3 ms·
>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 appea
by 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 agoIt’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.
- Grustaf 6y agoI would presume that it’s illegal in most countries to have a policy of investing only or mostly in companies led by people with a specific skin colour. In Sweden for example, as far as I know, the only degree of discrimination that is allowed is to prefer one biological/ethnic etc category over another when the candidates are equally good in all other respects.