4 ms·

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

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.
- ifyoubuildit 5y ago
  > and there's no significant barrier to compliance Imagine that you have two part time jobs, and you are just barely covering rent and other expenses. If you get vaccinated, you might have to miss a day or two. As a result, your boss might cut your hours or just fire you outright. Is that not a significant barrier? Who would you think is more likely to be in this kind of situation?
  - acdha 5y ago
    Again, you have to look at the odds: that person is far more likely to miss work from getting COVID than getting vaccinated — very few people have significant reactions requiring multiple days off of work — and most employers are allowing leave above the legal minimum. Also, let's not forget the context of this thread: a quote about New York business' vaccination status checks. That person barely getting by working two part-time jobs probably isn't spending their time on the indoor dining, bars, gyms, etc. where that requirement applies: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-vaccines-keytonyc.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-vaccines-keyton... Note also that they required to be allowed up to 8 hours of paid sick leave to get vaccinated: https://portal.311.nyc.gov/article/?kanumber=KA-02909 https://portal.311.nyc.gov/article/?kanumber=KA-02909 So to the extent that there's a genuine concern here, I would think it would make more sense to focus on places which have a combination of a vaccination mandate but not a leave requirement. I would be surprised if that was common since typically the politicians opposed to one of those policies would also oppose the other.
    - ifyoubuildit 5y ago
      > Again, you have to look at the odds: that person is far more likely to miss work from getting COVID than getting vaccinated — very few people have significant reactions requiring multiple days off of work — and most employers are allowing leave above the legal minimum It's not you or I that have to look at the odds though, it's our hypothetical person. Will they make the same calculation we would? The point about mandated sick leave is a good one, definitely helps. > Also, let's not forget the context of this thread: a quote about New York business' vaccination status checks. That person barely getting by working two part-time jobs probably isn't spending their time on the indoor dining, bars, gyms, etc. where that requirement applies: I don't think I can get behind this part. Maybe somebody takes them out on a date once in a while, their friends want to buy them a drink, they need a quick bite on the way to work. Little things that help make that kind of life a little more bearable. We can't just say well they couldn't afford these things anyway, so what does it matter if we don't allow them in.

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.

ifyoubuildit 5y ago
> and there's no significant barrier to compliance Imagine that you have two part time jobs, and you are just barely covering rent and other expenses. If you get vaccinated, you might have to miss a day or two. As a result, your boss might cut your hours or just fire you outright. Is that not a significant barrier? Who would you think is more likely to be in this kind of situation?
- acdha 5y ago
  Again, you have to look at the odds: that person is far more likely to miss work from getting COVID than getting vaccinated — very few people have significant reactions requiring multiple days off of work — and most employers are allowing leave above the legal minimum. Also, let's not forget the context of this thread: a quote about New York business' vaccination status checks. That person barely getting by working two part-time jobs probably isn't spending their time on the indoor dining, bars, gyms, etc. where that requirement applies: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-vaccines-keytonyc.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-vaccines-keyton... Note also that they required to be allowed up to 8 hours of paid sick leave to get vaccinated: https://portal.311.nyc.gov/article/?kanumber=KA-02909 https://portal.311.nyc.gov/article/?kanumber=KA-02909 So to the extent that there's a genuine concern here, I would think it would make more sense to focus on places which have a combination of a vaccination mandate but not a leave requirement. I would be surprised if that was common since typically the politicians opposed to one of those policies would also oppose the other.
  - ifyoubuildit 5y ago
    > Again, you have to look at the odds: that person is far more likely to miss work from getting COVID than getting vaccinated — very few people have significant reactions requiring multiple days off of work — and most employers are allowing leave above the legal minimum It's not you or I that have to look at the odds though, it's our hypothetical person. Will they make the same calculation we would? The point about mandated sick leave is a good one, definitely helps. > Also, let's not forget the context of this thread: a quote about New York business' vaccination status checks. That person barely getting by working two part-time jobs probably isn't spending their time on the indoor dining, bars, gyms, etc. where that requirement applies: I don't think I can get behind this part. Maybe somebody takes them out on a date once in a while, their friends want to buy them a drink, they need a quick bite on the way to work. Little things that help make that kind of life a little more bearable. We can't just say well they couldn't afford these things anyway, so what does it matter if we don't allow them in.