11 ms·

Is that how the law works? Because the Civil Rights Act was written with black people in mind, it only applies to black people even though the wording doesn't s

Is that how the law works? Because the Civil Rights Act was written with black people in mind, it only applies to black people even though the wording doesn't specify that? Surely it's quite an obvious omission that they would have written down if that's what they'd wanted. Is it a kind of trick law written to make people think other races are protected but due to how laws are interpreted, it was always known not to apply to them?

otterley 1y ago
It is a fair criticism (some would say a defect) of our legal system that legislation is not always as explicit as we would like it to be. Take California's Penal Code 187(a) which defines murder as: "(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought." It turns out that "malice aforethought" is a term of art that requires no actual malice and not much forethought. Anyway, if you look at the legislative history of the Civil Rights Act (and courts frequently look to legislative history when interpreting statutes), you'll see that its backers in Congress were concerned about racial segregation, which at the time according to practice separated white people from everyone else (mostly Blacks).
rayiner 1y ago
If you’re not a textualist, there is a coherent reading that it only applies to American descendants of slaves. But that would mean that it doesn’t protect asians, hispanics, etc! A logical and factual error made by proponents of affirmative action is to start with the premise that the civil rights laws were intended to help american descendants of slaves, but then extend them to other non-whites by categorizing them as “functionally black.” This is utterly incoherent, because black descendants of slaves and native americans are sociologically and economically distinct from other non-whites. Hispanics are just time-shifted Italians and Irish: low skill immigrants that economically assimilate within a few generations. By contrast, the gaps between black descendants of slaves and native Americans and other americans are not shrinking over time. They remain as large today as in 1965. There’s a coherent version of affirmative action that gives a preference to descendants of slaves and native Americans but nobody else. But that bears no resemblance to the “diversity” based system that actually exists, which irrationally privileges Cubans over Bangladeshis because Indians are richer than Mexicans.
- selimthegrim 1y ago
  I’ve told you this time and time again that Bengalis who emigrated to this country before 1965 assimilated into the black community, but you completely refuse to listen to me.

otterley 1y ago

It is a fair criticism (some would say a defect) of our legal system that legislation is not always as explicit as we would like it to be. Take California's Penal Code 187(a) which defines murder as: "(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought." It turns out that "malice aforethought" is a term of art that requires no actual malice and not much forethought. Anyway, if you look at the legislative history of the Civil Rights Act (and courts frequently look to legislative history when interpreting statutes), you'll see that its backers in Congress were concerned about racial segregation, which at the time according to practice separated white people from everyone else (mostly Blacks).

rayiner 1y ago

If you’re not a textualist, there is a coherent reading that it only applies to American descendants of slaves. But that would mean that it doesn’t protect asians, hispanics, etc! A logical and factual error made by proponents of affirmative action is to start with the premise that the civil rights laws were intended to help american descendants of slaves, but then extend them to other non-whites by categorizing them as “functionally black.” This is utterly incoherent, because black descendants of slaves and native americans are sociologically and economically distinct from other non-whites. Hispanics are just time-shifted Italians and Irish: low skill immigrants that economically assimilate within a few generations. By contrast, the gaps between black descendants of slaves and native Americans and other americans are not shrinking over time. They remain as large today as in 1965. There’s a coherent version of affirmative action that gives a preference to descendants of slaves and native Americans but nobody else. But that bears no resemblance to the “diversity” based system that actually exists, which irrationally privileges Cubans over Bangladeshis because Indians are richer than Mexicans.

selimthegrim 1y ago
I’ve told you this time and time again that Bengalis who emigrated to this country before 1965 assimilated into the black community, but you completely refuse to listen to me.