# Is it constitutional to give black and indigenous people vaccine priority? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 2, 2021, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-constitutional-to-give-black-and-indigenous-people-vaccine-priority/939246 "2021-04-02T16:46:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2021, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-constitutional-to-give-black-and-indigenous-people-vaccine-priority/939246/21 "2021-04-02T20:34:29Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > Has it been established that they are at higher risk _because_ of their race ( like the colorectal cancer screening mentioned above)? Note that the higher colorectal cancer risk of African-Americans involves [socioeconomic and environmental as well as genetic factors](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5785537/). In general, race-correlated health vulnerabilities can’t be neatly compartmentalized as “just genetic” or “just socioeconomic”. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2021, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-constitutional-to-give-black-and-indigenous-people-vaccine-priority/939246/22 "2021-04-02T21:59:46Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > Has it been established that they are at higher risk _because_ of their race ( like the colorectal cancer screening mentioned above)? My [understanding](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/health-equity/race-ethnicity.html) ( and I could easily have missed something ) is that the elevated risk isn’t due to race but to issues correlated to race- living in congested neighborhoods, using public transportation, working at jobs that involve a lot of contact with the public. Correlated to race is good enough for support a valid public health policy. There’s no requirement that it be genetically related to race. The compelling government interest is in the overall outcome. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2021, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-constitutional-to-give-black-and-indigenous-people-vaccine-priority/939246/23 "2021-04-02T22:18:18Z")
Define what “sign-up” means. All it says is “sign-up”. What you posted makes no mention of priority. I signed-up. I am low priority and still waiting. But I put myself on the list. ---
**Author:** ![eschrodinger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschrodinger/32/122_2.png) [@eschrodinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschrodinger)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2021, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-constitutional-to-give-black-and-indigenous-people-vaccine-priority/939246/24 "2021-04-02T22:23:04Z")
It is being reported as eligibility. > **[Vermont Under Fire for Distributing COVID Vaccine Based on Race](https://www.newsweek.com/vermont-under-fire-distributing-covid-vaccine-based-race-1580769)** > > Republican Governor Phil Scott announced an initiative on Thursday to vaccinate individuals 16 or older that identify as Black, Indigenous or a person of color, over two weeks before offering all races the same access. ETA: confirmed on VT Dept of Health website: > **[COVID-19 Vaccine](https://www.healthvermont.gov/disease-control/covid-19/vaccine)** > > Everyone 6 months of age and older is eligible to get a vaccine. Find out where to get vaccinated, see dosage recommendations, and find resources if you need assistance. Click on “continue reading” and scroll down. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2021, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-constitutional-to-give-black-and-indigenous-people-vaccine-priority/939246/25 "2021-04-02T22:32:17Z")
That “under fire” characterization in the Newsweek article seems to be just a bunch of pearl-clutching by right-wingers: > [@](#): > > The initiative comes more than two weeks before Vermont plans to open up vaccine eligibility to all people regardless of race on April 19, prompting a wave of harsh criticism online. […] a senior policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum […] > > Conservative commentator Matt Walsh tweeted Thursday […] > > Chris Rufo, a researcher at the conservative nonprofit Discovery Institute, told [Fox News](https://www.newsweek.com/topic/fox-news)Friday that the issue was a violation of constitutional rights […] Yeah, Newsweek, get back to me when the ACLU or some other principled advocate for civil liberties calls this unconstitutional. I’m not taking these clowns’ word for it. ---
**Author:** ![eschrodinger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschrodinger/32/122_2.png) [@eschrodinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschrodinger)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2021, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-constitutional-to-give-black-and-indigenous-people-vaccine-priority/939246/26 "2021-04-02T22:34:53Z")
Yeah, I wasn’t citing it for anything but the “eligibility” vs registration piece. But I’m sure the right wing outrage is being stoked as I type this, so I’m not sure it’s inaccurate – perhaps just slightly premature? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2021, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-constitutional-to-give-black-and-indigenous-people-vaccine-priority/939246/27 "2021-04-02T22:40:48Z")
To be fair, something’s “under fire” as soon as anybody fires something off at it, whoever they are and whatever their motives, so Newsweek is technically correct about that. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2021, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-constitutional-to-give-black-and-indigenous-people-vaccine-priority/939246/29 "2021-04-02T23:51:53Z")
Compelling government interest is good enough for a public health policy - what I haven’t seen is any indication that excluding _only_ white people who don’t live in a household with a BIPOC from eligibility serves that compelling government interest in the overall outcome. From what I’ve read (and heard from people I know) there are a lot of reasons for low vaccination rates that have nothing to do with eligibility. Everything from a mistrust of both the government and the medical profession that does exist , (although not to the extent that some people like to claim) to vaccination sites being difficult to get to to being unable to get time off from work to get the vaccine to not having hours to spend trying to get an appointment to people from wealthier areas taking appointments at vaccination sites in low-income areas. Expanding eligibility to people living in households with a BIPOC person doesn’t solve any of those problems - what it means is those people living in those households who don’t face any of those other problems will be able to get vaccinated. Because the BIPOC person or household member who can only get an appointment during working hours and can’t get the time off from work is _still_ not going to get vaccinated, even though they are now eligible. Nor is the one who either has no way to get to a vaccination site or who can’t make an appointment online but can only travel to a site that requires online appointments. And even if I were somehow convinced (it’s possible) that there is a public health reason to make all people who identify as BIPOC eligible , I do not understand why their white household members\* being eligible serves a public health purpose. There were only two groups where even some household members were eligible and reasons were given for those\*\*. I can’t find anywhere that gives a reason why anyone living in a household with someone wo identifies as BIPOC is eligible. - the only household members affected are white. If they weren’t white, they’d be eligible as BIPOC themselves. \*\*Parents and primary caregivers of children under 16 with high risk medical conditions are eligible and household members of people who are eligible due to age/medical condition or occupation can register for community clinics for non-English speakers or immigrant/refugee communities to avoid duplicating the services at a later date. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2021, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-constitutional-to-give-black-and-indigenous-people-vaccine-priority/939246/30 "2021-04-03T01:19:07Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > And even if I were somehow convinced (it’s possible) that there is a public health reason to make all people who identify as BIPOC eligible , I do not understand why their white household members\* being eligible serves a public health purpose. There were only two groups where even some household members were eligible and reasons were given for those\*\*. I can’t find anywhere that gives a reason why anyone living in a household with someone wo identifies as BIPOC is eligible. ?? Maybe I’m missing something here, but that seems self-evident to me? Namely, if BIPOC people are at higher risk for contracting and/or complications from COVID, then not only they but the people in their immediate bubble should get protection from COVID. AIUI, there is strong evidence (though not conclusive scientific confirmation, given the recent emergence of the data) that COVID vaccination prevents or at least drastically reduces not just the effects of COVID infection but the likelihood of transmitting it. Am I missing something? Still seems to make sense to me. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2021, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-constitutional-to-give-black-and-indigenous-people-vaccine-priority/939246/31 "2021-04-03T01:35:21Z")
It would make sense to me if the entire households of _all_ people at higher risk were eligible- but they aren’t. If a 30 year old is eligible because he or she is immunocompromised , the other members of his or her household aren’t eligible. A 45 year old living with her 75 year old mother isn’t eligible. “COVID vaccination prevents or at least drastically reduces not just the effects of COVID infection but the likelihood of transmitting it.” applies to those situations too, but they still aren’t eligible ( at least not according to the Vermont website) ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2021, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-constitutional-to-give-black-and-indigenous-people-vaccine-priority/939246/32 "2021-04-03T01:48:57Z")
> [@eschrodinger](#): > > There’s also an increased risk for people of color to die from Covid, not just to catch it. That could be tied to, among other things, the increased chances for that group to have underlying conditions – which may be undiagnosed. Also, people of color get a reduced quality of care. I don’t think the current Supreme Court would buy lower quality of care as a justification for racial discrimination. Maybe they would buy increased disease risk as a reason for racial discrimination. We’ll never know, because the issue would be moot before it was litigated. As for whether it is constitutional in the abstract, equal protection of the laws is too abstract for there to be an answer absent the question being litigated. I personally disagree with having different rules, such as a cut-off age, based on race. I’d prioritize by neighborhood COVID rate, which would have an indirect effect on the racial mix of who gets vaccinated, but do not like racial preferences. Unless I get appointed to the Supreme Court, that doesn’t have anything to do with the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![eschrodinger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschrodinger/32/122_2.png) [@eschrodinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschrodinger)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2021, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-constitutional-to-give-black-and-indigenous-people-vaccine-priority/939246/33 "2021-04-03T03:47:15Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > I don’t think the current Supreme Court would buy lower quality of care as a justification for racial discrimination. It’s not a justification for discrimination. The justification is that people of color are more likely to die of Covid, so they can be prioritized for vaccination. The explanations were answering why you can’t write a more narrowly tailored rule. It isn’t just about being more likely to be a frontline worker, so that prioritizing frontline workers would suffice. It’s more complicated than that. For example, you can’t write a rule singling out only the people who will receive subpar medical treatment when they get sick. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2021, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-constitutional-to-give-black-and-indigenous-people-vaccine-priority/939246/34 "2021-04-03T08:03:20Z")
This is astounding to me. Not just the policy, but that people would make it or defend it. It turns racial classifications back into the old rational basis standard instead of making any racial classification subject to strict scrutiny such that no other method would be feasible. It seems that under this regime a government could refuse to hire blacks under the guise that blacks commit crime at a higher rate and use some of the justifications in this thread. “Yes, it isn’t a perfect match, but we cannot be bothered to use more direct or scientific evidence to clear out those who commit crimes; we are just doing the best we can with imperfect information. The people want honest government employees and we are doing what we can to provide that.” ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2021, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-constitutional-to-give-black-and-indigenous-people-vaccine-priority/939246/35 "2021-04-04T03:25:34Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > This is astounding to me. Not just the policy, but that people would make it or defend it. It turns racial classifications back into the old rational basis standard […] > > It seems that under this regime a government could refuse to hire blacks under the guise that blacks commit crime at a higher rate and use some of the justifications in this thread. IANAL, but this objection seems silly to me. By your reasoning, AFAICT, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibiting age-based discrimination against older workers would likewise prevent the government from prioritizing older Americans for vaccination. Obviously, governments seem to be perfectly comfortable with both outlawing discrimination based on age and fast-tracking COVID vaccine eligibility based on age when age correlates to higher risk from COVID. So why should the government or anybody else not be okay with both outlawing discrimination based on race and fast-tracking COVID vaccine eligibility based on race when race correlates to higher risk from COVID? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2021, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-constitutional-to-give-black-and-indigenous-people-vaccine-priority/939246/36 "2021-04-07T01:52:23Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > And it’s certain that it’s correlated to race. That is the bottom line. Target POC and you statistically be targeting a population at higher risk of getting sick and those at higher risk of exposing those at higher risk. Is it genetic? Poorer access to healthcare? Poorer utilization of healthcare? Living conditions, jobs worked? Other correlated factors?All, some? Don’t matter. Policies like this are broad statistical brushstrokes for greater public good. I was included as a healthcare worker same level as someone working in an ICU. I work with low risk kids. But the brushstroke was healthcare even though it applied to some less meaningfully for risk and societal benefits than others. ---
**Author:** ![Earl\_McCabe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@Earl\_McCabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_McCabe)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2021, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-constitutional-to-give-black-and-indigenous-people-vaccine-priority/939246/37 "2021-04-07T02:28:05Z")
I find it flagrantly condescending and presumptuous for you to suggest that living as an ethnic minority is a “burden”. Are you an American? Your suggestion has me questioning your familiarity with the social culture of the United States. As to the OP. There is no question that a race-based policy such as this is unconstitutional. I am not surprised that something like this would happen in Vermont, where there are nearly 0 ethnic minority citizens. There hasn’t been something this crudely racist in many years of US politics. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2021, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-constitutional-to-give-black-and-indigenous-people-vaccine-priority/939246/38 "2021-04-07T02:49:24Z")
> [@Earl\_McCabe](#): > > I find it flagrantly condescending and presumptuous for you to suggest that living as an ethnic minority is a “burden”. You may find it condescending; others find it linked to [heart disease](https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/cdp-cdp0000076.pdf), [depression](https://www.pfizer.com/news/hot-topics/understanding_racial_microaggression_and_its_effect_on_mental_health), and [overall poor health](https://centerforhealthjournalism.org/2017/11/08/how-racism-and-microaggressions-lead-worse-health). No, it is NOT obvious or unquestioned that prioritizing the people most likely to suffer adverse consequences from COVID infection is unconstitutional. Would you, for example, assert that giving the elderly priority is unconstitutional? ---
**Author:** ![Earl\_McCabe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@Earl\_McCabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_McCabe)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2021, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-constitutional-to-give-black-and-indigenous-people-vaccine-priority/939246/39 "2021-04-07T03:23:16Z")
Yes I would. Do you hold that the 14th amendment was ratified improperly? That is a mainstay of those who favor race-based policy. I would add that speaking for an entire race of individuals and labeling their status as an ethnic minority a “burden” _is_ condescending. Conducting or citing medical studies _is not_. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2021, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-constitutional-to-give-black-and-indigenous-people-vaccine-priority/939246/40 "2021-04-07T03:36:44Z")
Why? Can you expand on your reasoning? What do you think of the Supreme Court’s holding in [Massachusetts Board of Retirement v Murgia](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1975/74-1044), decided nearly five decades ago and repeatedly upheld? ETA: > [@Earl\_McCabe](#): > > I would add that speaking for an entire race of individuals and labeling their status as an ethnic minority a “burden” _is_ condescending. Conducting or citing medical studies _is not_ . The argument is that living as an ethnic minority in the US generally means being subject to repeated and ongoing racial microaggressions. Do you disagree with that statement, or merely think it is NOT a burden to be so subject? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2021, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-constitutional-to-give-black-and-indigenous-people-vaccine-priority/939246/41 "2021-04-07T03:47:30Z")
> [@Earl\_McCabe](#): > > I find it flagrantly condescending and presumptuous for you to suggest that living as an ethnic minority is a “burden”. ??? On average, ethnic minorities in the US are subjected to more bigotry and discrimination than white people. How is that not a burden? What on earth could be considered “condescending and presumptuous” about acknowledging that fact? > [@Earl\_McCabe](#): > > As to the OP. There is no question that a race-based policy such as this is unconstitutional. Doesn’t look like it. At least, so far nobody claiming it’s unconstitutional has been able to reconcile such claims with the analogous situations that I mentioned earlier: > [@Kimstu](#): > > For comparison, consider [this summary of state laws mandating insurance coverage for colorectal cancer screening](https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/colorectal-cancer-screening-laws-by-state.aspx), where Alaska law specifically requires coverage for “Persons who are 35-40 in high risk group, African American or anyone over 40”. > > Again, the reason there’s an explicit racial designation in that law is because African-Americans are at elevated risk for colorectal cancer and it’s recommended that people in that group start routine screening for it at an earlier age. I know of no attempts to argue that that Alaskan law is unconstitutional. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Obviously, governments seem to be perfectly comfortable with both outlawing discrimination based on age, and fast-tracking COVID vaccine eligibility based on age, when age correlates to higher risk from COVID. So why should the government or anybody else not be okay with both outlawing discrimination based on race, and fast-tracking COVID vaccine eligibility based on race, when race correlates to higher risk from COVID? [Commas added for readability, I don’t know what I was thinking leaving them out.] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-constitutional-to-give-black-and-indigenous-people-vaccine-priority/939246.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-constitutional-to-give-black-and-indigenous-people-vaccine-priority/939246.md?page=3)