december those exemptions do make a significant difference. Depending on the exact nature of the exemptions, I would probably vote for it now.
One thing to call you on - you’re discussion of discrimination and lawsuits misses one important type of discrimination lawsuit.
There are two types of discrimination that are actionable. The first is based upon discriminatory intent - which is what you discussed above. The second, however, is discriminatory effect - an employment (or housing or whathaveyou) policy is not discriminatory on its face but, intentionally or not, causes discrimination. The traditional example is a hiring requirement that is not necessary for the job itself and causes less numbers of a given minority to be hired - for example, requiring a high school diploma for a janitor. The purpose of making this actionable is to prevent surreptitious discrimination.
And for that type of lawsuit, racial statistics are a necessary element of proof.
Law != laws: For 215 years we have had a nation in which some specific provisions and some broad-brush definitions are enshrined as the fundamental law of the land in the U.S. constitution. Each state has a similar document dealing with its own particular requirements. The U.S. Congress is privileged to pass statutes in compliance with the U.S. Constitution, and each state legislature to do likewise in compliance with both national and state constitutions. Under these laws, administrative agencies are privileged to issue regulations under which they do the work of daily governance, provided that those regulations comply with the provisions of statutes and constitutions affecting them. And judges apply the provisions of these regulations, statutes, and constitutions to particular cases and render judgments and opinions about how they apply. All this is taken together to constitute “law.”
Discrimination: There are many meanings to the word. Certainly I can have discriminating tastes, so that I prefer a good chardonnay to Mad Dog 20/20 when I wish to drink wine. I may choose those people with whom I desire to associate and to avoid those who annoy me.
But in a large number of circumstances, it has been made illegal by statute to exercise one’s right to discriminate in particular ways relative to particular conditions, largely unchosen, in which other persons find themselves. Most particularly, it is illegal for the government or anyone expending money whose source is taxes paid by the citizenry to commit such discrimination. Nor may one hold something open as a business, in general, to the public and discriminate with what parts of the public one may trade (technically, this deals solely with interstate commerce except in those states with similar laws, but any nexus with interstate commerce is sufficient to invoke this provision).
It would also in most cases be possible to identify some other, non-protected trait which would justify not renting to, not hiring, firing, or otherwise acting in a discriminatory manner. For example, I was the sole male secretary employed by my firm. When the person supervising secretaries resigned and a replacement was hired, my performance suddenly plummeted. I was doing the same work at what I believe the same quality, but it was grounds for dismissal on inadequate ability – but strangely enough she has hired young women to replace me and two other resignations. (Under N.C. law I have no grounds on which to complain – nor would it be of any value to pursue the issue – but the question of whether I was discriminated against on the basis of sex is present.)
Thanks for distinguishing these two types of cases.
ISTM enforcement might still be possible in the second case. E.g., suppose a complaint were filed alleging that a firm in Oakland, CA had a diploma requirement, which held down the percentage of African-American janitors.
Oakland’s population by race would be available from the US Census. A racial breakdown could be determined at the time of the complaint, by simply counting the firm’s janitors. So, a statistical comparison could be made at a point in time, even though the firm hadn’t been keeping statistical records by race.
No doubt the case might be even stronger if it were supported by statistics from the past, but ISTM that current ratios might be adequate evidence in this sort of situation.
and this would be accomplished, how? since ‘governmental agencies would be prohibited from collecting racial data’.
I am not in favor of such a resolution until after a significant period of time (say more than a week thbbbtttt) of data that demonstrated that racial equity had actually occured across the boards. Sadly, I don’t see that happening for quite a while.
wring, the United States Census Bureau will not be affected by what the State of California does.
december, your hypothetical about the Oakland firm and its janitors is off the mark as well. The Oakland firm will still be required, under federal law, to keep track of the race of its employees.
What’s relevant here is the State of California in its role as employer. It is going to have to keep track of the race of its employees, and I think that this will have to be one of the exemptions.
wring, the United States Census Bureau will not be affected by what the State of California does.
december, your hypothetical about the Oakland firm and its janitors is off the mark as well. The Oakland firm will still be required, under federal law, to keep track of the race of its employees.
What’s relevant here is the State of California in its role as employer. It is going to have to keep track of the race of its employees, and I think that this will have to be one of the exemptions.
And, of course, whether you count them before or after a lawsuit is filed, it’s still “statistics” you are creating.
Yes, I was wondering about that, too. The article I cited earlier says the proposition would ban “compiling” certain statistics. If one combines statistics from a single organization, would that constitute “compiling”? It might depend on which definition of compile is used:
To gather into a single book.
To put together or compose from materials gathered from several sources.
[Ryan tells other people how to write]
Polycarp, I think that the distinction you are making would be better made by simply omitting the definite article before the word “law”: “Under law as it stands today…” or “Under current law…”.
SuaSponte
your discussion, not you’re discussion.
[/Ryan tells other people how to write]
Are you implying that the majority of people are guilty of discriminatory practices?
If there is a policy to extend some service, benefit, or other asset to certain people based on race, that is racist.
I see your point, TheRyan. I felt it important to distinguish between the concept of “the law” (including judicial opinion, constitutional precept, etc.) and statute laws, as discussions based on the application of broad-brush precepts to specific situations have foundered on people failing to understand that when, e.g., sua sponte says “the law…” he is not making reference to Public Law 89-213 or 14 CFR 3196.2 (a)(2) but to the broader concept.
The idea that the United States is a “government under law” makes me content to live without protest under a regime placed into office through the action of five Supreme Court justices – because, whatever I may think of their action in declaring the status quo in Florida to be sacrosanct for the sake of preserving the “legitimacy” of the candidate then ahead in the count, I’m bound by my Oath of Allegiance to accept their decision as the final arbitration in that situation, as they were duly empowered by the statutes and the Constitution to render a decision in the case brought before them. But you cannot point to any (statute) law that says, “The Supreme Court is entitled to decide whether to continue or terminate a recount in a dispute over a given state’s vote in a Presidential election.” It doesn’t exist. The right they have to render that decision, they have by precedent, Constitutional empowerment, and the various Judiciary Acts.
Your definitrion assumes that racist simply means “regarding race.” “Racist” has a clear implication in American English that it either elevates or denigrates one perceived race over another. Outreach programs that attempt to redress previous damage that was done because of perceived race do not fit the categories of either elevating or denigrating.
Not at all. I am stating quite clearly that the majority has received benefits to their current status because of previous discriminatory practices and that they do not wish to examine too closely those practices or their results.
As this thread goes on, I find myself moving toward the other side. In my experience, employers today tend to bend over a bit to hire and promote minorities, and that’s a good thing. There are scoundrels like Jesse Jackson who take advange of the system, but fortunately there aren’t that many. I’m becoming more worried that without some continuing pressure, minorities may have a considerably tougher time.
If I may continue this hijack, the above formulation is reasonable and I suppose it’s even the law. Still, I have a quibble:
An outreach program is objective; its purpose is subjective.
Example 1. If a politician justifies an outreach prorgram as supposedly offsetting previous damage, how could we tell if his real motivation were to win votes?
Example 2. Suppose some company decides that past affirmative action damaged white males, so they hire people using a white male outreach. Would anyone support this? Of course not.
I’m not arguing against outreach programs. I’m just pointing out that tomndebb’s formulation is less clear-cut than it appears to be.
As a sociology PhD candidate and a California voter, I plan to vote against the initiative if it is placed on the ballot. Setting aside the issue of affirmative action, pro or con, I oppose the initiative, because many of my colleagues in the social sciences rely for their research on data sets that have accurate income about gender, income, education, occupation, and race. There are many debates about race in universities, foundations, and think tanks on both the left and right and these debates should not be constrained by a lack of information imposed by political fiat. Enforced non-collection of information is nothing more than enforced ignorance. For example, William Julius Wilson is a liberal African-American sociologist who argued for the primacy of class in determining the economic fortunes of black people in his book, The Declining Significance of Race. When that book was published, he attracted some scholarly controversy for his argument that class mattered more than race in the lives of poorer African-Americans. Under the proposed initiative, Wilson would no longer have any statistical data from California to make his argument, even though his argument about race being less important than class might help bolster some of Ward Connerly’s arguments for color-blind social policies.
By the way, I would like to add that the federal government has taken religious censuses as late as 1936. (These censuses are still being used by sociologists of religion today.) The government discontinued the religious census before one could be conducted in 1946, because of resources drained by World War II and the fear that censuses could be used to identify religious minorities for Nazi-style persecution. However, although the government does not conduct religious censuses any more, it does ask people about their religious affiliation in numerous surveys about fertility, teenage pregnancy, welfare etc. etc.
In addition, I would like to add that there is no right-thinking social scientist who would force a survey respondent to reveal his or her race, religion, or other personal data unwillingly. More to the point, any social scientist who works with any large institution or gets any outside funding has to submit to an institutional review board to ensure that they don’t abuse people’s rights by forcing them do things against their will. The right of citizens to leave items blank on a form is already respected. This initiative does nothing to further that right, because the right already exists.
This Californian is voting No. I think even sven did a good job of summarizing the problem here: as long as race remains significant for individuals who may discriminate, race will continue to be significant for those who are concerned with public policy. Outlawing information is pointless.
Good points were also made by Polycarp, tomndebb and jonp; I just have a little information to add, for context. After affirmative action was outlawed by the California electorate in 1998 with Proposition 209, the percentage of non-white students in the UC system plummetted for a time. However, due mostly to a heroic effort by UC administrators to reach out to communities of color and encourage prospective applicants (permitted by 209), the levels of non-white students are back up to what they were before. Ward Connerly’s initiative would outlaw even this effort.
I do not think this initiative is a slam-dunk to pass. California voters have shown a propensity for making “statements” by passing baby-and-bathwater initiatives, but they have shown little enthusiasm for the follow-up. For instance, Howard Jarvis’ Proposition 13 passed in 1978, but his Proposition 9 failed in 1980. Also, in 1994, Proposition 187, which would have forced public schools to turn away undocumented students, passed (and was, thankfully, found unconstitutional); however, when the anti-immigration forces wrote another initiative that would have forced landlords to check the immigration status of tenants, they couldn’t even collect enough signatures to get it on the ballot.
As a political force, backlash and blame only go so far. After a certain point, common sense and humanity reassert themselves.
The Ryan, a lack of elevation or denigration doesn’t mean a lack of help/effectiveness/assistance/whatever. We’ll make an analogy. Let’s say I do something that hurts my friend. Now, later, I’d like to do something to alleviate the harm I’ve caused. Whatever it is that I decide to do helps, even if it doesn’t fully undo the damage. Does this make my friend better than me, or me worse than my friend? Vice versa?
I disagree with your implication that this is an appropiate analogy, and I do think that if you go out of your way to help one of your friends, and not another, that you are treating the former as more important than the latter.
Hurricane Floyd destroyed a lot of homes east of here.
Suppose a major developer, who makes 30% profit on his construction on average, decides to offer homes at a given price, but will give 20% off to those who can demonstrate that they had their home destroyed in Floyd.
Is he discriminating against the rest of us who did not have our homes destroyed by Floyd, or is he redressing a harm by attempting to make the playing field more level as between those with non-destroyed homes who might be in the market for another home vis-a-vis those who are actively seeking a home to replace the one they had which was destroyed?
While that analogy is not perfect either, it comes far closer to what you were seeking.
