4 ms·

It is absolutely illegal. It violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which: > outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.

It is absolutely illegal. It violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which: > outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 Yes, that's the same act that makes it illegal to discriminate against racial minorities, women, religions, etc. Discrimination based on race is illegal, pure and simple. Hiding it under nice names like "affirmative action" does not change this fact.

mrtranscendence 4y ago
I don’t think this is right. Affirmative action has been upheld by the courts, and is currently in practice at some private employers (and is mandated for government contractors).
- NeverFade 4y ago
  You are wrong. There is one judgement that upholds a form of affirmative action in very narrow circumstances (education) and only in very limited form, and even that is challenged in SCOTUS and likely to be overturned: https://www.wgbh.org/news/education/2021/07/22/as-supreme-court-weighs-harvard-admissions-case-two-asian-americans-speak-out-and-allege-bias https://www.wgbh.org/news/education/2021/07/22/as-supreme-co... Racist discrimination is an ugly thing, even when you call it pretty names like "affirmative action". If Affirmative Action was universally legal, than nothing would prevent racist/sexist discrimination as long as you have a nice-sounding excuse for it, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be rendered vacant. Women outnumber men 1.3:1 in college admissions, so Affirmative Action would let me openly discriminate in favor of men in hiring and promotion, as they are evidently a disadvantaged population compared to women.
  - ForHackernews 4y ago
    Men actually do benefit from soft affirmative action in college admissions because of this disparity. You can look this up for yourself, but here's one source[0]. Men are admitted at a higher rate, with worse grades and test scores, by selective universities that want to make sure they have a "balanced" class of undergraduates. [0] https://www.ivywise.com/ivywise-knowledgebase/resources/article/the-truth-about-affirmative-action-for-men/ https://www.ivywise.com/ivywise-knowledgebase/resources/arti...
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      It depends on the university, engineering-oriented schools admit women at higher rates (over 2x in the case of MIT and Harvey Mudd): https://money.com/colleges-women-higher-acceptance-rate/ https://money.com/colleges-women-higher-acceptance-rate/
    - NeverFade 4y ago
      Yes, as mentioned above, there is (unfortunately) a controversial ruling (Grutter v. Bollinger) that allows for a form of discrimination in college admissions specifically. This is wrong and should stop. It's an example of SCOTUS judges allowing their political views to to override a clear interpretation of the law.
exolymph 4y ago
De jure illegal, sure, but we all know it's de facto required for institutions of a certain size. Laws are only as good as the enforcement.
- fche 4y ago
  praying for an appropriate opinion from the SCOTUS on the asians/harvard case
jgil 4y ago
Affirmative action is not illegal. If you take action to prevent adverse impact to any protected class, that is not discrimination. If a company hires only white men and rejects every Asian candidate they have ever interviewed, or only fires Asian employees, what is your proposed remedy? Status quo? Check out the section Discrimination v. Affirmative Action [1] and a sample of significant discrimination case outcomes.[3] [1] https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/cm-607-affirmative-action https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/cm-607-affirmative-action [2] https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/faqs/practical-significance https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/faqs/practical-significan... [3] https://www.eeoc.gov/initiatives/e-race/significant-eeoc-racecolor-casescovering-private-and-federal-sectors https://www.eeoc.gov/initiatives/e-race/significant-eeoc-rac...
- NeverFade 4y ago
  A company (Twilio) is executing a mass layoff, and is implying that it will protect certain racial minorities from this layoff. Doing this, they are necessarily discriminating against any employee who does not belong to these racial groups. If you have employees A and B, both earning $100k/year, and your declining financials require you to save $100k/year, you must fire A or B. If you decide to fire A because s/he is white, even if it was just one factor, then you just fired a worker for their race, and violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you manage to implement a policy that benefits a protected class (such as a particular race or sex) without depriving a different protected class, it would not be illegal. This is not the case we are discussing here, of racial considerations affecting hiring or termination decisions. Regarding the links you posted: It's no secret that the current administration is in favor of racist discrimination. They support Harvard's racist discrimination against Asians: https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2021-12-08/biden-administration-asks-u-s-supreme-court-to-reject-harvard-affirmative-action-case https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2021-12-08/bid... The law remains the law, and racist discrimination remains just as objectionable, even if the current administration supports it. I personally hope that any employee who was subject to racist discrimination will seek justice in court.
  - Spivak 4y ago
    Change the framing from “white person was fired” to “black person was retained” and you’re suddenly back into affirmative action territory and the case whether it’s a civil rights violation becomes iffy. You don’t actually have to avoid depriving a protected class of anything by relative omission. Otherwise affirmative action and diversity programs would be illegal, and until the courts change their mind they’re currently allowed. If you allow your reasoning to be unconstrained there is no way to provide any benefit whatsoever in any form to particular races because that would be necessarily be depriving that benefit to the compliment.

mrtranscendence 4y ago

I don’t think this is right. Affirmative action has been upheld by the courts, and is currently in practice at some private employers (and is mandated for government contractors).

NeverFade 4y ago
You are wrong. There is one judgement that upholds a form of affirmative action in very narrow circumstances (education) and only in very limited form, and even that is challenged in SCOTUS and likely to be overturned: https://www.wgbh.org/news/education/2021/07/22/as-supreme-court-weighs-harvard-admissions-case-two-asian-americans-speak-out-and-allege-bias https://www.wgbh.org/news/education/2021/07/22/as-supreme-co... Racist discrimination is an ugly thing, even when you call it pretty names like "affirmative action". If Affirmative Action was universally legal, than nothing would prevent racist/sexist discrimination as long as you have a nice-sounding excuse for it, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be rendered vacant. Women outnumber men 1.3:1 in college admissions, so Affirmative Action would let me openly discriminate in favor of men in hiring and promotion, as they are evidently a disadvantaged population compared to women.
- ForHackernews 4y ago
  Men actually do benefit from soft affirmative action in college admissions because of this disparity. You can look this up for yourself, but here's one source[0]. Men are admitted at a higher rate, with worse grades and test scores, by selective universities that want to make sure they have a "balanced" class of undergraduates. [0] https://www.ivywise.com/ivywise-knowledgebase/resources/article/the-truth-about-affirmative-action-for-men/ https://www.ivywise.com/ivywise-knowledgebase/resources/arti...
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    It depends on the university, engineering-oriented schools admit women at higher rates (over 2x in the case of MIT and Harvey Mudd): https://money.com/colleges-women-higher-acceptance-rate/ https://money.com/colleges-women-higher-acceptance-rate/
  - NeverFade 4y ago
    Yes, as mentioned above, there is (unfortunately) a controversial ruling (Grutter v. Bollinger) that allows for a form of discrimination in college admissions specifically. This is wrong and should stop. It's an example of SCOTUS judges allowing their political views to to override a clear interpretation of the law.

exolymph 4y ago

De jure illegal, sure, but we all know it's de facto required for institutions of a certain size. Laws are only as good as the enforcement.

fche 4y ago
praying for an appropriate opinion from the SCOTUS on the asians/harvard case

jgil 4y ago

Affirmative action is not illegal. If you take action to prevent adverse impact to any protected class, that is not discrimination. If a company hires only white men and rejects every Asian candidate they have ever interviewed, or only fires Asian employees, what is your proposed remedy? Status quo? Check out the section Discrimination v. Affirmative Action [1] and a sample of significant discrimination case outcomes.[3] [1] https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/cm-607-affirmative-action https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/cm-607-affirmative-action [2] https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/faqs/practical-significance https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/faqs/practical-significan... [3] https://www.eeoc.gov/initiatives/e-race/significant-eeoc-racecolor-casescovering-private-and-federal-sectors https://www.eeoc.gov/initiatives/e-race/significant-eeoc-rac...

NeverFade 4y ago
A company (Twilio) is executing a mass layoff, and is implying that it will protect certain racial minorities from this layoff. Doing this, they are necessarily discriminating against any employee who does not belong to these racial groups. If you have employees A and B, both earning $100k/year, and your declining financials require you to save $100k/year, you must fire A or B. If you decide to fire A because s/he is white, even if it was just one factor, then you just fired a worker for their race, and violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you manage to implement a policy that benefits a protected class (such as a particular race or sex) without depriving a different protected class, it would not be illegal. This is not the case we are discussing here, of racial considerations affecting hiring or termination decisions. Regarding the links you posted: It's no secret that the current administration is in favor of racist discrimination. They support Harvard's racist discrimination against Asians: https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2021-12-08/biden-administration-asks-u-s-supreme-court-to-reject-harvard-affirmative-action-case https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2021-12-08/bid... The law remains the law, and racist discrimination remains just as objectionable, even if the current administration supports it. I personally hope that any employee who was subject to racist discrimination will seek justice in court.
- Spivak 4y ago
  Change the framing from “white person was fired” to “black person was retained” and you’re suddenly back into affirmative action territory and the case whether it’s a civil rights violation becomes iffy. You don’t actually have to avoid depriving a protected class of anything by relative omission. Otherwise affirmative action and diversity programs would be illegal, and until the courts change their mind they’re currently allowed. If you allow your reasoning to be unconstrained there is no way to provide any benefit whatsoever in any form to particular races because that would be necessarily be depriving that benefit to the compliment.