haven't studied law much outside of the US and I'm genuinely curious where you have in mind that you or I could look at our investment portfolio and go "I think re-weighting to have some more minority managed companies would yield improved gains" and that would be illegal. I doubt it'd actually be a good investment strategy sure, but a crime? Public accommodations law and protections for employment and so on are all quite common, but in what western democracies are you required by law to donate or invest money with the same restrictions government would face? Not saying they aren't out there or that I can't imagine some reasoning that would lead to such laws, just wondering where and how that's worked out.
KraftKacke 6y ago
"White" isn't a race. There is no such thing as biological races [1]. Discrimination against "black" people happens on the basis of legacy concepts of "race". There is no discrimination in absence of access/power differences. (Yes, some "black" people don't get the race part either. And yes, some of them are dicks. And yes, Twitter sucks.) 1: https://www.uni-jena.de/en/190910_JenaerErklaerung_EN https://www.uni-jena.de/en/190910_JenaerErklaerung_EN
- Grustaf 6y ago
  Americans love talking about “white” and “race”, but just substitute “irish american” or any ethnicity you want. It still surprising that it’s allowed.
  - KraftKacke 6y ago
    And you think it may be just a translation problem... But then you see this comment section and they actually mean it in a sense of biological essentialism. Figure, how much you have to unpack in every damn discussion... I would shoot myself twice, every day. Da ist der Wurm drin.

zpeti 6y ago

Maybe with the democrats winning everything, plus the obvious power tech now has, they don't think there's much risk in actually breaking the law in this. But hey at least they're banning apps that haven't actually been proven to break the law.

k4c9x 6y ago
Isn't HBCU funding the exact thing Trump claimed was one of the great things he did for the Black community?
- blisterpeanuts 6y ago
  He locked in funding over multiple years so that they didn't need to reapply for grants every year.
- nitsky 6y ago
  From Wikipedia: > Although HBCUs were originally founded to educate black students, their diversity has increased over time. In 2015, students who were either white, Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander, or Native American made up 22% of total enrollment at HBCUs, compared with 15% in 1976.[42]

admiralspoo 6y ago

It doesn't matter if it's illegal, there won't be any consequences from the incoming regime.

myspy 6y ago
A regime? Pretty absurd comparison, isn't it?
- fwn 6y ago
  Not the parent but pretty sure they intended to use "regime" in the other sense, as it fits here much better. > Contemporary academic usage of the term "regime" is broader than popular and journalistic usage, meaning "an intermediate stratum between the government (which makes day-to-day decisions and is easy to alter) and the state (which is a complex bureaucracy tasked with a range of coercive functions)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime Our dead and flagged parent probably thinks that there will be some broader paradigm change in the social justice approach between the Trump and the Biden administration and that the latter will be more supportive on affirmative action. I think that's not particularly controversial.

matthewmacleod 6y ago

You can reasonably assume that a large company such as Apple has done enough due diligence to decide that its actions are broadly legal, particularly given the backdrop of similar projects across the country. It is not the case that "they ended this in the education system", and the reality is quite a complex mix of overlapping rules and systems in different circumstances.

Grustaf 6y ago
Of course they did the research, it’s just extremely surprising to me that open racial discrimination is legal, so I wonder if that’s a general thing, or if there’s some special case they’re using. I mean surely it can’t be legal to open a coffee shop and refuse service to some racial groups?
- matthewmacleod 6y ago
  I would gently suggest then that you take some time to read up on the history of racial discrimination, as well as the efforts that have been taken to stop it and attempt to undo some of the long-lasting damage. Discrimination and the tools to fix the outcomes have been extensively discussed and debated in society for decades, and simplistic comparisons like "but if opened a coffee shop…?" don't add any value.
  - Grustaf 6y ago
    I’m not American, I guess this is all obvious to Americans but to most Europeans it’s pretty baffling. And I’m not sure what the problem with my coffee shop example is, are the rules different for shops than for universities, or why is it irrelevant?
    - matthewmacleod 6y ago
      I'm European, and it's not that hard. Racial discrimination is a longstanding and complex issue, with lots of different factors feeding into the situation that the US now finds itself in – and there are related (but different) situations all over the world. It's worth taking a step back and thinking a bit about the parts that you are missing. Your specific example is simplified to the point of irrelevance. Coffee shops and universities are different places. Denying service to a group based on their characteristics is a different thing from investing in a program targeted at that group. Actions involving underrepresented groups have different impact from the same actions involving majority groups. It's like pointing out that "you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre so freedom of speech doesn't exist!" when in reality the whole situation is way more complex, and simple examples don't have any relevance.

runako 6y ago

More likely what is happening in the investment part of this is something similar to what's happening in the other components of the announcements. Which is investing in geographic areas that typically are not places where white people typically frequent (and which often get shut out of other investment opportunities). Edit: to expand on this a little: if you solicit investment proposals only from businesses headquartered in downtown Detroit, you will get a different makeup of founders than if you only solicit from those within an hour drive of e.g. Sand Hill Road. This is legal. Investing in HBCUs isn't racial discrimination because any student is welcome there. And obviously anyone can go to the Developer Academy in downtown Detroit, but Detroit is obviously an intentional choice. And choosing to invest in "companies with diverse founders" would seem to be more defensible than what the Northern California VCs typically do. Read it as "invest in Black and brown companies also" as opposed to the prevailing standard of "invest in Black and brown companies rarely."

Grustaf 6y ago
Sure, that makes sense. Investing in companies based in predominantly black neighborhoods is easy to see that it’s legal. But then announcing you’ll invest in “black businesses” seems questionable. But to your last point, there is no “prevailing standard” to “invest rarely” in black businesses. At least I don’t think many VCs have that as an explicit policy.
- runako 6y ago
  > But then announcing you’ll invest in “black businesses” seems questionable. Again, read it as investing in "Black businesses also". That's what makes it different than mainstream investing, which invests in "Black businesses rarely, if ever." (And controversial! See other comments here.) > I don’t think many VCs have that as an explicit policy. Search for VCs explicitly saying they look for entrepreneurs who "pattern match" or "look like Mark Zuckerberg" etc. They are as explicit as possible without breaking the law. Regardless of intent, even accidental disparities create gaps that bring opportunities.
  - Grustaf 6y ago

ziaddotcom 6y ago

How is Apple giving 100MM to "invest in Black and Brown companies" discriminating against anyone?

nitsky 6y ago
Publicly stating that investments from a fund will only be given to particular racial groups likely meets most people’s definition of “discrimination on the basis of race”.
- ziaddotcom 6y ago
  Go ahead and say which racial groups that would be against, particularly relative to Apple's total investments in a given year.
  - nitsky 6y ago
    These are the only investments I’m aware of that apple makes that are targeted at particular racial groups. The others are available without racial discrimination. While the racial composition of the recipients may not be in proportion with each race’s representation in the general population, I do not believe that makes them “racist”. In my view, “racism” is when race is made an explicit criterion in decision making, as apple is demonstrating here.
    - ziaddotcom 6y ago
      Are reservations for Native Americans racism by your definition then, since they are explicitly for Native Americans?
      - nitsky 6y ago
        No, reservations are not given on the basis of race, they are part of peace treaties negotiated between "countries" such as "the cherokee nation", "the navajo nation", etc. They are no more racist than treaties signed with other nations whose population is mostly one particular race. See wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation

seneca 6y ago

Joe Biden, the president elect, just gave a speech saying "Our priority will be Black, Latino, Asian, and Native American owned small businesses, women-owned businesses..." regarding pandemic recovery. This is a very popular approach with a large cultural group in the US.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
seneca 6y ago
I think perhaps I'm being downvoted because I failed to provide a source. Here is the speech segment: https://t.co/pIyDuhf5pH https://t.co/pIyDuhf5pH
KraftKacke 6y ago
Honest question: Do you think there _is systemic racism and sexism to any extent exceeding discrimination against white men?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Grustaf 6y ago
  Sounds like Biden is definitely planning it, if nothing else.

nablaone 6y ago

Second question is: Do HR departments record employee race?

bluedino 6y ago
When you hire a new person in the US, they can self-identify (or refuse to identify) their race. https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo-1-survey/eeo-1-frequently-asked-questions-and-answers https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo-1-survey/eeo-1-frequently...
- nablaone 6y ago
  Thanks. "No. Self-identification is the preferred method of identifying the race and ethnic information necessary for the EEO-1 report. Employers are required to offer employees the opportunity to use self-identification to complete the EEO-1 report. If an employee declines to self-identify, employment records or observer observation may be used." This will illegal in Europe.
- Grustaf 6y ago
  This is so crazy for Europeans. If an employer asked you about your race I'm pretty sure you could sue them. Hell it's not even legal to ask your age or sex as far as I know.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

eplanit 6y ago

Creating actual institutional racism is the best cure for perceived institutional racism, I guess.

Pfhreak 6y ago
Note the OPs use of the word discrimination. Racism and Discrimination are different (but related) concepts. Discrimination is making choices that negatively impact a group based on some criteria. Racism is discrimination plus systemic power imbalances that enforce this discrimination. One can be discriminatory towards the powerful group (e.g. white people in the US for instance), but not racist towards them.
- eplanit 6y ago
  So one can discriminate against a group, defined by race ("white people in the us"), but you say that's not racist? That's amazing anti-logic (a.k.a. nonsense).
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    You don't see a taxonomical difference between what Apple is doing and policies like redlining and Jim Crow laws? I'm happy to drive to why it is not, as you describe, nonsense if you are willing to have a critical and rational discussion.
- seneca 6y ago
  > Racism is discrimination plus systemic power imbalances that enforce this discrimination. > One can be discriminatory towards the powerful group (e.g. white people in the US for instance), but not racist towards them. Just for anyone reading this who isn't familiar: this is a radical theory and isn't at all a generally accepted idea.
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    It is an academic and critical view, and not what a layperson understands racism to be. I'll acknowledge that. And it's also a viewpoint that is more commonly held by the political left. I'll grant that too. Describing it as 'radical' is something I'd disagree with.

illuminati1911 6y ago

I think private companies can decide themselves what companies they want to invest in. Whatever the reason is, even outside of US. So I'm pretty sure this is legal. As European (we don't have this racial segregation fetish so please excuse my lack of knowledge on the subject) I'm more interested how they define black and brown companies? What if the company is owned by 3 people, 2 black, 1 white? Will they invest 33% less because the company is partially owned by a person of wrong race? What if it's 50/50? What about muslims? Women? LGBTQ? What if the company is owned by white people, but upper management is fully black? Where do they draw the line?

runako 6y ago
This is actually fairly easy. Typically in tech, management and ownership % for white men approach 100% in the limit. So companies will typically count as investing in a minority business all of the edge cases you can think of, because the norm is ~100% white men in positions of power in a company. > if the company is owned by white people, but upper management is fully black This is an intellectual creation that does not exist in the real world as a company that has received institutional capital.
- Grustaf 6y ago
  Well, would you count Jews as “white” in this context? Because Google, Facebook and Microsoft are all managed and/or mostly owned by Asians and Jews.
  - runako 6y ago
    Jews come in many ethnicities. I would imagine that for example Jews from Ethiopia are not considered "white." But I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
    - Grustaf 6y ago
      The point was that you claimed that close to 100% of businesses were owned and managed by “white men”. Clearly that’s not remotely true.

travisoneill1 6y ago

Yes it is legal with the caveat that it has to be in favor of black, hispanic, or native americans. And that racial discrimination is allowed to extend to much more tangible things like hiring/promotions and university admissions. However, I don't think targeted investment like this is discrimination, though. In this case it is legitimately an undeserved market and potentially a gain for Apple to go after it.

Grustaf 6y ago
So there are legally enshrined advantages for certain racial groups? That’s astonishing to hear.

xoa 6y ago

>Honest question: is it actually legal is the US to discriminate by race like this, and “invest in black and brown companies”? Yes. I don't know why this appears to be such a common form of confusion on HN (same principle applies to recent free speech debates too), but you have no right to a private entity's resources. Public resources, those of the government which are backed by force and come from us all, those have strong limits. But private entities are free to invest however they like, or not. Public serving companies do face requirements when it comes to providing general service, and employment to Protected Classes [1]. But when it comes where to actively invest their time or money, the government generally has no role to play except in the civil enforcement sense, though society of course always does. >I thought they ended this in the education system (“affirmative action”) because it was illegal? Actually that's still an ongoing debate, but that aside "the education system" almost always means "the public education system", including any institutions that are nominally private but depend significantly on federal grants or loans. Taking money often comes with strings attached, and public institutions are often quasi-government legally. Public universities are bound by the 1st Amendment for example in ways that private ones are not. Apple is in no way a public institution. Also, again investment and their own speech is not the same as "providing service". ---- 1: These are specific things under US federal law, and states are free to have additional requirements for local businesses as well. The federal ones are: Age (40+), Disability status, Familial status, Genetic information, National origin, Pregnancy, Race, Religion, Sex, Sexual orientation & gender identity, and Veteran status. Most of these come directly or indirectly from the Civil Rights Act of 1964, though there have been later laws for some (genetic information being added was sometime in the 2000s).

Grustaf 6y ago
It’s probably confusing because it seems absurd, in how many western democracies is it legal to discriminate based on race?
- xoa 6y ago
  >It’s probably confusing because it seems absurd, in how many western democracies is it legal to discriminate based on race? In how many is it not? Not sarcasm at all, I haven't studied law much outside of the US and I'm genuinely curious where you have in mind that you or I could look at our investment portfolio and go "I think re-weighting to have some more minority managed companies would yield improved gains" and that would be illegal. I doubt it'd actually be a good investment strategy sure, but a crime? Public accommodations law and protections for employment and so on are all quite common, but in what western democracies are you required by law to donate or invest money with the same restrictions government would face? Not saying they aren't out there or that I can't imagine some reasoning that would lead to such laws, just wondering where and how that's worked out.

KraftKacke 6y ago

"White" isn't a race. There is no such thing as biological races [1]. Discrimination against "black" people happens on the basis of legacy concepts of "race". There is no discrimination in absence of access/power differences. (Yes, some "black" people don't get the race part either. And yes, some of them are dicks. And yes, Twitter sucks.) 1: https://www.uni-jena.de/en/190910_JenaerErklaerung_EN https://www.uni-jena.de/en/190910_JenaerErklaerung_EN

Grustaf 6y ago
Americans love talking about “white” and “race”, but just substitute “irish american” or any ethnicity you want. It still surprising that it’s allowed.
- KraftKacke 6y ago
  And you think it may be just a translation problem... But then you see this comment section and they actually mean it in a sense of biological essentialism. Figure, how much you have to unpack in every damn discussion... I would shoot myself twice, every day. Da ist der Wurm drin.