4 ms·

Is not racial discrimination illegal in US?

by jkot 12y ago

tsotha 12y ago
No. It's perfectly legal to discriminate against white and East Asian men, thanks to our Humpty Dumpty court system.
venomsnake 12y ago
If it is - that shoots down affirmative actions ... it is complicated.
thaumasiotes 12y ago
Technically the answer is yes, unless there is a "compelling governmental interest". The supreme court once ruled that selecting college students so as to increase the diversity of viewpoints in a class satisfied this test, which is basically how diversity got to be the buzzword that it is today. Note that the rationale goes like so: "increased diversity among the students leads to higher-quality education, and therefore this diversity may be sought through the otherwise forbidden means of racial preferences". Where the goal is to benefit certain groups because you like those groups, the same process is notionally illegal. You have to say you're doing it to help everybody.
imjustsaying 12y ago
Apparently, racial discrimination is not always illegal in the US. In 1942, the federal government used racial data gathered by the census[0][1] and rounded up over 100,000 Japanese into concentration camps. [0]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/confirmed-the-us-census-b/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/confirmed-the-us-c... [1]http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-30-census-role_N.htm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-30-census...
- ricree 12y ago
  That's largely a non-sequitor, as 1942 would have predated most of the laws jkot would be referring to.
  - imjustsaying 12y ago
    True, federal racial discrimination laws seem to have been put in place after 1942. I suppose what I find most interesting about this situation is that the census still requires you to identify your race and the race of those in your household. In light of the census's record of abuse of such racial data, I asked my roommate not to identify my race when the census agent came to our house years ago . However, the census agent returned a couple more times, threatening my roommate with legal retaliation if he didn't comply with divulging my race. Despite the threats, the agent eventually stopped showing up, and the promised threats never materialized.
patio11 12y ago
Title VI, a federal law, prohibits discrimination by race in, most prominently for the present discussion, any federally funded university, which is substantially all of them due to how America does research budgets and federal student aid. Many universities are government institutions, and in the United States government cannot generally discriminate on the basis of race due to the Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution (in the 14th Amendment) and/or the Due Process clause (5th Amendment). Both are generally pretty toothy. However, a contentious series of Supreme Court cases (Bakke, Gratz, Grutter) have held that universities are allowed to racially discriminate if they do so with the intention of achieving compelling educational interests and as long as their institutionalized racial discrimination is not a crass point system but rather a "holistic" evaluation of applicants which uses race as "one part of" the decisionmaking process. Racial discrimination is pervasive at US selective universities, public and private. It is described as a minor, marginal policy, but all players understand that abandoning the formal racial discrimination policies would cause instantaneous hits to enrollment of favored racial minorities of roughly 50% or more, as has indeed happened when particular formal racial discrimination policies were found illegal. For example, the Gratz decision illegalized a points system used by the University of Michigan, where 100 points were required for admission and being a member of a favored racial group was worth 20 points. (For comparison: the best essay they received in a year was worth 3 points and winning a gold medal in the Olympics was worth 5. ) Some states have explicitly "No-we-really-mean-it-this-time" illegalized racial discrimination in public education, a policy which commands a supermajority of support with American voters. California is a prominent example. The universities threatened massive resistance. (That phrasing would be understood by educated Americans to be a grave insult. It is a callback to a particular phrase used by a Southern politician refusing to comply with federal laws prohibiting discrimination against racial minorities.) Enrollment by favored minority groups declined by roughly half. Over the same period, Asian enrollment (as a percentage) increased markedly and white enrollment was roughly constant or declining.
- kenjackson 12y ago
  It is described as a minor, marginal policy, but all players understand that abandoning the formal racial discrimination policies would cause instantaneous hits to enrollment of favored racial minorities of roughly 50% or more, as has indeed happened when particular formal racial discrimination policies were found illegal. It's marginal for the majority population. Not for the minority group. Its like handicapped parking. If you were to remove them, your parking situation only sees a marginal improvement, but for the handicap it's probably a big deal.

Is not racial discrimination illegal in US?

by jkot 12y ago

Is not racial discrimination illegal in US?

tsotha 12y ago

No. It's perfectly legal to discriminate against white and East Asian men, thanks to our Humpty Dumpty court system.

venomsnake 12y ago

If it is - that shoots down affirmative actions ... it is complicated.

thaumasiotes 12y ago

Technically the answer is yes, unless there is a "compelling governmental interest". The supreme court once ruled that selecting college students so as to increase the diversity of viewpoints in a class satisfied this test, which is basically how diversity got to be the buzzword that it is today. Note that the rationale goes like so: "increased diversity among the students leads to higher-quality education, and therefore this diversity may be sought through the otherwise forbidden means of racial preferences". Where the goal is to benefit certain groups because you like those groups, the same process is notionally illegal. You have to say you're doing it to help everybody.

imjustsaying 12y ago

Apparently, racial discrimination is not always illegal in the US. In 1942, the federal government used racial data gathered by the census[0][1] and rounded up over 100,000 Japanese into concentration camps. [0]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/confirmed-the-us-census-b/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/confirmed-the-us-c... [1]http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-30-census-role_N.htm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-30-census...

ricree 12y ago
That's largely a non-sequitor, as 1942 would have predated most of the laws jkot would be referring to.
- imjustsaying 12y ago
  True, federal racial discrimination laws seem to have been put in place after 1942. I suppose what I find most interesting about this situation is that the census still requires you to identify your race and the race of those in your household. In light of the census's record of abuse of such racial data, I asked my roommate not to identify my race when the census agent came to our house years ago . However, the census agent returned a couple more times, threatening my roommate with legal retaliation if he didn't comply with divulging my race. Despite the threats, the agent eventually stopped showing up, and the promised threats never materialized.

patio11 12y ago

Title VI, a federal law, prohibits discrimination by race in, most prominently for the present discussion, any federally funded university, which is substantially all of them due to how America does research budgets and federal student aid. Many universities are government institutions, and in the United States government cannot generally discriminate on the basis of race due to the Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution (in the 14th Amendment) and/or the Due Process clause (5th Amendment). Both are generally pretty toothy. However, a contentious series of Supreme Court cases (Bakke, Gratz, Grutter) have held that universities are allowed to racially discriminate if they do so with the intention of achieving compelling educational interests and as long as their institutionalized racial discrimination is not a crass point system but rather a "holistic" evaluation of applicants which uses race as "one part of" the decisionmaking process. Racial discrimination is pervasive at US selective universities, public and private. It is described as a minor, marginal policy, but all players understand that abandoning the formal racial discrimination policies would cause instantaneous hits to enrollment of favored racial minorities of roughly 50% or more, as has indeed happened when particular formal racial discrimination policies were found illegal. For example, the Gratz decision illegalized a points system used by the University of Michigan, where 100 points were required for admission and being a member of a favored racial group was worth 20 points. (For comparison: the best essay they received in a year was worth 3 points and winning a gold medal in the Olympics was worth 5. ) Some states have explicitly "No-we-really-mean-it-this-time" illegalized racial discrimination in public education, a policy which commands a supermajority of support with American voters. California is a prominent example. The universities threatened massive resistance. (That phrasing would be understood by educated Americans to be a grave insult. It is a callback to a particular phrase used by a Southern politician refusing to comply with federal laws prohibiting discrimination against racial minorities.) Enrollment by favored minority groups declined by roughly half. Over the same period, Asian enrollment (as a percentage) increased markedly and white enrollment was roughly constant or declining.

kenjackson 12y ago
It is described as a minor, marginal policy, but all players understand that abandoning the formal racial discrimination policies would cause instantaneous hits to enrollment of favored racial minorities of roughly 50% or more, as has indeed happened when particular formal racial discrimination policies were found illegal. It's marginal for the majority population. Not for the minority group. Its like handicapped parking. If you were to remove them, your parking situation only sees a marginal improvement, but for the handicap it's probably a big deal.