4 ms·

The person you're replying to is making the argument "Would you object to a book publisher that only signed writers who were white" or "Should a coffee shop be

by Traster 5mo ago

The person you're replying to is making the argument "Would you object to a book publisher that only signed writers who were white" or "Should a coffee shop be allowed to only hire white barristas". Which is a sound logical argument if you ignore the entire history of racism in the United States.

deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
rayiner 5mo ago
That principle is not only logical, it’s a core premise of the civil rights laws, as the supreme court reaffirmed 9-0 in a decision recently: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1039_c0n2.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1039_c0n2.pdf. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I guess it’s not illegal to have a publishing house that promotes white authors. I’m no expert in that area.
- Traster 5mo ago
  It's logic that is incompatible with about 60 years of affirmative action policies that the United States has carried out.
  - TimorousBestie 5mo ago
    Yeah, he doesn’t care about history. He already knew the legal answer to his question, he was simply fishing with rage-bait.
  - rayiner 5mo ago
    That’s a common misconception. Nobody serious has ever doubted that the Civil Rights Act creates a colorblind system. Any contrary treatment has always been justified as exceptions. Even Lawrence v. Bakke in 1973 struck down the racial preferences at issue in that case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_C.... I think people got this misconception that affirmative action was legal because universities practiced it. But the EEOC guidance for example has been consistent since the Carter administration. “Under Title VII, there is no separate legal concept of ‘reverse discrimination.’ Discrimination against any individual on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin violates Title VII.” The only exception was that employers who had practiced segregation could take measures to undo the effects of that in their workplace. That’s what “affirmative action” meant. It was not sanctioned as way to address perceived disparities in society at large.

by Traster 5mo ago

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

rayiner 5mo ago

That principle is not only logical, it’s a core premise of the civil rights laws, as the supreme court reaffirmed 9-0 in a decision recently: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1039_c0n2.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1039_c0n2.pdf. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I guess it’s not illegal to have a publishing house that promotes white authors. I’m no expert in that area.

Traster 5mo ago
It's logic that is incompatible with about 60 years of affirmative action policies that the United States has carried out.
- TimorousBestie 5mo ago
  Yeah, he doesn’t care about history. He already knew the legal answer to his question, he was simply fishing with rage-bait.
- rayiner 5mo ago
  That’s a common misconception. Nobody serious has ever doubted that the Civil Rights Act creates a colorblind system. Any contrary treatment has always been justified as exceptions. Even Lawrence v. Bakke in 1973 struck down the racial preferences at issue in that case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_C.... I think people got this misconception that affirmative action was legal because universities practiced it. But the EEOC guidance for example has been consistent since the Carter administration. “Under Title VII, there is no separate legal concept of ‘reverse discrimination.’ Discrimination against any individual on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin violates Title VII.” The only exception was that employers who had practiced segregation could take measures to undo the effects of that in their workplace. That’s what “affirmative action” meant. It was not sanctioned as way to address perceived disparities in society at large.