4 ms·

> In New York, for example, only 42 percent of African Americans of all ages (and 49 percent among adults) are fully vaccinated — the lowest rate among all demo

> In New York, for example, only 42 percent of African Americans of all ages (and 49 percent among adults) are fully vaccinated — the lowest rate among all demographic groups tracked by the city. Aren't all New York businesses supposed to be checking people for vaccination status? Given that African Americans are the demographic with the lowest vaccination rates, doesn't that policy disproportionately affect them? I thought we weren't supposed to implement systems like that anymore.

acdha 5y ago
It’s the difference between your restaurant asking everyone their status versus only asking Black people because they’re statistically more likely to be at risk. Policies which are evenly applied and based on a clear public health benefit aren’t the problem.
- listless 5y ago
  But the new wisdom is that any policy which disproportionately affects a certain group is racist. That’s the actual definition of anti-racism. https://cssp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Principles-for-Anti-Racist-Policymaking.pdf https://cssp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Principles-for-A...
  - bellyfullofbac 5y ago
    See my reply to grandparent post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28878048 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28878048 So if I make a males only club, is it also racist? Nah, that's sexist. Anyone can remove themselves from being negatively affected by this policy, by getting a vaccination. Calling it racist is just misapplying logic.
    - listless 5y ago
      That’s not how the logic is deployed though. The systemic injustices must be taken into account. Tuskegee would be applicable here.
      - bellyfullofbac 5y ago
        I'd ask you to elaborate on what you mean by each of your sentences, but I feel like I'm being trolled...
  - acdha 5y ago
    > But the new wisdom is that any policy which disproportionately affects a certain group is racist. That doesn't sound like an accurate interpretation of that document. Here's the non-strawman version: > Policies that are purported to be “color-blind” or “race-neutral” have all too frequently been designed to benefit White children and families, and harm children and families of color directly and indirectly. … > In the past, public policy has too often been siloed, and policies intended to support children have failed to address the larger struggles their families face. Policy has even actively undermined families in the name of protecting children—as we see with the child welfare system, which disproportionately threatens and separates Black and Indigenous children from their loved ones. What that's getting at is the idea that there are many cases where policies did not incorporate an explicit racial check but still produce that outcome. For example, if your city has a magnet school which doesn't have good bus service, it could act as a racial filter if a higher percentage of white families can afford to own cars, even if nobody who set the policy had that goal. That policy would be bad because the filtering effect would be real and isn't relevant to the stated goals of the program — whereas having, say, a height threshold for a basketball team is pretty reasonable because that's directly linked to performance, whereas it wouldn't make much sense for, say, a biathlon team. In the context of that article, this is a notorious problem in the child welfare system where you have major events based on subjective judgements about the quality and safety of the home environment or the ability of families to provide for a child. It doesn't need to have a “Is this person black?” question on a form to still have negative outcomes if there are subjective factors like predominantly white middle-class caseworkers feeling less safe in a poor majority-black neighborhood and that influencing their assessments. That's what they're talking about when they say that polices must recognize how these different factors intersect — it's awareness, not an absolute, and it's an attempt to correct for the way data-driven decisions can still be skewed by societal biases. Going back to this discussion, as I explained the difference is that the policy is clearly linked to a simple, neutral objective (everyone gets sick, nobody wants to) and the way to comply with it is easily available to everyone at no cost. That's not racist because it's not based on fixed attributes which people cannot change and there's no significant barrier to compliance. In contrast, a policy which, say, said people who are at elevated risk of sickle cell anemia couldn't eat a restaurant would be racist because there's no plausible safety justification for such a policy, everyone would know why that one “objective” factor was selected, and there's nothing which an affected person could do change to comply with the policy.
aynyc 5y ago
Only restaurants are checking the status for dine-in. Shops don't.
bellyfullofbac 5y ago
Your argument is really disingenous, you're trying to imply the policy is racist due to the fact it'll affect more African Americans. Well, if the policy was aimed at a property a particular group can't change or easily change (e.g. entry to the club only if your income is higher than $100K, or your postcode is X (where X = the white area of town)), then it is discriminatory. But here the choice to be admitted or not is easily changed by any individual, by choosing to be vaccinated or not.

acdha 5y ago

It’s the difference between your restaurant asking everyone their status versus only asking Black people because they’re statistically more likely to be at risk. Policies which are evenly applied and based on a clear public health benefit aren’t the problem.

listless 5y ago
But the new wisdom is that any policy which disproportionately affects a certain group is racist. That’s the actual definition of anti-racism. https://cssp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Principles-for-Anti-Racist-Policymaking.pdf https://cssp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Principles-for-A...
- bellyfullofbac 5y ago
  See my reply to grandparent post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28878048 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28878048 So if I make a males only club, is it also racist? Nah, that's sexist. Anyone can remove themselves from being negatively affected by this policy, by getting a vaccination. Calling it racist is just misapplying logic.
  - listless 5y ago
    That’s not how the logic is deployed though. The systemic injustices must be taken into account. Tuskegee would be applicable here.
    - bellyfullofbac 5y ago
      I'd ask you to elaborate on what you mean by each of your sentences, but I feel like I'm being trolled...
- acdha 5y ago
  > But the new wisdom is that any policy which disproportionately affects a certain group is racist. That doesn't sound like an accurate interpretation of that document. Here's the non-strawman version: > Policies that are purported to be “color-blind” or “race-neutral” have all too frequently been designed to benefit White children and families, and harm children and families of color directly and indirectly. … > In the past, public policy has too often been siloed, and policies intended to support children have failed to address the larger struggles their families face. Policy has even actively undermined families in the name of protecting children—as we see with the child welfare system, which disproportionately threatens and separates Black and Indigenous children from their loved ones. What that's getting at is the idea that there are many cases where policies did not incorporate an explicit racial check but still produce that outcome. For example, if your city has a magnet school which doesn't have good bus service, it could act as a racial filter if a higher percentage of white families can afford to own cars, even if nobody who set the policy had that goal. That policy would be bad because the filtering effect would be real and isn't relevant to the stated goals of the program — whereas having, say, a height threshold for a basketball team is pretty reasonable because that's directly linked to performance, whereas it wouldn't make much sense for, say, a biathlon team. In the context of that article, this is a notorious problem in the child welfare system where you have major events based on subjective judgements about the quality and safety of the home environment or the ability of families to provide for a child. It doesn't need to have a “Is this person black?” question on a form to still have negative outcomes if there are subjective factors like predominantly white middle-class caseworkers feeling less safe in a poor majority-black neighborhood and that influencing their assessments. That's what they're talking about when they say that polices must recognize how these different factors intersect — it's awareness, not an absolute, and it's an attempt to correct for the way data-driven decisions can still be skewed by societal biases. Going back to this discussion, as I explained the difference is that the policy is clearly linked to a simple, neutral objective (everyone gets sick, nobody wants to) and the way to comply with it is easily available to everyone at no cost. That's not racist because it's not based on fixed attributes which people cannot change and there's no significant barrier to compliance. In contrast, a policy which, say, said people who are at elevated risk of sickle cell anemia couldn't eat a restaurant would be racist because there's no plausible safety justification for such a policy, everyone would know why that one “objective” factor was selected, and there's nothing which an affected person could do change to comply with the policy.

aynyc 5y ago

Only restaurants are checking the status for dine-in. Shops don't.

bellyfullofbac 5y ago

Your argument is really disingenous, you're trying to imply the policy is racist due to the fact it'll affect more African Americans. Well, if the policy was aimed at a property a particular group can't change or easily change (e.g. entry to the club only if your income is higher than $100K, or your postcode is X (where X = the white area of town)), then it is discriminatory. But here the choice to be admitted or not is easily changed by any individual, by choosing to be vaccinated or not.