Re:L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitut...
by PaulDavisThe1st on Saturday April 02, 2022 @10:56PM
(#30893949)
> There’s no such thing as a “protected group” in the law.
No such thing as a protected group ... sure, but there are characteristics that is legal to discriminate on the basis of (e.g. you like King Crimson too much) and ones that are illegal (e.g. you have a Y chromosome)
CA's definition of "underrepresented" does not reflect who might face discrimination; it reflects people who are underrepresented in certain kinds of positions in society and are prima facie concluded to therefore be discriminated against.
Re:L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitut...
by rectang on Saturday April 02, 2022 @10:28PM
(#30893783)
For what it's worth, I've been reading your writing here for a long time, and to see you make a comment which allows for the possible existence of either structural barriers or discrimination in the contemporary United States made me feel as though today's discussion was less than 100% hopeless. That the structural barriers you cite apply to Appalachians doesn't bother me, they're a good example.
Moreover, the California law improperly conflates discrimination with structural disadvantage. It’s definition of “underrepresented” reflects people who might face discrimination. But that’s a different thing than facing structural disadvantages—persistent disparities that can’t be remediated simply by addressing prejudices conduct—which is the linchpin of affirmative action programs.
Hispanics and Asians are just modern day Italians or Irish. They may face discrimination, but the data shows that they don’t really face structural barriers to closing gaps with “white” Americans. Appalachians, by contrast, likely don’t face much discrimination, but face large and persistent structural gaps. These are two quite different categories and it’s nonsensical to conflate them.