4 ms·

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 ab

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.
  - wwtrv 3y ago
    Age, nationality, religion, marital status etc. all fall into the same category and I haven't really heard anything about religious hiring quotas. So it's still a significant leap and I'm still not sure how would this affect most Americans. > implications in the US that came from US history Some categories do, some don't, most are generally universally applicable, so yeah the law should primarily focus on 'ancestry' with 'caste' just being a subset of that. Which is exactly what this law is doing if I understand it correctly.
    - onetimeusename 3y ago
      I wrote this is another post but it's not clear to me why caste discrimination isn't considered religious discrimination which is already protected so what exactly would adding a new protected class achieve? There are more categories than just the ones you mentioned for a protected class. They also include race, gender identity, and ethnicity. I don't believe caste should be a protected group in the US. It opens the door to suing people, who are not even Hindu, arbitrarily for caste discrimination under legal concepts like disparate impact. It also opens the door to arguing that caste should be included in DEI efforts. I don't think it's a significant leap between these two things, it's inevitable even.

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.
- wwtrv 3y ago
  Age, nationality, religion, marital status etc. all fall into the same category and I haven't really heard anything about religious hiring quotas. So it's still a significant leap and I'm still not sure how would this affect most Americans. > implications in the US that came from US history Some categories do, some don't, most are generally universally applicable, so yeah the law should primarily focus on 'ancestry' with 'caste' just being a subset of that. Which is exactly what this law is doing if I understand it correctly.
  - onetimeusename 3y ago
    I wrote this is another post but it's not clear to me why caste discrimination isn't considered religious discrimination which is already protected so what exactly would adding a new protected class achieve? There are more categories than just the ones you mentioned for a protected class. They also include race, gender identity, and ethnicity. I don't believe caste should be a protected group in the US. It opens the door to suing people, who are not even Hindu, arbitrarily for caste discrimination under legal concepts like disparate impact. It also opens the door to arguing that caste should be included in DEI efforts. I don't think it's a significant leap between these two things, it's inevitable even.