4 ms·

As someone completely ignorant in this cultural phenomenon, given it seems to be hurting some people what are the arguments for not banning it as discrimination

As someone completely ignorant in this cultural phenomenon, given it seems to be hurting some people what are the arguments for not banning it as discrimination? (I was hoping to read at least one in the article, but perhaps I'm blind?)

version_five 3y ago
I'm only basing this on what I've read in the comments: I can see why people would be against creating another identity group. Labeling people into further and further refined identities and pushing victimhood on people in certain labels has a downside. I don't personally know enough to have a side in this, and I don't live there anyway, just speculating why some might disagree with it. Certainly if we end up with "people from Caste X are encouraged to apply" I can see that as offputting.
- callalex 3y ago
  Protected classes and diversity quotas are nearly unrelated. For example, I have never heard of a hiring quota for people without arms, but they are certainly a protected class.
  - onetimeusename 3y ago
    >Protected classes and diversity quotas are nearly unrelated. That's not true. Here is what EEOC says it includes: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).[1] So it's not clear why caste discrimination doesn't already fall under religious discrimination and most of these groups are associated with diversity quotas. That's not a clearly defined concept but we all generally associate diversity quotas with race, gender identity, and ethnicity. I generally think there is a big overlap between diversity quotas and protected classes. It's a clear logical link. If caste were added to diversity quotas (or even protected status) I just think it would create perplexing situations where a totally foreign concept of caste is used to justify things in American law like protecting low caste voter rights despite no history of that ever being a problem or suing non-Hindus for caste discrimination under disparate impact legal concepts despite no animus. Or universities in the US tracking caste in DEI statements and admissions essays which they consider for adversity scores. Would that be fair to Americans? Is there even proof that low caste Indians are generally facing adversity in the US or is it only in specific situations with other Indians? What if they actually earn more than the average US income but get added to diversity quotas? [1]: https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protected-employment-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protecte...
- hef19898 3y ago
  Those caste based identity groups exist for a couple of millenia already. It is the people who benefit from those existing identity groups that oppose the bill.
tfsh 3y ago
The caste system dates back to the Vedic period (around ~1500 BC), it's engrained into the fabric of indian society and through the years this hasn't really diminished. For instance the British reinforced the notion of the Caste system, and so did Gandhi, for many it's not seen as something that should be stamped out, but a way of organising a social hierarchy. Modern Indian politics is controlled by the elite - all from high castes - so movement here is seen as politically difficult and unpopular. America's divisions are primarily race (and to an extent wealth), the British still have a strong sense of subconscious class, in that regard Indian society inherits fragments of both. Those of the SV Indian tech society who still propagate the system do it because they do not like seeing traditionally poor people from lower castes earning triple figure salaries in the US, and sometimes if you're extremely fortunate in India. Note: This is me playing the devils advocate, I'm absolutely not in favour of the caste system
- grayhatter 3y ago
  Yeah, I understood that argument. I don't want people who I feel contempt for to have any human rights, was a pretty obvious argument against it. But I didn't think I needed to specify that I was only interested in arguments against it that are both sane and ethical. I don't want to give up my monopoly on power and privilege is what I was assuming it was. I was asking if there's some other aspect or argument that I'm missing that's not a toxic bigoted fallacy?
- onetimeusename 3y ago
  >Modern Indian politics is controlled by the elite - all from high castes Source on this? I've heard people say the opposite.
suoduandao3 3y ago
I have no personal experience with this phenomenon, but looking at it from the outside I do see one potential benefit: formalizing class distinctions in that manner must make it a lot harder to 'manufacture consent' when there's a conflict between the best interests of different classes. In Western culture there's a lot of ability to move between social classes by historical standards, and that's probably a good thing, but there are a number of downsides. The tendency to not acknowledge class differences at all can lead to a lot of doublespeak about what would benefit the least fortunate classes, and a lot of extra energy spent by the downwardly mobile wealthy to exclude lower classes in roundabout ways. Formal divisions between social classes would make it a lot harder to confuse the less wealthy when their interests aren't aligned with the more wealthy. In India for example, my understanding is that the 'shopkeeper' class used to be quite low in the hierarchy, but with the change in global economics, an awful lot of important institutions are now being run by 'shopkeepers', who I presume would have seen those opportunities in a collective way and helped each other capitalize on them, rather than see themselves as no different from the incumbent warrior or priest classes when they arose.
onetimeusename 3y ago
I don't have an opinion on caste discrimination itself. I have a good friend who is Brahmin and doesn't really care about caste I think so I know some things about it. But that person is not religious. Religious Hindus may have stronger preferences where caste seems like it is a part of the religion. For example, my understanding is Hindu priests are generally Brahmin. Although some sects disagree that priests need to be Brahmin, I believe that is the exception not the norm. I guess caste discrimination could be part of a religious view but generally in America this isn't considered acceptable in work environments. OTOH I dislike the idea of adding caste to protected status because that affects people who have nothing to do with this. The US has no history of caste discrimination and most people have no idea what that is. So I am opposed to equating American concepts of discrimination that were based in things like Jim Crow laws and slavery with caste discrimination. I am opposed to things like corporate DEI hiring practices and school admissions policies incorporating caste because this places an undue burden on the majority of Americans who are not involved with this.
- wwtrv 3y ago
  What does banning caste based discrimination with affirmative action?
  - onetimeusename 3y ago
    The article mentions adding caste to protected status. Protected Status has a specific set of meanings and implications in the US that came from US history, not Indian history. If Indians want protections then I think the law should be more nuanced to prevent absurdities like arguing that caste should be included in things like American DEI policies. I draw the line at that point. I don't want the lack of nuance to cause caste to be equated with things like the history of racial discrimination in the US. There is nothing systemic in the US about caste discrimination so the US itself is not at fault and neither are most Americans. Further, there is a history of Indian affirmative action policies which include quotas and I think Indians should not expect to have the same treatment under the law as there because quotas have been struck down in court.
throw_pm23 3y ago
As an outsider: perhaps there is some harm in producing laws for every specific situation and there should be some generic non-discrimination rule that should also cover this case. For example, I would find it silly if there were specific laws against stealing bread, stealing a doughnut, stealing a flower, etc.

version_five 3y ago

I'm only basing this on what I've read in the comments: I can see why people would be against creating another identity group. Labeling people into further and further refined identities and pushing victimhood on people in certain labels has a downside. I don't personally know enough to have a side in this, and I don't live there anyway, just speculating why some might disagree with it. Certainly if we end up with "people from Caste X are encouraged to apply" I can see that as offputting.

callalex 3y ago
Protected classes and diversity quotas are nearly unrelated. For example, I have never heard of a hiring quota for people without arms, but they are certainly a protected class.
- onetimeusename 3y ago
  >Protected classes and diversity quotas are nearly unrelated. That's not true. Here is what EEOC says it includes: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).[1] So it's not clear why caste discrimination doesn't already fall under religious discrimination and most of these groups are associated with diversity quotas. That's not a clearly defined concept but we all generally associate diversity quotas with race, gender identity, and ethnicity. I generally think there is a big overlap between diversity quotas and protected classes. It's a clear logical link. If caste were added to diversity quotas (or even protected status) I just think it would create perplexing situations where a totally foreign concept of caste is used to justify things in American law like protecting low caste voter rights despite no history of that ever being a problem or suing non-Hindus for caste discrimination under disparate impact legal concepts despite no animus. Or universities in the US tracking caste in DEI statements and admissions essays which they consider for adversity scores. Would that be fair to Americans? Is there even proof that low caste Indians are generally facing adversity in the US or is it only in specific situations with other Indians? What if they actually earn more than the average US income but get added to diversity quotas? [1]: https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protected-employment-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protecte...
hef19898 3y ago
Those caste based identity groups exist for a couple of millenia already. It is the people who benefit from those existing identity groups that oppose the bill.

tfsh 3y ago

The caste system dates back to the Vedic period (around ~1500 BC), it's engrained into the fabric of indian society and through the years this hasn't really diminished. For instance the British reinforced the notion of the Caste system, and so did Gandhi, for many it's not seen as something that should be stamped out, but a way of organising a social hierarchy. Modern Indian politics is controlled by the elite - all from high castes - so movement here is seen as politically difficult and unpopular. America's divisions are primarily race (and to an extent wealth), the British still have a strong sense of subconscious class, in that regard Indian society inherits fragments of both. Those of the SV Indian tech society who still propagate the system do it because they do not like seeing traditionally poor people from lower castes earning triple figure salaries in the US, and sometimes if you're extremely fortunate in India. Note: This is me playing the devils advocate, I'm absolutely not in favour of the caste system

grayhatter 3y ago
Yeah, I understood that argument. I don't want people who I feel contempt for to have any human rights, was a pretty obvious argument against it. But I didn't think I needed to specify that I was only interested in arguments against it that are both sane and ethical. I don't want to give up my monopoly on power and privilege is what I was assuming it was. I was asking if there's some other aspect or argument that I'm missing that's not a toxic bigoted fallacy?
onetimeusename 3y ago
>Modern Indian politics is controlled by the elite - all from high castes Source on this? I've heard people say the opposite.

suoduandao3 3y ago

I have no personal experience with this phenomenon, but looking at it from the outside I do see one potential benefit: formalizing class distinctions in that manner must make it a lot harder to 'manufacture consent' when there's a conflict between the best interests of different classes. In Western culture there's a lot of ability to move between social classes by historical standards, and that's probably a good thing, but there are a number of downsides. The tendency to not acknowledge class differences at all can lead to a lot of doublespeak about what would benefit the least fortunate classes, and a lot of extra energy spent by the downwardly mobile wealthy to exclude lower classes in roundabout ways. Formal divisions between social classes would make it a lot harder to confuse the less wealthy when their interests aren't aligned with the more wealthy. In India for example, my understanding is that the 'shopkeeper' class used to be quite low in the hierarchy, but with the change in global economics, an awful lot of important institutions are now being run by 'shopkeepers', who I presume would have seen those opportunities in a collective way and helped each other capitalize on them, rather than see themselves as no different from the incumbent warrior or priest classes when they arose.

onetimeusename 3y ago

I don't have an opinion on caste discrimination itself. I have a good friend who is Brahmin and doesn't really care about caste I think so I know some things about it. But that person is not religious. Religious Hindus may have stronger preferences where caste seems like it is a part of the religion. For example, my understanding is Hindu priests are generally Brahmin. Although some sects disagree that priests need to be Brahmin, I believe that is the exception not the norm. I guess caste discrimination could be part of a religious view but generally in America this isn't considered acceptable in work environments. OTOH I dislike the idea of adding caste to protected status because that affects people who have nothing to do with this. The US has no history of caste discrimination and most people have no idea what that is. So I am opposed to equating American concepts of discrimination that were based in things like Jim Crow laws and slavery with caste discrimination. I am opposed to things like corporate DEI hiring practices and school admissions policies incorporating caste because this places an undue burden on the majority of Americans who are not involved with this.

wwtrv 3y ago
What does banning caste based discrimination with affirmative action?
- onetimeusename 3y ago
  The article mentions adding caste to protected status. Protected Status has a specific set of meanings and implications in the US that came from US history, not Indian history. If Indians want protections then I think the law should be more nuanced to prevent absurdities like arguing that caste should be included in things like American DEI policies. I draw the line at that point. I don't want the lack of nuance to cause caste to be equated with things like the history of racial discrimination in the US. There is nothing systemic in the US about caste discrimination so the US itself is not at fault and neither are most Americans. Further, there is a history of Indian affirmative action policies which include quotas and I think Indians should not expect to have the same treatment under the law as there because quotas have been struck down in court.

throw_pm23 3y ago

As an outsider: perhaps there is some harm in producing laws for every specific situation and there should be some generic non-discrimination rule that should also cover this case. For example, I would find it silly if there were specific laws against stealing bread, stealing a doughnut, stealing a flower, etc.