>Protected classes and diversity quotas are nearly unrelated. That's not true. Here is what EEOC says it includes: race, color, religion, sex (including pregn

>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...