5 ms·

law school grad here--generic white males are not afforded the same protections as protected classes

prepend 4y ago
Not law school grad here but my understanding of protected classes - sex, age, race, religion, national origin, disability, veteran status - is that it’s that particular characteristic, not the values of those classes. I can’t fire someone for being male or female. It’s not ok to fire someone for being male, or white. It’s not like only some religions are protected, while others aren’t. You may want to check into a rebate on that law school tuition.
- pseudo0 4y ago
  You can legally deny an Asian (or white) male's college application on the basis of race though, see Grutter v. Bollinger. The Fourteenth Amendment might be worded in a universal way, but the application of its protection is currently very selective.
themitigating 4y ago
Based on what?
- fallingknife 4y ago
  Based on the rulings of liberal judges. The constitution and civil rights statutes are written in a race neutral way. The judges have refused to enforce the law, and made up their own.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > judges have refused to enforce the law, and made up their own Do you have cases which survived appeal which sustain this? Judges' opinions tend to be way more sober than they're portrayed in the media, which mostly focusses on which side won.
    - Ferrotin 4y ago
      Griggs vs. Duke Power. The CRA explicitly allows testing. It was amended to introduce the word “intentionally.” The courts ignored the text of the bill and the intent of the congressmen who voted for it in developing disparate impact theory.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > Griggs vs. Duke Power. Griggs vs. Duke Power does not, in any way, establish that White males are less protected than anyone else, which was the question. And your rants about it in this post wouldn't make that different even if they were accurate. > The CRA explicitly allows testing. So does Griggs. If, and here Griggs quotes the language of the statute authorizing the use of professionally-developed tests, they are not “designed, intended or used to discriminate because of race. . . .”; and the EEOC had, at the time, under its explicir regulatory authority under the act, specifically allowed only job-related tests. > It was amended to introduce the word “intentionally.” It's a big act, and I am sure that word exists somewhere in it, but nowhere germane to the case. And if it did, you, being the law-school grad you are, would surely quote it in context, and explain the conflict with the ruling in Griggs. > The courts ignored the text of the bill and the intent of the congressmen who voted for it in developing disparate impact theory. No, they didn't, but even if they had, that wouldn't make your case: disparate impact applies equally to discrimination against White candidates as that against blacks.
        Ferrotin 4y ago
        The word “intended” is right there.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > The word “intended” is right there Right before the word "or."
        Ferrotin 4y ago
preordained 4y ago
What the hell is a "generic" white male? Imagine if this was used for other groups...it's messed up
- prepend 4y ago
  As opposed to a brand name white male?
- ikr678 4y ago
  In this context, I read it as the poster emphasising the lack of any other legally protected class attribute (eg disabled).
- I_dev_outdoors 4y ago
  Maybe they meant non-hispanic
- RappingBoomer 4y ago
  um, well, an older white male is not a generic white male because age is a protected classification...a disabled white male is also part of a protected class.
BurningFrog 4y ago
How many people are in the unprotected class? The details depend on the jurisdiction, but I think we're talking about straight cis white able bodied US born men under 40? That minority is maybe 20% of the workforce at most?
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > How many people are in the unprotected class? To not be in any protected class in US labor law, you need to: (1) Not be a veteran. (2) Not have a physical or mental disability. (3) Not be over 40. (4) Have neither a religion nor the absence of one. (5) Not have a race (including White.) (6) Not have a skin color (including any of those typically described as “white” when discussing skin color.) (7) Not have a gender (either gender assigned at birth, perceived gender, or gender identity; including “male” for any one or more of those.) (8) Not have a national origin. (9) Be neither a citizen nor non-citizen. (10) Not have genetic information. There is no one to whom this applies, obviously.
mise_en_place 4y ago
Did you really go to law school? Or do they not teach the Constitution anymore?
- RappingBoomer 4y ago
  magna cum laude
  - mise_en_place 4y ago
    Lol. Then I must be a Rhodes scholar
    - RappingBoomer 4y ago
      I would not bet on it
dragonwriter 4y ago
White males are, by being white males, in two protected classes under the 14th Amendment as well as virtually all domains with statutory anti-discrimination laws. Heck, the cass that established gender as a protected characteristic under the 14th Amendment, subject to intermediate scrutiny rather than merely the rational basis test that is the minimum for any legal distinction, was brought by male plaintiffs against a state law placing higher minimum age limits for men in a law controlling alcohol purchases. Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976).

Not law school grad here but my understanding of protected classes - sex, age, race, religion, national origin, disability, veteran status - is that it’s that particular characteristic, not the values of those classes. I can’t fire someone for being male or female. It’s not ok to fire someone for being male, or white. It’s not like only some religions are protected, while others aren’t. You may want to check into a rebate on that law school tuition.

pseudo0 4y ago
You can legally deny an Asian (or white) male's college application on the basis of race though, see Grutter v. Bollinger. The Fourteenth Amendment might be worded in a universal way, but the application of its protection is currently very selective.

themitigating 4y ago

Based on what?

fallingknife 4y ago
Based on the rulings of liberal judges. The constitution and civil rights statutes are written in a race neutral way. The judges have refused to enforce the law, and made up their own.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > judges have refused to enforce the law, and made up their own Do you have cases which survived appeal which sustain this? Judges' opinions tend to be way more sober than they're portrayed in the media, which mostly focusses on which side won.
  - Ferrotin 4y ago
    Griggs vs. Duke Power. The CRA explicitly allows testing. It was amended to introduce the word “intentionally.” The courts ignored the text of the bill and the intent of the congressmen who voted for it in developing disparate impact theory.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Griggs vs. Duke Power. Griggs vs. Duke Power does not, in any way, establish that White males are less protected than anyone else, which was the question. And your rants about it in this post wouldn't make that different even if they were accurate. > The CRA explicitly allows testing. So does Griggs. If, and here Griggs quotes the language of the statute authorizing the use of professionally-developed tests, they are not “designed, intended or used to discriminate because of race. . . .”; and the EEOC had, at the time, under its explicir regulatory authority under the act, specifically allowed only job-related tests. > It was amended to introduce the word “intentionally.” It's a big act, and I am sure that word exists somewhere in it, but nowhere germane to the case. And if it did, you, being the law-school grad you are, would surely quote it in context, and explain the conflict with the ruling in Griggs. > The courts ignored the text of the bill and the intent of the congressmen who voted for it in developing disparate impact theory. No, they didn't, but even if they had, that wouldn't make your case: disparate impact applies equally to discrimination against White candidates as that against blacks.
      - Ferrotin 4y ago
        The word “intended” is right there.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > The word “intended” is right there Right before the word "or."
        Ferrotin 4y ago

preordained 4y ago

What the hell is a "generic" white male? Imagine if this was used for other groups...it's messed up

prepend 4y ago
As opposed to a brand name white male?
ikr678 4y ago
In this context, I read it as the poster emphasising the lack of any other legally protected class attribute (eg disabled).
I_dev_outdoors 4y ago
Maybe they meant non-hispanic
RappingBoomer 4y ago
um, well, an older white male is not a generic white male because age is a protected classification...a disabled white male is also part of a protected class.

BurningFrog 4y ago

How many people are in the unprotected class? The details depend on the jurisdiction, but I think we're talking about straight cis white able bodied US born men under 40? That minority is maybe 20% of the workforce at most?

dragonwriter 4y ago
> How many people are in the unprotected class? To not be in any protected class in US labor law, you need to: (1) Not be a veteran. (2) Not have a physical or mental disability. (3) Not be over 40. (4) Have neither a religion nor the absence of one. (5) Not have a race (including White.) (6) Not have a skin color (including any of those typically described as “white” when discussing skin color.) (7) Not have a gender (either gender assigned at birth, perceived gender, or gender identity; including “male” for any one or more of those.) (8) Not have a national origin. (9) Be neither a citizen nor non-citizen. (10) Not have genetic information. There is no one to whom this applies, obviously.

mise_en_place 4y ago

Did you really go to law school? Or do they not teach the Constitution anymore?

RappingBoomer 4y ago
magna cum laude
- mise_en_place 4y ago
  Lol. Then I must be a Rhodes scholar
  - RappingBoomer 4y ago
    I would not bet on it

dragonwriter 4y ago

White males are, by being white males, in two protected classes under the 14th Amendment as well as virtually all domains with statutory anti-discrimination laws. Heck, the cass that established gender as a protected characteristic under the 14th Amendment, subject to intermediate scrutiny rather than merely the rational basis test that is the minimum for any legal distinction, was brought by male plaintiffs against a state law placing higher minimum age limits for men in a law controlling alcohol purchases. Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976).