The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Afro-Cuban Discriminated Against for Being Hispanic, Not Black
Here's a curious case described in the Washington Post in 1980, one that didn't make it into my forthcoming book on racial classifications:
Miguel Sandoval arrived in Harlem in 1959 from Havana, where he'd been an outspoken advocate of better civil rights for black Cubans. Sandoval was Cuban, but he thought of himself primarily as a black. Yet to the American blacks in Harlem, he was a Hispanic.
Nine years later, he applied for a job as director of the manpower office where he worked because he had heard that federal officials were looking for a black to fill the post. But, Sandoval said, he was told he could not have the job because he was Hispanic.
Sandoval convinced the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that he was indeed black and had been discriminated against, and won back pay.
The Post uses this case to explore Afro-Latino identity, but one wonders why the EEOC failed to point out that it's illegal to reserve a position for one racial group to begin with.
Meanwhile, in the ensuing decades, the federal government has made it clear that "Hispanic" is an ethnic, not a racial classification, so that Hispanics can be of any race. In practice, however, many Americans (including Supreme Court justices) treat Hispanic as a racial category.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Could the Volokh Conspiracy implement a way to distinguish the Prof. David Bernstein who argues incessantly against government decisions involving racial or religious distinctions and the Prof. David Bernstein who is a strident advocate of a form of government that imposes religious courts on its citizenry, to the point of requiring persons not associated with a particular religion to leave the country to marry?
Maybe use middle initials?
Israel was founded for the express purpose of (re)creating a Jewish homeland.
The Great Replacement Theroy of the US Census has an artihmetic error. It is counting Hispanics as a minority, who will be Democrats. They are whites. As soon as they buy a share, they vote Republican and should be counted as whites.
Which is the middle initial of the Kirkland who wants to deport all Jews to West Virginia?
My middle initial is L, for Libertarian.
You are smart enough to know the meaning of deport. That makes you a partisan liar for palty purpose -- for the losing side of the culture war and the wrong side of history.
If you are trying to defend Prof. Bernstein's conservative positions, you are failing.
Aren't you both lawyers? Try to be more lawyerly and civil. Otherwise a scary clown, Queenie, might get you.
"to the point of requiring persons not associated with a particular religion to leave the country to marry?"
It doesn't work the way you think it does.
There is no civil marriage in Israel, so no interfaith marriage, but there is no law preventing Christians or Muslims from being married in Israel by Christian or Muslim Religious authorities.
That's your defense of superstition-rooted nonsense and discrimination in ostensibly modern government?
If you actually knew anything about Israeli history, you would know that these religious distinctions in family law were imposed by the Ottoman Turks, continued by the British, and inherited by Israel, which in its founding years had more significant concerns that upsetting both the Muslim and Orthodox establishments by trying to undo existing religion-based family law in favor of a novel secular regime. And if you knew anything about my views on Israel, you would know that I think that neglect, which became institutionalized thanks to Israel crazy electoral system giving disproportionate power to religious parties, was a huge mistake.
It's also creepy for someone to bring up Israel when a Jewish commentator comments on something having nothing to do with Israel.
You write about precisely two things here, professor, and those two lines of argument seem at war with one another.
Well, incongruent from one perspective. They are both predictable right-wing orthodoxy.
You never admit to not knowing what you are talking about, do you, Rev? Can you just say, "I didn't know that Israel inherited its family law structure from the Ottomans and British, and didn't impose it in a fit of Jewish chauvinism?" Is it possible for you to do so? I'm guessing not.
I also find it amusing that you think that the position that the government should not be classifying people by their origins, a key staple of liberalism for centuries, is now exclusively the province of the "right-wing."
And finally, my consistent line on Israel is that while I have many issues with its internal and external policies, it is far superior to it adversaries, the PA, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, IS... and deserves strong defense on this basis. I don't have a romantic view of the Israeli government or Israeli politics. You, by contrast, seem to think that deporting Israelis to Texas will... well it's not sure what you think, other than it would remove troublesome, irksome Jews, and allow the local Arabs to create something resembling a combination of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt, which would somehow be an improvement, apparently the improvement being the absence of Jews...
I admire Prof Bernstein for venturing headlong into the arena that is VC's comments section to do battle with his fiercest critics. I wish Prof Somin would learn from his numerous examples.
While I share your admiration for Bernstein engaging, the toxicity against Somin makes me believe it is best for him not to read the comments.
Prof. Volokh does a good job showing up occasionally but not to engage with the bomb-throwers.
I wish for a bit more Adler, methinks.
I fondly recall when Kerr would comment, but the days that would be anything other than...embarrassing for all parties involved are long gone.
You, too, know what deport means, Prof. Bernstein.
I have proposed that the United States consider protecting Israelis not by providing (at great and varied cost) the military, political, and economic skirts behind which Israeli currently (and sometimes abusively) operates, but instead by (1) offering American citizenship to every Israeli who wishes to move to the United States or (2) admitting Israel as a state. If that strikes you as antisemitic, you might be just another disaffected clinger, flailing foolishly against the modern American liberal-libertarian mainstream, seeking any target (genuine or illusory) to attack on behalf of failed, ugly, stale thinking.
(I also do not like superstition-laced government, regardless of the particular flavor of superstition involved. I prefer the reality-based, modern world. I blame my education and character.)
I never said it was antisemitic, I said that you seem to think, without any reason provided, that the successor government to Israel would be an improvement, which is, to say the least, wildly optimistic.
And you still just can't admit that you didn't know the origin of Israeli family law...
If Israel were admitted to the American union, I am confident the successor government would be an enormous improvement in myriad ways.
If the United States offered citizenship to Israelis and thereafter diminished its multifaceted subsidization of the resulting Israeli government, I would care much less about the trajectory of the Israeli government, for several important reasons. For now, I dislike right-wing belligerence and superstition-steeped government in the United States; why would I wish to support those things anywhere else, including Turkey, the Philippines, Israel, or Russia?
Why would anyone need to know the original of Israeli family law in order to recognize that any government's reliance on religious courts are wrong and obsolete in the modern, reasoning world and that superstition-based government is a bad idea in any context? Israel seems to be improving in this regard -- are women still being forced to switch seats on airplanes or banned from certain buses to flatter superstition? -- but it is still a religion-based government that favors certain citizens and disfavors others because of (claimed) devotion to (certain) fairy tales. Not surprisingly, the flattery of superstition has been accompanied by plenty of right-wing belligerence.
If you believe Israel -- by cuddling with Trump and Netanyahu, engaging in immoral right-wing belligerence, and making support for that right-wingery a left-right divider in American politics -- is improving Israel's nature or prospects, we disagree. I believe Israel is endangering its future and earning the relatively predictable loss of American support. I would prefer to see Israel improve and change course.
Your unwillingness to acknowledge error might be charming, but it's not.
Which error? You said I seemed to believe a successor government would be an improvement.
I said that if Israel becomes a state the successor government would constitute a substantial improvement. Do you disagree?
I also said that if the United States offers citizenship to willing Israelis, then diminishes its support and subsidization of Israel, my concern about Israel's government would diminish. Mostly because my government (and my tax dollars) would no longer be subsidizing Israeli conduct to which I object. I do not know whether the resulting Israeli government would be better or worse. It might treat some citizens worse, others better. Its conduct likely would change, perhaps for the better and perhaps for the worse.
I also said your sentiments with respect to the United States government and those with respect to Israel's government seem to conflict. You snipe incessantly at the American context concerning government and classification (in line with conservative orthodoxy), yet are an ardent supporter of an Israel that is far more focused on and discriminatory with respect to classification (again, in line with right-wing positioning).
Which error should I acknowledge, in your judgment? Thank you.
Your explicit error was to say that I'm "a strident advocate of a form of government that imposes religious courts on its citizenry, to the point of requiring persons not associated with a particular religion to leave the country to marry?"
Your implicit error is that you thought that this is somehow a policy intrinsic to Israel's system of government, imposed with intention by the Israel government for chauvinistic reasons, when it fact it was inherited from predecessor governments and thus is an accidental vestige of preexisting sytems.
Perhaps I chose a poor example. The policies and conduct with respect to settlements might have been a better illustration of the point that some people are (vividly) more equal than others in the eyes (and acts) of Israel's government, in many important respects, and that the distinctions seem to be primarily based on classification factors such as race, ethnicity, or religion.
Would you acknowledge that accusing me of proposing deportation was a mistake?
Thank you.
Why on earth do you bother to reply to Kirkland?
He is the worst kind of troll who has the lowest sensible-comment "batting average" of any other commenter.
Just mute the troll.
If I started embracing multifaceted intolerance, superstitious nonsense, and general conservative backwardness, Don Nico, you would become my biggest fan.
For that reason, I do not want your support.
Your betters will continue to have your compliance with their preferences in modern America, though, and I thank you for that.
I'm sure you're right. But it it's a private employer, they should be free to do so.
The government, on the other hand, should take no notice of citizens' race. (Of course, that's not the world we live in. Sad.)
Ed,
Just because an employer is private employers does not except them from following the anti-discrimination statutes.
They are not free to do so. Full stop.
He said "they should be free to do so." I don't know how your stating what the law is is relevant here.
The incident is from the late 1960s. When did the type of employment discrimination described in the article become illegal?
1964 civil rights act outlawed racial discrimination in employment and public accommodation.
The Afro-Latinos treat themselves (and are treated by) differently than the Afro-Caribes, too.
Perhaps some day we can get back to judging people by the content of their character, etc....
Those of African descent have spent the last 58 years in the United States showing us the content of their collective character.
Good and bad - it is a shame though, that for every Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas and Ben Carson we seem to get ten thousand Jessie Jacksons and George Floyds...
It's not just the mere imbalance in numbers, but the fact that the "good ones" largely defend, identify with, and make excuses for, the bad ones.
Are you going to respond to this racism, Prof. Bernstein? For once? How about you, Prof. Volokh? I do not expect you to ban or censor this guy —he is not a liberal — but maybe a discouraging word concerning the rampant bigotry this blog regularly spawns in the comments? For once?
I guess not. The Volokh Conspiracy issues bigots and bigoted statements a wide-ranging, frequently used pass.
Why?
I love watching the "favored" groups fight it out amongst themselves as to whom should get the racial spoils.
Judaism isn't an ethnicity.
" *conscious, explicit* ethno-states are totes ok! "
That's likely the best these conservative hypocrites have to offer these days, evoking their defense to censorship-saturated conservative campuses ('those students should have expected censorship, enforced dogma, speech and conduct codes, the teaching of nonsense, belligerent ignorance, and loyalty oaths, and the faculty knowingly surrendered all academic freedom and benefitted from discrimination when hired, so we can ignore those shit-tier right-wing schools and focus on the disgusting standards at Harvard, Yale, Michigan, and Berkeley').
The future -- shaped by the marketplace of ideas -- is extremely unlikely to be kind to Republicans, conservatives, the Federalist Society, or governments saturated by superstition and steeped in right-wing belligerence (and reliant on American skirts to hide behind).
Bernsteins -- both of them -- hardest hit.
There are many ethnic states in the world. Try immigrating to Germany or Japan without being one of those ethnicity. That is not per se a bad thing. Although note that, in Israel at least, there are Jews of many races, from black Ethiopians, to brown Jews of Middle-Eastern descent, to swarthy Jews of Eastern European descent, to white Jews of Europe. And that Arab citizens of Israel enjoy civil rights that no one in the Arab world enjoys.
The United States is not such a country. There has not been an American ethnicity for a long time, if ever. And racial discrimination is explicitly barred by the Constitution, at least at the level of government. Bernstein quite correctly points out that this rule is ignored, and instead absurd and often self-contradicoty categorizations are used.
So the whole notion that Bernstein's pointing this out, and his support for Israel, is risible.
QA,
Why are you so dense. Do you even know what ethnicity is?
Sephardim can easily claim a different ethnicity than Ashkenazim or Mizrahim. The Jews of Rome have an easily traced line different to either the Ashkenazim or Sephardim or Mizrahim. That the rule for determining community status is the same does not change that ethnicity can be very different.
Unless you're talking to a Karaite Jew, in which patrilineal descent is used, or to a Reconstructionist Jew, in which it could be matrilineal, patrilineal or bilineal. Or you're talking about a convert, which most branches of Judaism recognize as a Jewish person.
Maybe try not to be such an ignorant asshole.
"Cool story bro, is that why they literally use the mothers bloodline to determine who is Jewish?
Holy crap! I wonder if there's any other countries that use bloodline as a criteria for citizenship?
Hi, Queenie. You are not an employer nor an admissions official. African immigrants have very dark skins. They are top performers, and outperformed whites in the 2010 Census. They are much sought after in a new form of racism. See a really person, you chase them waving wads of cash to be an employee or a student at your place.
Hon, all -isms are folk statistics. These stereotypes also change with reality. This new racism is a reliable way to pick top performers.
These Africans have no cultural or educational similarity to ours. They come from intact patriarchal families. They are Christians. They love America. They are loyal. They support large numbers of people back home.
Ah, the talking point is a standard one: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-staffer-israel-ethnostate-stolen-land
It doesn't matter that Israel doesn't define "Jewish" based on ethnicity, or treat people differently because of ethnicity. QAOC thinks it's mere existence is enough cause to call it a "*conscious, explicit* ethno-state".
Hi, Queenie. Stop being a Jew hater. It is not a good look for you.
Tell that to the US Census, Honey. I just report the facts. Sorry if the facts are racist.
All wokes are Jew Haters. Queenie is not just a diverse, it is a woke. The Hebraics need to recognize their real friends in the Republican Party. They are an enslved people. The US government owes them big time. Those Ivy treason indoctrination camps owe the Hebraincs their entire endowments for past discrimination, after interest is added to the damages.
So much for woke reparations when it is the turn of the Jew. You get insults.
Queenie supports reparations, but not for the enslaved and discriminated Jews. It is a Jew hater.
Queenie, is a Jew hater quoting a Jew hating hate speech propaganda outlet. Queenie, meet your friend, David Duke, like Jew hating peas in a pod.
https://davidduke.com/evil-israel/
Ctrl-F "ethn" ... 1 hit: "the Druze community, a small religious and ethnic Arab minority within Israel".
It sure looks like you are just pasting random anti-Israel links.
You do know that being able to convert into Judaism means that it's not an ethnicity, right? And that being fully recognized as Jewish by Israel means it's not an "ethno-state", you ignorant bigot?
Garbage data from a left wing, hate speech, propaganda outlet.
Because he pretty much always puts an aside about immigration in his posts. I don't see it getting mentioned much on the rare occasions he literally doesn't mention the topic.
Do you have an example? I don't recall ever seeing that.
I am glad we now agree there's no ethno-state here. But you're still a bigot.
Can people who are not white by birth practice whiteness? Does everyone born with white skin axiomatically practice whiteness?
Yes, it is.