7 ms·

You state no details.. but things like "girls who code" sound discriminatory. What about outreach to people who can't learn to code for example because they're

• endemic 1y ago
  So we shouldn’t focus on helping a subset of people because doing so is discriminatory to everyone else?
  • AnimalMuppet 1y ago
    Well... if you're getting a grant to help group X (which is in need), and you're not helping group Y (that is also in need), that should be all right (one organization probably can't do everything). But there maybe ought to be someone else getting a grant to help group Y.
  • endomorphosis 1y ago
    [flagged]
    • __loam 1y ago
      [flagged]
      • endomorphosis 1y ago
        [flagged]
        • __loam 1y ago
          You seem to care a lot about it actually.
        • hatf0 1y ago
          You slipped in "based on sex" for an intentional reason that I'd like you to share with the class. Say, is your opinion of the "sex is an immutable characteristic and fixed at birth and therefore trans people are invalid and should..."? Or maybe I'm just reading into your wording a little too much.
          • hatf0 1y ago
            You're talking to a trans woman by the way. Just thought I should throw that out there just in case you want to hurl some insults at me while you're at it too :)
            • Philpax 1y ago
              Congratulations on immediately being vindicated :/
          • endomorphosis 1y ago
            [dead]
          • wertigont 1y ago
            In humans and other mammals the immutability of sex is a fact, not an opinion. We are not a species of sequential hermaphrodites. The cultural artefact of people identifying themselvee as the opposite gender is a different type of concept to this. It's more of a sociological or psychological phenomenon.
      • wertigont 1y ago
        The ask for the former is to have competitive spaces that are designated specifically for female athletes. This of course implies that all male athletes must be excluded, regardless of their identity claims. The rationale is the same for both: to provide opportunities for women and girls in an otherwise male-dominated space. Neither should be controversial.
    • mrbombastic 1y ago
      Outreach programs like “girls who code” and encouraging underrepresented groups to get involved are absolutely not against the law. Explicit discriminatory practices in hiring practices would be.
      • endomorphosis 1y ago
        Yes, they are literally against the law, your knowledge of the law is probably a few years out of date, and I think you should spend more time reading the statutes themselves, this has already been litigated up to the supreme court.
        • saagarjha 1y ago
          Can you point to the ruling that bans the organization of Girls Who Code?
    • bastawhiz 1y ago
      It's literally not the law. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(j) says: > Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be interpreted to require any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee subject to this subchapter to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex, or national origin employed by any employer, referred or classified for employment by any employment agency or labor organization, admitted to membership or classified by any labor organization, or admitted to, or employed in, any apprenticeship or other training program, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of such race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in any community, State, section, or other area, or in the available work force in any community, State, section, or other area. Which is to say, affirmative action or diversity programs. 29 C.F.R. § 1608.1–1608.1(c) says: > Voluntary affirmative action to improve opportunities for minorities and women must be encouraged and protected in order to carry out the Congressional intent embodied in title VII.[4] Affirmative action under these principles means those actions appropriate to overcome the effects of past or present practices, policies, or other barriers to equal employment opportunity. Such voluntary affirmative action cannot be measured by the standard of whether it would have been required had there been litigation, for this standard would undermine the legislative purpose of first encouraging voluntary action without litigation. 34 C.F.R. § 106.3(b) says: > a recipient may take affirmative action to overcome the effects of conditions which resulted in limited participation therein by persons of a particular sex. The decision in United Steelworkers v. Weber states: > Title VII's prohibition in §§ 703(a) and (d) against racial discrimination does not condemn all private, voluntary, race-conscious affirmative action plans. ... Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, 422 U. S. 418, cannot be interpreted as an absolute prohibition against all private, voluntary, race-conscious affirmative action efforts to hasten the elimination of such vestiges. The decision in Johnson v. Transportation Agency similarly states that Santa Clara County Transportation Agency did not violate Title VII by promoting a less-qualified woman. The decision in Cohen v. Brown University upheld the use of affirmative action to equalize opportunity. The law _literally_ contemplates this. As you said, "you need to literally look it up sometime."
    • bparsons 1y ago
      Which law are you referring to? If you are referring to Presidential statements, they have to be followed by an actual regulation or else they are just a press release.
    • endomorphosis 1y ago
      STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 2023 Held: Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 6–40. "(b) Proposed by Congress and ratified by the States in the wake of the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall “deny to any person . . . the equal protection of the laws.” Proponents of the Equal Protection Clause described its “foundation[al] principle” as “not permit[ing] any distinctions of law based on race or color.” Any “law which operates upon one man,” they maintained, should “operate equally upon all.” Accordingly, as this Court’s early decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause explained, the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed “that the law in the States shall be the same for the black as for the white; that all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the laws of the States.” ... "Respondents suggest that the end of race-based admissions programs will occur once meaningful representation and diversity are achieved on college campuses. Such measures of success amount to little more than comparing the racial breakdown of the incoming class and comparing it to some other metric, such as the racial makeup of the previous incoming class or the population in general, to see whether some proportional goal has been reached. The problem with this approach is well established: “[O]utright racial balancing” is “patently unconstitutional.”
      • mrbombastic 1y ago
        In regards to race conscious bias in the admissions process this is very different then an outreach program
    • endomorphosis 1y ago
      AMERICAN ALLIANCE FOR EQUAL RIGHTS, versus FEARLESS FUND MANAGEMENT, LLC, 2023 To be sure, the line between “pure speech” that arguably entails discriminatory sentiments, see 303 Creative, 600 U.S. at 587, and the very act of discrimination itself may at times be hard to draw. And to be sure, Fearless characterizes its contest as reflecting its “commitment” to the “[b]lack women-owned” business community. The fact remains, though, that Fearless simply—and flatly— refuses to entertain applications from business owners who aren’t “black females.” Official Rules at 3. If that refusal were deemed sufficiently “expressive” to warrant protection under the Free Speech Clause, then so would be every act of race discrimination, ... "Moreover, and more specifically, each lost opportunity to enter Fearless’s contest works an irreparable injury because it prevents the Alliance’s members from competing at all—not just for the $20,000 cash prize but also for Fearless’s ongoing mentorship and the ensuing business opportunities that a contest victory might provide. "
      • mrbombastic 1y ago
        The organization refused applications from anyone who wasn’t a black female, again different then an outreach group. I am sure if a male applied to “Girls who code” was denied and was able to establish this did harm to him he could have a case. As far as I know that has not happened so the group and others like it are perfectly legal.
  • zb3 1y ago
    [flagged]
    • __loam 1y ago
      [flagged]
      • zb3 1y ago
        [flagged]
        • __loam 1y ago
          [flagged]
          • endomorphosis 1y ago
            [flagged]
          • deleted 1y ago
            [deleted]
        • array_key_first 1y ago
          > In the US, this also applies to Republican voters. What about them? Nobody cares about them. If you want to make a "coding for republicans", then go for it. Nobody is stopping you. You can't pretend people are stopping you so then you can turn around and act like a victim. That's not normal person behavior. > conservative views? They're also pretty underrepresented in the tech industry First off, not they're not. Second off - nobody is censoring conservative views. They ARE censoring obvious racism, sometimes pedophilia, sometimes misogyny. Because those all suck. And when that happens, some conservatives cry. Which doesn't say what you think it says. That does not reflect well on you or the broader ideology. At the end of the day, if I speak like Hilary Clinton at work, it's perfectly normal. If I speak like Trump and talk about "human garbage" and various brown people eating cats and dogs, I'm probably getting fired and potentially a referral to a psychiatrist. That's the difference. Not the ideology, the words.
• aabhay 1y ago
  So what about the girl scouts, is that also discriminatory?
  • endomorphosis 1y ago
    Yes, there was an entire supreme court case about that 30 years ago, a lawsuit against the Boy Scouts I might add.
    • aabhay 1y ago
      That was against the boy scouts but the reverse lawsuit hasn't been filed against the girl scouts to my knowledge. That said, law in the US and one’s opinions on what constitutes discrimination are different things.
• II2II 1y ago
  Note that they said: > We went to community centers, after school programs, and worked with other similar orgs like "girls who code." This sounds like a fairly broad based outreach program. The inclusion of an organization that supports girls is just one of the avenues they used. There is nothing wrong with that. Sometimes I feel like founding an organization called Men In Science & Engineering Research, simply because the acronym (MISER) would be a fitting parody for those who promote blind equality (i.e. the type of equality that hoards the riches of science for men).
  • endomorphosis 1y ago
    [flagged]
    • throwway120385 1y ago
      Why are you so threatened by "girls who code?"
      • endomorphosis 1y ago
        Why are you so threatened by girls who don’t code
  • MoltenMan 1y ago
    I don't think there are really enough details on the parent comment to judge it either way, but can't you at least see how weird it is that 'Women in STEM' is very accepted but a 'Men in STEM' program would never fly? Whether or not white men have hidden advantages over non white men (and I'm not saying that they don't! Simply that they are not clearly visible), it should be very clear that there are large non hidden advantages for non white / non male people, which is obviously going to foster discontent, whether or not they are actually at a disadvantage in the big picture. As a similar example: my close Vietnamese friend met all of his best friends and girlfriend in college in VSA, a Vietnamese club. All of my non white friends went to 'Latinos in X' 'Asians in X' etc. clubs. There were no equivalents for me! I don't resent anybody for this (by dint of my personality I don't really care), and in truth it was probably good for my cold networking skills (perhaps widening the unseen advantage gap that I supposedly have even further), but I also think it's difficult to look at this and not understand why people are so discontent with DEI identity politics.
• rs186 1y ago
  I believe you are always allowed to create a club "boys who code" if that's something you are interested in.
  • bmelton 1y ago
    If you want to use any public spaces (libraries, community centers, parks) then no, you can't. Virtually every state has a prohibition on the use of public spaces that specifically prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex or gender If you wanted to leverage the "private club" exemption per Roberts v Jaycees, then you would be disqualified from using public spaces as well, which -- my wife established a "girls who code" organization and it benefited greatly from the use of both public and lent private spaces, but she could not have done without the ability to use both as it would have been extremely cost prohibitive (and it wasn't in any way profitable anyway)
    • kelnos 1y ago
      If you were to create a "boys who code" organization and get denied for use of a public space that a "girls who code" org has used, then a) you could sue for use of the space, citing the girls groups' use, and win, or b) you could sue saying that the girls group shouldn't be allowed to use it, and win.
      • bmelton 1y ago
        That very much depends on the group. Years ago, my wife founded two chapters of a national organization who did "girls who code" sorts of things. There was (to her) a surprising amount of infighting about how to handle registrations from males. Leadership felt that men should not be allowed to attend, but there were at least a couple of chapter leads (including my wife) who felt that men should be allowed to attend, but where spots were scarce, they should be prioritized to women. Disregarding the politics of it, there was definitely not a shortage of men who were discouraged from signing up because they were somehow icked out over the name. I'm sure some men were, and I'm sure others probably deferred on the grounds that they didn't want to take spots away from those for whom the mission was intended -- but because the organization was unwilling to publish official guidance for reasons I won't bother to opine on, my wife was routinely in the position of having to explain her attendance policies to men who had signed up