Race Discrimination

Vermont: Special Vaccine Access If You're of the Right Racial Group

Clearly unconstitutional.


From Health Vermont:


People 50 years and older

People 16 years or older with high-risk health conditions

Parents and primary caregivers of children with high-risk health conditions

Black, Indigenous and people of color (BIPOC)


If you or anyone in your household identifies as Black, Indigenous, or a person of color (BIPOC), including anyone with Abenaki or other First Nations heritage, all household members who are 16 years or older can sign up to get a vaccine….

But such race discrimination violates the Equal Protection Clause, for reasons that Hans Bader (Liberty Unyielding) explains, with citations.

NEXT: California Court Refuses to Apply Iranian Law, in Part Because It Reflects Religious Ideology Rather Than Economic Interest

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The one thing I would have said about Eugene Volokh: he does not speak in absolutes. “I am not an expert in the field and it is a complex situation, but…” “I am an expert in the field, but the situation is complex, so…”
    You can call it hedging but I always thought it an admirable modesty in the face of what is always, in fact, a complex situation.

    Clearly unconstitutional.

    Who are you and what have you done with the real Eugene Volokh?

    (But yes, clearly unconstitutional.)

    1. Sometimes you have to call them as you see them when a decree violates equal protection on its face.

      1. And sometimes the Volokh Conspiracy ignores race-related issues, such as when Republican racists and conservative bigots engage in race-targeting voter suppression.

        Carry on, clingers.

        1. RAK, there you go again.
          Nothing of substance to say about an issue? No matter, just spew the usual crappola.

          1. Don, I think it is substantive to point out selective hypocrisy on an issue. It suggests bad faith.

            1. QA,
              If there is anyone with ill will and a mean spirit to boot, it is RAK.

              Oh yes, there are other here of a different political persuasion who also have the tiresome screed that we see at every turn.

              1. How many times must I repeat a vile racial slur, often gratuitously, to make you love me, Don Nico? If I do it weekly, like the Volokh Conspiracy, would that be enough?

                1. How mucH RAK? If you’d cut your slogans and write on point at least I’d respect you.

                  1. I do not seek your respect.

                    I want, and will have, your compliance.

                    1. Compliance you’re never going to get. Stop wasting your time.

                    2. You’re already complying with my preferences concerning prayer in schools, treatment of gays like dirt, Social Security, creationism is schools, environmental safeguards, treatment of women like dirt, Medicare, abortion, treatment of Blacks like dirt, Medicaid, and dozens of other circumstances in which the liberal-libertarian mainstream has shaped American progress against the wishes of conservatives. You get to whine about all of this damned progress, tolerance, reason, science, inclusiveness, and education — but you do and will continue to comply.

                      From your (right-wing) perspective, it is only going to get worse.

            2. I’m not going to do a search of your previous comments because I’m too lazy. But I will ask if you’ve ever accused anyone of whataboutism?

            3. Funny how that gets called whataboutism when Republicans do it.

              And of course it gives you cover to avoid addressing Vermont’s racist policies.

              Did you have any thoughts on their racism?

        2. Commies to the left of me! Clingers to the right! Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.

          1. Do you deny the Georgia election law enacted by Republicans was motivated by hostility toward Black voters? If so, please try to explain the provision curbing “Souls to the Polls,” you racist wingnut.

            1. “Do you deny the Georgia election law enacted by Republicans was motivated by hostility toward Black voters?”

              I’d say that the case that the Georgia election law is based on race is significantly weaker than the case that this vaccine access criteria is based on race.

              1. Of course, it would be easier to have an opinion of the Georgia law if we could get a straight description of what it does.

                Trump’s constant lying made it much more difficult to figure out what the facts were in any given situation, and it looks like Biden is engaging in the same practice.

                1. The New York TImes published a strong analysis of that law the other day.

                  1. And yet Biden mouths out 4 pinocchios

                    1. Biden issues some misleading statements, but he is not in the league of Cruz, Pompeo, Kemp, Trump, and others in that regard, including with respect to the Republicans’ recent race-targeting voter suppression efforts in Georgia and Texas.

                      Feel free to continue to defend Georgia Republicans — I enjoy watching right-wingers flail and lose.

                    2. RAK
                      “some misleading statements”
                      for 4 Pinocchios that means he lies on occasion.
                      Try to be honest for a change

            2. Do you deny the Georgia election law enacted by Republicans was motivated by hostility toward Black voters? If so, please try to explain the provision curbing “Souls to the Polls,” you racist wingnut.

              Sure: it doesn’t exist. No such provision is in there.

    2. The scary question is if it *isn’t*…

      Vermont is going to allege that certain racial groups have a documented higher morbidity and mortality from the Wuhan Virus than would be expected from their other medical demographics (i.e. age & health) — and hence that they meet the “strict scrutiny” standard.

      Let’s assume for the sake of argument that they are actually right — that this isn’t shoddy research or woke activism, that there aren’t other relevant factors being overlooked — but that Blacks actually *are* more susceptible to that Wuhan Flu, and that this is not just statistically significant but overwhelming.

      Why wouldn’t the same “strict scrutiny” standard permit Blacks to be quarantined solely on the basis of race? All of the above indicates that they are much likely to be “super spreaders” so all of this is inherently rational….

      Yes, it is a scary precedent — and the even more scary thing is that the woke activists advocating the vaccine preference aren’t even able to comprehend that.

      1. Having too much melanin while living at high latitudes is most certainly a “comorbidity”.

        1. I was going to say something sarcastic about drinking your milk, but then, not everyone does.

          And it’s not just latitude but also climate — no sane person exposes a lot of skin in cold weather, even in sunshine.

          1. But that’s why evolution led to humans living at higher latitudes to have less melanin—in order to absorb more sunlight for vitamin D.

      2. “Why wouldn’t the same “strict scrutiny” standard permit Blacks to be quarantined solely on the basis of race? ”
        1) Hypothetical off-point.

        “assume for the sake of argument that they are actually right ”
        2) Counterfactual

        Why are you broadening the question when there is a specific governmental action that is questioned?

        1. I think the idea is to illustrate that the state only (acts like it) cares whether Black citizens are at elevated risk for the purposes of benefiting then. They don’t impose racially discriminatory rules that would restrict Black citizens more than others.

          1. And the should demonstrate the veracity of opinion under strict scrutiny.

      3. Thanks for including ‘Wuhan Virus’ in your first paragraph. I was *this* close to reading your entire comment. Phew.

        1. jsl,
          It would be reasonable to accept that the “Wuhan virus” means the original strain.
          After all people talk about the South African strain, the UK strain, the Brazilian strain as if those geographical identifiers are all okay.

          1. Those shouldn’t be used either, but they’re not used with racist intention like Wuhan/China. The recent regional terms are used to distinguish variants, as shorthand for names no one knows like ‘B.1.1.7.’ Understanding variants and how that complicates controlling the pandemic is important. Understanding whether the virus started in Wuhan when the primary mode of transmission has been community spread for at least a year does not.

            1. “but they’re not used with racist intention like Wuhan/China”

              I was today years old when I learned that the NYT was racist.

              (I mean recently … if you go back a few decades, then sure)

            2. Js,
              “Racist intentions” is your claim based only on the propagandist pleadings of the CCP. You actually know that but prefer to play the “useful idiot” to use a common KGB phrase

    3. “Clearly unconstitutional.”

      Not clearly, not even close. Part of Eugene’s confusion is illustrated by the tag “RACE DISCRIMINATION.” To discriminate race is simply to tell races apart. The tag should be RACISM or DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE. Is it AGE DISCRIMINATION to prioritize the elderly for the vaccine? Yeah. Is that AGEISM or DISCRIMINATION BASED ON AGE? No. Race and age are incidental here, not the basis for discrimination.

      Does Eugene say it’s “clearly unconstitutional” for cops to stop black men while looking for a suspect that happens to be a black man? No.

  2. This would seem to be race discrimination, but it is my understanding that blacks are at higher risk for Covid. If so, putting them at the head of the line to get vaccinated might make sense. You prioritize where the need is greatest.

    1. “blacks are at higher risk for Covid”
      That statement is without scientific basis.
      It is true that people who have been in “essential jobs” encountering many people in the work are a higher risk.
      The increase in risk is behavioral not racial.
      As for Native Americans, their communities in the South West have been hard hit. That experience has zero to do with the State of Vermont.

      1. Don,
        Perhaps. Non-Beige POC consume welfare dollars at higher rates than Beige POC. Food that is higher in calories from fat is cheaper that unprocessed fruit, vegetables and lean animal proteins. As a result, the US has the fattest poor people in the world. Obesity makes one more susceptible to covid mortality, no matter one’s melanin level. While the policy argues for giving non-Beige POC priority, it’s their dietary choices that make them more susceptible, not their melanin.

        1. “Obesity makes one more susceptible to covid mortality, no matter one’s melanin level.”
          That is absolutely false. On a worldwide basis the correlation of obesity with covid mortality is less than 4%

          1. Morbid obesity often involves both Diabetes and high blood pressure.

            1. Ed,
              Neither of those conditions shows a significant correlation with covid CFR

        2. To tell the whole truth:
          In Europe and the Americas, the incidence of covid is less that 10%.
          If one looks world wide the correction looks stronger because the incidence of obesity and covid is much lower in Africa and in Asia.

    2. And what the hell is a Person of Color, except for being a political term in the US?
      Evidently it has no actual relation to the color of a person’s skin.

      1. I am a person of color. Albeit a pale vaguely pinkish color (something like #f0d0b0), but color nevertheless, so I would qualify.

        (I’d use what used to be a common name for the general color of my skin but I understand that usage of that term is considered offensive to Smurfs whose flesh is definitely not that color).

        1. Yeah, don’t be so pedantic.

      2. “And what the hell is a person of color”

        In general, someone whose vote Republicans want to prevent or someone conservatives believe should not influence American culture.

        Fortunately, the clingers are getting stomped in the culture war, by their betters.

        1. “In general, someone whose vote Republicans want to prevent or someone conservatives believe should not influence American culture.”
          More of your bullshit.

          My daughter says that her brother and I are “persons of color” but she and her mom are not.

        2. Rev,
          Your low IQ is showing. Give the POC thing a rest. The belief that there are POC and non-POC only evinces a fundamental lack of science. Objects absorb and reflect back different parts of the visible light spectrum. It’s how we can sense and distinguish different colors. If beige wasn’t a color, then crackers would be invisible. Stop segregating Beige people from the rest of the population by telling them they’re not People of Color. We’re all People of Color.

          1. You seem to be a right-wing bigot. That’s why guys like me have been crushing your preferences in the culture war for a half-century. More on that way, clinger. And you will comply with the rules established by your betters. You can whine about it all you like, of course.

            1. Carry on with your bigoted and ignorant campaign to turn beige into an un-color. Your party has always gone in for fully bleached white, preferably in sheets and hood, unless you’re hiding your beigish skin color with bootblack. (Speaking of which, did Virginia’s governor ever say which of those costumes he used in his med school yearbook picture?)

              1. Rants against race-mixing from conservatives are always entertaining … mostly because the clingers are increasingly powerless to maintain their bigoted, obsolete preferences in modern America.

        3. “In general, someone whose vote Republicans want to prevent or someone conservatives believe should not influence American culture.”

          After they are dead — which everyone born in the 19th Century now is. Yet they still somehow manage to vote…

    3. “Its racist but, oh never mind, its totally justified.” Krychek_2

    4. ” If so, putting them at the head of the line to get vaccinated might make sense. You prioritize where the need is greatest.”

      By the same token, locking them up in quarantine wards might make sense — again, you prioritize where the need is greatest….

      In a world of on-line electronic medical records, this could get very Orwellian, very quickly…

    5. Blame the kind of places where black people tend to live, and their lower incomes. Don’t blame skin color. Vaccine priorities should have considered population density and job type even for non-“essential” workers. They should not have considered skin color.

      1. John,
        Here again there is no scientific evidence that Kinds of places and lower income have any significant correlation with either the incidence per capita or the fatalities per capita for SARS-CoV-2.

        The occupational correlation does sound defensible, not “race,” race identification or income

        1. See Chang et al. “Mobility network models of COVID-19 explain inequities and inform reopening” Nature 589:82–87 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2923-3
          “Our model also correctly predicts higher infection rates among disadvantaged racial and socioeconomic groups solely as the result of differences in mobility”

          1. John,
            That paper about mobility networks in no way contradicts the fact that income or slum dwelling have any correlation with either covid contagion or with covid mortality. It simple verifies that in a highly mobile societies in which people have a large number of contracts with others when the Ro of the infection is well above 1, will have rapid contagion in the mot mobile populations. When those that are mobile are so because they are engaged in “essential” jobs and contact many in those jobs, then you will see covid cases in the community that comes into contact with them.

            That has nothing to do with race or poverty or politics. It is just epidemiology.

            1. As I have said earlier in this thread, any differences are behavioral, not ethnic or racial.

    6. “This would seem to be race discrimination, ”

      ” it is my understanding that blacks are at higher risk for Covid. If so, putting them at the head of the line to get vaccinated might make sense. You prioritize where the need is greatest.”

      BWAAAHHH?!?! Let’s try that with some word substitution…

      “It is my understanding that blacks are at higher risk for committing crimes. If so, putting them at the head of the line to get arrested might make sense. You prioritize where the need is greatest.”

      1. “BWAAAHHH?!?! Let’s try that with some word substitution…”

        Do you really think that it helps discourse inject such a comment that will be seen by many as blatantly racist?

        1. I’m going to assume you’re talking about the word choices below the “Bwaah” comment as blatantly racists (and not Bwaah itself).

          And yes, if simple word substitution like done is “blatantly racist” then it helps indicate the original phrase is blatantly racist.

          1. It also shows the danger of this as a precedent.

      2. That’s already being done, and you and this blog defend it all the time.

    7. Your understanding is incorrect. There is no evidence of a differential genetic risk to COVID-19.

      There is, however, well documented evidence that first responders are at increased risk, that those with diabetes and other co-morbidities are at higher risk and a few other factors. It is also true that a higher proportion of blacks suffer from those other conditions. But after controlling for those factors, blacks are at no higher (or lower) risk than any other demographic.

      Those other conditions are all directly observable and can be used (and are being used) as prioritization factors in vaccination. Those prioritization factors are uncontroversial. People with diabetes should get vaccinated before the rest of us. And that’s true regardless of the color of their skin.

      But once those with elevated risk have been vaccinated, there is no justification for discriminatory treatment of the main body of the population.

      Again, IF there were a genetic component that put blacks at elevated risk, putting them at the head of the line would make sense. There is no such known genetic component.

      1. “those with diabetes and other co-morbidities are at higher risk and a few other factors.”

        Even those co-factors have minimally significant correlation with COVID mortality rates. The major except is chronic kidney disease as the covid can cause a very rapid collapse of kidney function. The remainder were early speculations by CDC.

  3. So if I hadn’t already gotten my vaccinations, I could go to Vermont, say I identified as a BIPOC Vermonter, and get my shot, since how you identify is more important than what you really are.

    1. Even better, all you have to do is say you have a BIPOC in your household….

      And by my definition of “household”, that would include a sex partner. And being accused of homophobia tends to silence most governmental bureaucrats…

      1. Hate to tell you this, guys, but if you’re willing to lie it’s not hard to get vaccinated in any state that isn’t doing purely age-based restrictions since no one is actually checking, e.g., health conditions.

        1. I could have gotten vaccinated by now without lying. The only reason I haven’t is that I already had Covid, and I’d rather somebody who was still at at least some degree of genuine risk got my shot.

          I probably will get vaccinated in another month or so, just to avoid the hit to my social credit score, though.

          1. Brett,
            You might look at measure rates of decrease in immunity from a previous covid case.
            Yes, you can afford to wait several weeks, but your final action should be a decision based on actual health risks not on “social credit score.” whatever you mean by that

  4. Look forward to courts stalling until the case becomes moot and no one facing any consequences for blatantly violating Vermont residents’ equal protection rights.

    Democrats usually escape consequences for lawless actions.

    1. Open wider, clinger. Or not. Your comfort is a receding concern among educated, modern, reasoning Americans.

  5. I would love to see the rationalizations for how this isn’t racist.

    1. “I would love to see the rationalizations for how this isn’t racist…”

      The woke crowd simply declines to call racism racism if it’s against white people.

    2. Because it meets the “strict scrutiny” standard?

      But then, what else might?

    3. Why? Rationalizations have little actual substance and all end up sounding the same:

      It’s different this time because they say so and they are good and they matter. And if you don’t agree it means you are bad, and because you are bad, you don’t matter. Everyone who matters agrees. You should shut up.

    4. Because….reasons.

    5. Then you’ll love this. Question: How is this not racist? Answer: Because race is incidental, i.e., if whites were 2x more likely to die from COVID-19, then whites would be the ones prioritized by the exact same standard. For something to be racist, race can’t be incidental, it has to be the basis.

      Racist: “prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.”

      1. Amazing…not even the Merriam-Wokester dictionary uses this definition – maybe they’re not advanced and progressive enough?


        1. From your link: “discrimination or hatred based on race”

          Just like prioritizing boomers isn’t ageism. If teens were hardest hit they’d be first in line.

          1. First, I’m not *endorsing* every usage or citation of the Merriam-Wokester dictionary. I’m just saying that *even they* don’t use your definition.

            Second, it says “discrimination *or* hatred based on race.”

            So even by Merriam-Wokester’s definition, racial discrimination in vaccines is racist.

            1. There is no definition in your link that says that. Race is not the basis, like age is not the basis. They’re incidental.


                “If you or anyone in your household identifies as Black, Indigenous, or a person of color (BIPOC), including anyone with Abenaki or other First Nations heritage, all household members who are 16 years or older can sign up to get a vaccine….”

      2. Jsl,
        There is no evidence that there is any racial component in covid CFRs. There are behavioral variation in covid infections. If the state is targeting behavioral variations as a function of ethnicity, it use use “essential behavior” as a criterion for priority rther than an facially unconstitutional violation of equal protection.

  6. Governor is a “Republican”.

    1. So is Charlie Parker.
      We have a serious RINO problem here in the Northeast.

      For that matter, ME Gov Janet Mills (D) comes from a Republican family — the Mills were all Republican politicians…

      1. Yes, you guys should definitely get rid of these two along with Larry Hogan (three of the four most popular governors in America) to make sure that the Republican party doesn’t have any leader with any appeal to Democrats or independents, and just focus on disenfranchising everyone who disagrees with you instead.

        P.S. I agree this rule is dumb/unconstitutional.

        1. Soon enough, it won’t matter who the Republicans run for office or follow politically.

          Why do you think the clingers are so disaffected, desperate, and predictably whiny?

          1. RAK, do you ever have anything useful to say?
            You don’t even have clever snarks. Instead you just bore everyone with your tiresome whining.

            1. This entire blog is devoted to trolling the American mainstream, owning the libs, and demonstrating that the proprietor and his fans will not be bullied into refraining from regular publication of vile racial slurs.

              Oh, and whining about how our strongest schools decline to emulate weak schools by hiring more movement conservatives for faculty positions.

              1. Your entire modus vivendi is trolling those who read this blog with a monotonous stream of ill will

                1. Pointers on ill will from the racist, gay-bashing, White nationalist, misogynistic, xenophobic side of the aisle are always entertaining, Don Nico.

                  1. How so? Has Joe Biden opposed school busing again? Did Kamala Harris join Hilary Clinton in denouncing superpredator criminals? Did Barack Obama reiterate his opposition to gay marriage? Did Pete Buttigieg ride a car most of the way to work, and only go via bike long enough to give an illusion of environmental friendliness?

                    1. You guys must find it difficult to believe that you — and your right-wing bigotry — are getting stomped into irrelevance by your betters in the march of American progress.

                  2. I guess you have learned your lesson well and amplified it with infantile, schoolyard tactics.

                    1. You don’t get to comment at the blog you would wish to see. Sometimes, you must comment at the blog the clingers bring.

                    2. But, RAK, your comments are not comments at all. They are merely schoolyard taunts.

        2. “Yes, you guys should definitely get rid of these two along with Larry Hogan”

          Oh dear, how we cope without these popular guys.

          Pro -abortion, anti-gun figureheads happily signing whatever the Dem super majority legislatures send them. Scot is on record as saying if Sanders or Leahy die, he’s appointing a democrat.

          You can have them if you want.

          1. Great.

            Please tell Collins and Murkowski to switch parties too. It would be nice if we didn’t have to rely on Harris to break all those ties. That would be swell! Thanks in advance.

            1. Collins and Murkowski matter on a national because its 50-50 and they will usually be ok votes on issues, abortion the main exception.

              Baker and Hogan and Scott don’t matter at all outside their states and Hogan/Baker’s lack of power means they matter little inside. Tax collectors for the welfare state.

              1. Not to mention Baker’s scandals — his child protective folk screwed up badly — again. That’s this week’s scandal.

  7. There is no evidence whatsoever that a BIPOC (whatever the hell that is) who is 16 is on average at anywhere near the level of risk as someone at age 50 or (even in their 40s) of any race.

    There are obviously plenty more accurate proxies for risk than race. The fact that they are openly divvying out life-saving remedies in this manner is ominous. With this lunatic woke ideology ascendant in elites institutions, it is pretty much a forgone conclusion that America is going to become a fractious banana republic

    Watch how people rationalize these vile policies.
    Krychek, Sarcastro and Co. are really just Kirkland, and I wish they’d be more honest

    1. I lean toward questioning and disliking this reported policy.

      I dislike right-wing bigots — pouncing on every perceived offense against Whites (and the superstitious), while promoting White supremacy and White nationalism — far more.

  8. There was an feature article about a local town having an POC outreach vaccination event, which mentioned it was by “invitation only”. I wonder if the “don’t call us, we’ll call you” nature of the event makes it any more constitutional?

    1. White people complaining about “separate but equal” because, in this case, it appears to disadvantage white people.

      Doing “POC outreach” doesn’t necessarily disadvantage white people if, in that local town you vaguely mention, the white population was already well-served. There are good reasons why Black Americans aren’t keen on white people with needles saying “we’re here to help.” Whatever we can do to get all Americans, including those infected with ‘Q,’ to get the vaccine, the better off we all are–both physically and economically.

      1. I’m not seeing any “separate but equal” in being told to get to the back of the line. Yes, blacks were told to go to the back of the bus – and it was wrong – but it’s not the same wrong as ‘separate but equal’.

      2. Shawn,
        What we are discussing is gross racial discrimination based on NOTHING but race and racial politics. There is nothing “equal” about the VT policy for which there is NO supporting science .

  9. This is plainly unconstitutional, but any charitable understanding would likely be tied to the idea that many POC are suffering at a disproportionate rate from Covid (if because of disparities in certain occupations, access to health care, or just social capital).

    But, white victimhood is really, really strong these days, and this is the ultimate clickbait/outrage machine kind of thing.

    1. In San Francisco, they approached this issue two ways:
      1) identified zip codes with low vaccination rates and focused special vaccine programs there.
      2) the state made “essential workers” eligible early and defined them as, among other things, folks in front-line jobs like grocery store clerks.

      Both of these approaches were facially neutral and still managed to increase vaccination rates among non-white residents. I’m not comfortable with the direct appeal to race but when it comes to saving lives, it’s a lot easier to understand. It’s also temporary in nature.

      1. Shawn,
        I have no problem, especially with policy #2.
        Policy #1 might be defensible by showing that the zip codes with low vaccinations are those where a preponderance of “essential workers” and therefore are more threatened by behavior-based contagion

      2. Yes, these seem like better ways. And Constitutional to boot!

    2. If there are disparities in occupations–and there are–these disparities should be addressed by adding priorities for workers in those occupations.

      The rest is political clickbait –including your last sentence

    3. If this is the ultimate outrage machine, states should not be so eager to implement blatantly unconstitutional discrimination. It effectively feeds the outrage machine, if not builds it outright.

    4. Black victimhood isn’t really really strong these days?

  10. Odd rule. One doesn’t qualify based on being BIPOC but onidentifying as BIPOC. Identifying is a state of mind. Just identify as BIPOC for at least the amount of time required to get vaccinated. Then, at least until the time you get vaccinated, don’t talk to anyone about it lest you get persuaded you aren’t BIPOC. If necessary wear ear plugs standing in line.

  11. Congratulations, Professor Volokh. Your rubes have been thoroughly lathered, as desired.

    1. “Your rubes have been thoroughly lathered, as desired.”
      More of the usual meaningless drivel from its usual source.

    2. Why does him pointing out Vermonts racist policy bother you? Unless…you too are a racist?

      1. I lean toward disliking the described policy.

        I dislike the hypocrisy and misleading, cherry-picked arguments of racists, misogynists, gay-bashes, and xenophobes far more.

        1. The commenter “Wannabet” below just called you a racist.

  12. I disagree with Volokh’s conclusion, constitutionality all depends on the meaning of the words “black” “indigineous” and “person of color”.

    1. “constitutionality all depends on the meaning of the words”
      don’t just say that. Tell us the meanings that remove the violation of Equal Protection.

      1. Here you go;
        originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native.

        Anyone born in Vermont has a valid argument they are native, and thus equal protection clause not violated. quod erat demonstrandum.

  13. Yet another example of “white privilege” (sarcasm) as well as an actual instance of “systemic racism” (not sarcasm).

  14. Dumb question: If there were unambiguous scientific evidence that BIPOCs were actually at higher risk of contracting severe cases of COVID-19, would the law still be unconstitutional?

    1. Probably, it would hinge on the compelling nature of the evidence and government interest under strict scrutiny.

  15. For the Fools on this Board

    you poorly educated redneck wannabe’s really need to learn about Reality

    the LEAST People of Color State in the Union making sure the MINORITY Citizenry isn’t skipped over isn’t unconstitutional

    Blacks and Native Americans make up a GIANT 1.8% of the Vermont population

    Hispanics and those of TWO races make another GIANT 4%

    Making yourselves look like racist pigs seems to be the most favorite pass time of the Right Wing in the USA

    and I gotta tell you folks, You doing a wonderful job proving it to the World, Keep talking in Public and Let the World see what you Truly are

    1. “the LEAST People of Color State in the Union making sure the MINORITY Citizenry isn’t skipped over isn’t unconstitutional”

      I see, it would be constitutional if done by a state with a large nonwhite population, but since it’s VT doing it, it’s constitutional.

      Only an ignorant redneck could believe otherwise.

      1. unconstitutional if done by a state

  16. And now the private groups administering the segregated clinics take the credit: ” “People come out because they know that the NAACP is going to try their best to do right by them.”

Please to post comments