About the Restaurant Revitalization Fund's Minority Preferences…

In a very unsympathetic portrait of America First Legal, founded by former Trump administration official Stephen Miller, the Washington Post notes the following:

Three weeks after AFL challenged the aid to minority farmers, it turned to an even larger federal program: the Restaurant Revitalization Fund, which gave women, minorities and veterans a head start to submit applications for nearly $29 billion in pandemic relief. The suit argued that the fund was likely to run out of money before White restaurant owners got a chance to apply and thus discriminated against them.

A federal court in Texas agreed in late May of 2021, as did an appeals court in Tennessee that reviewed a similar lawsuit. At the same time, Gregory León, the son of a Venezuelan immigrant and the owner of Amilinda restaurant in Milwaukee, received notice that he would receive $285,000 from the fund to help him get through the pandemic-related downturn. Just two weeks later, as León struggled to pay vendors, he was among about 3,000 restaurant owners who got another government letter: The fund had been quashed by litigation.

León said he seriously considered closing down.

"I know the pandemic didn't care what your race was, but it definitely affected certain people harder than others. This country was built on the backs of immigrants," he said. "I find it quite shocking that people like Stephen Miller don't see that … The message is that if you're not White you're not welcome in this country and you do not deserve opportunity."

Below is Mr. Leon, from a picture on his restaurant's website. Mr. Leon's father is from Venezuela; his mother is Jewish and from Wisconsin. Note that under federal law, "Hispanics" are, for rather obvious reasons, deemed an ethnicity who could be of any race. Is there is a good reason Mr. Leon's restaurant should be ahead in line for government aid over one owned by the child of a Bulgarian, Moroccan, Finnish, or Irish immigrant, or for that matter anyone else?

Comments

[rloquitur]

It's nuts---you cannot hand over $$ on the basis of race/ethnicity. We are going backward.

[Sarcastr0]

America has been handing over $$ on the basis of race since the Civil War. Sometimes to blacks, sometimes to whites.

[Bob from Ohio]

Do bad things long enough, its ok.

[Sarcastr0]

My comment was in reply to 'we are going backward.'

[M L]

Did this $29 billion dollar program represent an increase, decrease, or a status quo in government handing out money based on race?

It comes from the 2021 "American Rescue Plan Act." So to support your assertion you should show how it compares s to 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017 . . 2000 . . 1990 . . 1980 . . etc.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's by no means the first time -- it's been happening in academia for decades. But it IS the first time it made the media...

[M L]

Affirmative action hiring, yeah. But my guess is you will have a hard time finding a single example of racially discriminatory government cash handouts, or any similar phenomenon to the tune of 29 billion, in the last 25, 50, 75, 100 years, or maybe ever.

[Michael P]

The very first sentence of the WaPo article:

The deal in early 2021 was hailed by advocates for Black farmers as the most significant piece of legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — about $4 billion in President Biden’s massive pandemic stimulus package to rectify decades of discrimination.

S_0: "It's no change from previous decades."

[David Nieporent]

This program was terrible, but the sheer staggering level of historical ignorance it takes to claim that the government did not "maybe ever" engage in significant discriminatory funding practices would overflow the Grand Canyon. Has M L never heard — as just one of many examples — of the redlining practices of the Federal Housing Administration?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How about people who were harmed make their claims?

You know like a normal justice system.

[M L]

I've heard of it. Was this an expressly racially discriminatory program? I think not, so that's a bit different. But it doesn't mean nothing was wrong. Is there evidence of government officials intentionally discriminating based on expressly on race in the implementation of the program? I'm not aware, but maybe. Or was this a "disparate impact" situation, as it seems? Not on the same level, but still could be a fair point, in theory. A quick Google says: "The FHA was .. intended to focus on financing new construction, in order to revive the building industry. . . the share of HOLC loans to borrowers who were Black was largely proportionate to the share of homeowners who were Black. In contrast, the FHA largely excluded Black borrowers and core urban neighborhoods, and instead targeted areas with new construction and higher property values." https://www.chicagofed.org/research/mobility/policy-brief-federal-housing-programs-redlining

Of course, I don't think the government needs to be making mortgage lending decisions. Do you agree?

[Sarcastr0]

Was this an expressly racially discriminatory program

A shameful new goalpost.

[Michael P]

The policies being struck down here -- you know, the context of this entire exchange -- were expressly racially discriminatory. That's why they were struck down, not a new goalpost at all.

[M L]

It's not a new goal post. It is part and parcel of making the case for your assertion about "handing over $$ on the basis of race."

[Sarcastr0]

I see nothing about it having to be express in your quoted language.

That's a new requirement.

Lame.

[M L]

It's not a requirement. It just means you have to do more work to show that the government handed over $$ on the basis of race. Whereas if the handing over $$ on the basis of race is expressly written into law, that's pretty cut and dried.

[starlord1988]

Of course redlining was expressly racially discriminatory. People in neighborhoods deemed less safe (Read: minority) were denied loans simply because they lived in those neighborhoods. It was for the express purpose of hurting minority populations. It is clearly expressly racially discriminatory.

Something does not have to mention the reason behind it to be expressly racially discriminatory. I think most people would agree Jim Crow laws were expressly racially discriminatory but they did not expressly mention race.

[Dr. Ed 2]

“But my guess is you will have a hard time finding a single example of racially discriminatory government cash handouts,”

UMass Amherst got a series of NSF grants that provided fellowships for Black students pursuing graduate degrees in STEM fields. This was a racially discriminatory cash handout of Federal (NSF) funds as fellowships included not only tuition & fees but a stipend.

This is about as explicit as you can be — it’s mentioned here:https://www.recorder.com/UMass-Stem-fellowships-for-underrepresented-groups-19501984

[Sarcastr0]

The article you cited does not mention blacks at all.

[starlord1988]

From the article:
The fellowships are meant to increase diversity in fields that have historically lacked gender and racial diversity

It explicitly says it is for the purpose of increasing racial diversity.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"...the program emerged from a long-running program that was previously funded with federal money and university resources."

The "long running program" is what I was mentioning, not the current one.

[Sarcastr0]

Ed said blacks. Capital B, even.

I also noted the lack of explicit mention of selection or eligibility criteria. Someone at OGC was pretty smart. And thus Ed is overstating his case.

[Sarcastr0]

No new theses. My reply was in response to 'you cannot hand over $$ on the basis of race/ethnicity. We are going backward.'

That is a is/aren't thesis.

Dragging in magnitudes are just your cute attempt to drag in your absolute insanity about the size of government.

Not gonna take the bait.

[M L]

Ok. Your claim is that we are not going backward. Are we going forward then, or staying about the same?

Do you care to support your assertion at all, however you understand it, in whatever way you see fit?

[Sarcastr0]

My claim is that we are not going backwards. I have supported this claim.

I'm not going to expand this thread by changing thesis in midstream. Gets distracting.

[Michael P]

No, you only asserted your claim, and insisted that your opponents must adopt a strawman of your invention. You haven't provided anything to support a not-going-backwards conclusion.

[Sarcastr0]

My support is that the policies that rloquitur associated with going backwards [hand(ing) over $$ on the basis of race/ethnicity] have been a thing since the Civil War, in one form or another.

In other words, you very much *can* hand over $$ on the basis of race and ethnicity, and this is not a change. Thus, we are not moving backwards.

There, is this clear enough for you?

[Michael P]

Yes, you have made your position perfectly clear. You won't actually point to examples of what you claim is done, and you insist that the original comment can only mean that anything less than 100% is "going backward".

[Sarcastr0]

You want examples of past US government racially discriminatory policies since the Civil War?!

Start with the Freedman's Bureau, go to the New Deal, look at the creation of HBCUs, check in on the military until WW2, check out public schools, and then get back to me.

[Michael P]

So, your examples are programs for freedmen specifically, Democrat policies from the KKK/old-school progressive era that have since been made illegal or struck down, HBCUs (Wikipedia: "Most HBCUs were established in the South after the American Civil War, often with the assistance of religious missionary organizations based in the northern United States."), military policies changed 80-ish years ago, and "public schools"?

I think your examples could use a lot more specificity, unless you're trying to prove the "going backward" point.

[Sarcastr0]

Why do I need specificity? I claimed that the policies that rloquitur associated with going backwards [hand(ing) over $$ on the basis of race/ethnicity] have been a thing since the Civil War, in one form or another.

That's a very low bar, and I have cleared it.

You seem to wish I were saying more than I did, and are amusingly frustrated that I refuse to.

[Michael P]

Your examples are not race-based (Freedmen's Bureau), so vague as to be useless ("public schools"), or would literally represent regressions from today's laws (all the rest). That's why you should give better examples unless you're trying to prove rloquitur's point about going backwards.

You seem to be frustrated that the rest of us don't just go along with your idiosyncrasies.

[M L]

"I have supported this claim."

Where did you do that?

Can you give a few examples of "hand(ing) over $$ on the basis of race/ethnicity" in the last 25, 50 years or whatever you think is persuasive?

[Michael P]

Forwards versus backwards is inherently a direction along a continuum. It was a particularly dumb S_0-style straw man to insist that "forwards" can only mean zero race-influenced money giveaways, rather than the rate or rationality of such giveaways.

[apedad]

And yet, somehow, we've still managed to become the absolute strongest country on the planet.

[Ed Grinberg]

I am not sure we are “the absolute strongest country on the planet.” And if we are, it’s in spite of awful things like this that our government is doing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I am not so sure that we are still the "absolute strongest country on the planet."

We are way to much like 1860 for my comfort.
And this "I deserve it because of my race" is part of that...

[apedad]

And this “I deserve it because of my heritage” is part of that…

FTFY

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is a difference -- the current descendants of the 54th Massachusetts as everyone else in the GAR.

But I don't see GAR benefits coming from the Federal Govt, I see racial benefits. In violation of us all agreeing i 1964 that such was wrong....

[Nige]

A bloated military budget and concentration of wealth amongst a small percentage of the population can make a country strong, but has other drawbacks.

[M L]

Finally you've said something sensible.

[Social Justice is neither]

You know you could still say that while you Democrats were busy enforcing Jim Crow, so what exactly is your point?

Is racism good so long as it doesn't do too much damage to a society's economy? If that's the argument you must come out all in favor of slavery.

[juris imprudent]

Do one bad thing to undo another bad thing I believe is the intent. Apparently two wrongs do make a right.

[Michael P]

Sarcastr0 has been making shitty arguments since his first day on the job. Sometimes on the basis of insane leftism, sometimes on the basis of unhinged opposition to America.

[AtR]

This is a zero-information comment and, for the record, I disagree. I often find Sarcastr0's comments edifying, even when wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

Thanks, man. Right back atcha!

[Michael P]

Sarcastr0's comment suggested that because the US allegedly did something on the past, we're not moving backwards. The Biden administration's policies and dumb articles like this WaPo piece are evidence that we are moving backwards. S_0 didn't provide evidence for his assertion about facts, much less any inkling of an argument to support the conclusion.

It was a classic S_0 comment, and if you thought my comment was "zero information", you weren't paying attention to either his comment or mine.

[Krychek_2]

But the fact that we are doing something we did in the past *does not* as a matter of logic mean that we are moving backward. Some of the things done in the past are worth keeping; others not; and the mere fact that it was done in the past, standing alone, sheds no light on which this is.

[Michael P]

So, as usual, S_0 was being obtusely snarky by broadly denying a conclusion when the real issue was that a short comment did not fully establish a logical argument that is pretty obvious to anyone who has been watching federal court cases like the one mentioned in Bernstein's post?

And you think the short, obtusely snarky comment isn't hypocritical on that front?

[Sarcastr0]

I was not responding to Prof. Bernstein's post, I was responding to rloquitur's comment.

I don't know enough to respond to the Prof. Bernstein's post, so I'm staying out of it.

[Michael P]

I didn't suggest that you were addressing Bernstein's post, or that you should -- I was pointing out that it provides critical context for the comment you responded to, and you ignored that context.

[Sarcastr0]

I posted to you above to really belabor what my issue is with that comment, which seems to stand on it's own to me.

[Michael P]

I mean... S_0 specifically wrote about the first half of rloquitur's comment, and only that half, but when challenged, S_0 claimed he was responding to the second half of rloquitur's comment. I would think that even you can recognize why that's not a very coherent position, and why the rest of us call him Gaslight0.

[Sarcastr0]

His post was not very long. I responded, and have been responding, to all of it.

I really don't care for this kind of pedantic comments rules lawyering, but you really seem to be insisting on it.

[Michael P]

I didn't realize that "say what you mean" and "write clearly" were "pedantic comments rules". Noted for future reference.

[Krychek_2]

I don't mind Michael P's constant information-free comments; it's his information-negative comments that are a problem. "He never opens his mouth without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge."

[mikeybates]

And it's made a huge difference in decreasing racial resentment.

[Bob from Ohio]

If both parents were Jews from Wisconsin rather than just one, this dude would not be getting a preference. Apparently that doesn't bother him.

"When I was five we moved to Venezuela"

He was born in the US to an American mother. He's not an immigrant either.

[Dr. Ed 2]

So this would be OK if both of his parents were from Venezuela.

And if anything, we should give preference to people born here -- every other country in the world does.

[SomeGuy 2]

‘”I know the pandemic didn’t care what your race was, but it definitely affected certain people harder than others. This country was built on the backs of immigrants,” he said. “I find it quite shocking that people like Stephen Miller don’t see that … The message is that if you’re not White you’re not welcome in this country and you do not deserve opportunity.””

He’s so used to racial preferences and whites being discriminated against that equality sounds like hostility. The message from our government is that Whites aren’t welcome here and don’t deserve opportunity. And if we’re playing the “built this country” game, then I’ll stack “whites” against “immigrants” and see who wins, keeping in mind that these aren’t mutually exclusive categories (some whites are immigrants, some immigrants are whites). Litigation is attempting to force our government to not discriminate on the basis of race. I’m sorry if you find this troubling.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I find it incoherent. In terms of ethnic communities, this nation is so overwhelmingly immigrant in background that your comment can't mean anything. Making it worse, out at the margin, is the fact that there are two notable ethnic groups in this nation who are not immigrants: indigenous Americans, and Black descendants of slaves brought here in chains.

[Jacob Grimes]

I find it hard to believe that this random applicant to a general fund knew without being prompted that AFL was one of the five firms representing the plaintiff in that legal action (I looked up the docket) AND that Stephen Miller founded AFL.

[Ed Grinberg]

Is there is a good reason Mr. Leon's restaurant should be ahead in line for government aid over one owned by the child of a Bulgarian, Moroccan, Finnish, or Irish immigrant, or for that matter anyone else?

No, of course not.
(On a separate point, there should be no "government aid" of this (or any?) sort.)

[Doug Heffernan]

But the governments of other countries give their industry aid, so how will industries in “no government aid” countries compete in the international marketplace? Where would tesla be today without government handouts from many different countries? Who in the international marketplace would have that market instead?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The way to stop racial discrimination is to stop discriminating by race...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Another way to diminish this country's traditional, deplorable racism is to experience replacement of its vestigial bigots (that goes for gay-bashing, misogyny, Islamophobia, antisemitism, xenophobia, white nationalism, and other forms of residual bigotry that persist in some pockets of America despite our nation's admirable progress along those lines).

Carry on, clingers. During the time you and your stale, ugly positions have left in modern, improving America, that is.

[Cheerio]

If you're doing the lefty thing of defining those terms so broadly as to include most conservatives/traditionalists, then you're the bigot.

If you're sincerely focusing your comment on the very small percentage of people who actually qualify, then I'll agree w/ you -- so long as we do the same for all the equally bigoted ugliness on the far left.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you contend that bigoted positions or conduct ostensibly based on religion -- homophobia, for example, or misogyny -- is improved by that religious context, or transformed into something other than bigotry by claimed superstition?

[Cheerio]

As is often the case with your comments, the validity of your points depends on your definitions...

If such terms (e.g. misogyny) are being used as left-wing 'code' for standard, run-of-the-mill conservative views on classic right-left issues (e.g. abortion), then you're being bigoted and simply projecting that onto others.

On the other hand, if it's *actual* misogyny we're talking about, then you're correct that it's wrong whether the reasoning is religious or secular.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You are close to, if not at, the point at which you accept that all gay-bashers are bigots. Thank you for that.

I hope you recognize that today was a great day for decent treatment of gays in America, and that the good guys won when (non-bigoted members of) Congress passed and the president signed the legislation.

[M L]

I don't know what's worse. That the bureaucratic empire, which steals trillions from its citizens, sets up a $29 billion slush fund for "Restaurant Revitalization" . . . or, that it discriminates by race and sex while it dumps cash from above, with such discrimination being an indulgence paid to a bizarre religion for absolution.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

'Taxation is theft' malcontents and other anti-government cranks are among my favorite culture war casualties. Good luck with attempts to persuade most Americans that the 1950s (or the 1850s) were the "good old days" to which anyone should wish to return.

[Krayt]

Enjoying the inflation and insane borrowing, are you?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I like modern America and the progress that continues to improve America. I wish more Americans shared that patriotism.

[SKofNJ]

I woul be amazed if it's not true that the Washington Post reporter supplied Miller's name to Leon and encouraged or manipulated him to get him to explicitly direct his anger towards Miller.

[Mr. Bumble]

Gee, ya think? You mean the WP would seed a "story"?

[M L]

I'm sure they were going to include Mr. Leon's picture in the article, but didn't get around to it.

[SKofNJ]

Just because it is not surprising doesn't mean that it is not wrong.

[David Bernstein]

Seems to me that even if one supported "racial preferences" under some circumstances, it would be difficult to articulate why Mr. Leon should be a beneficiary.

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

Not difficult, simple. "Hispanic" means he is believed to be more likely to vote the right way.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Origins in a Latin American country hardly makes one Hispanic.

I am half Ukrainian Jewish. My Mexican cousins are completely Ukrainian Jewish. I do not describe my cousins with adjectives like Hispanic, Latinx, or Latin American.

In Argentina, Mexico, and the US, the family name Leon and variants often indicates European Jewish origin.

[Randal]

Is there is a good reason Mr. Leon’s restaurant should be ahead in line…

Of course there are. This is a terrible way to frame the issue. There are, of course, better reasons not to put Mr. Leon ahead in line. But that doesn't mean that the policy had absolutely no basis.

Those of us who are center/left can’t trust the right on race. Your rhetoric always sounds motivated by a desire to fuck over minorities and shower perks and privileges on white people.

A race-neutral policy is legally required, so you’re going to win. But if you showed a little empathy for non-whites in any context, it wouldn’t feel so urgent for us to have to actively counterbalance your pro-white agenda with policies like this.

[SomeGuy 2]

There literally is no pro-white agenda, nor is there any perk and privilege for being white. Our legal system is race-based in favor of minorities in some contexts and race neutral in others. White skin doesn’t always hurt, but it literally never helps. It speaks quite well of white people generally that they’re seeking equality and neutrality when most other minority groups are seeking preferences, handouts, goodies, loots and dominance.

[Sarcastr0]

White skin absolutely helps a whole lot. Expectations, where you live, who you know...all of these favor whites.
I've been helped a lot in doing my job because I look like people expect a scientist to look, which includes being white and male.

This is why advocating for a race blind society is actually just saying lets ignore racial issues. It's actively negative to nonwhites.

Complementing whites for seeking neutrality just shows you haven't really looked at the objections people have to colorblind policies, if you think they operate neutrally and equally.

[Bob from Ohio]

"White skin absolutely helps a whole lot."

Economic status matters, race really only in the mind of people who see race everywhere, like so called "liberals". Like you.

Its not 1960, everybody knows there are black scientists and woman scientists. You are projecting your racial and sex [gender] views on others.

[Sarcastr0]

Economic status, your network of family and friends, not living in a place that's been screwed by stuff like pollution, highway placement, underresources health facilities, etc. (all of which track race even when controlled for class)

race really only in the mind of people who see race everywhere
There are many, many studies that control for wealth and say otherwise. I'm not the one speaking from ideology here, you are.

My office has quite a few women and blacks, all of whom are scientists, and all of whom have had challenges to their authority and expertise I have not. Maybe that's anecdotal only, but once again there are studies.

[Bob from Ohio]

"your network of family and friends, not living in a place that’s been screwed by stuff "

Those things are controlled by economic status.

"studies"

Some scientist, never heard of the replication crisis in social sciences including economics.

"Maybe that’s anecdotal only"

Maybe? Anecdotes are anecdotal, yes.

[Randal]

Those things are controlled by economic status.

You're simply wrong. It's something you're telling yourself in order to avoid the bad feels.

Look, you don't have to feel bad about it. It's not like you caused it. But you should be honest with yourself about what's going on in the country.

[Bob from Ohio]

Economic status determines where you live, where you live determines your network of family and friends.

[Randal]

You're right in this sense:

A black suburb and a white suburb have similar economic status. Then the city decides to put the industrial park in the black neighborhood and the dog park in the white neighborhood.

Now they no longer have similar economic status.

[Sarcastr0]

Look at Bob, sight unseen denying any scientific studies he disagrees with.

You suck, Bob.

Don't be like Bob.

[Artifex]

... and what studies would those be ? I am not seeing any links.

So far we have only the word of the bloviating bad faith bozo who is notorious for cherry picking, and motivated thinking. If Bob was a betting man, it seems like a good bet.

[Sarcastr0]

Will Baude's podcast on critical race theory is really good for this.

Here is a good overview:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-state-of-healthcare-in-the-united-states/racial-disparities-in-health-care/

Scores of studies buttress NAM’s findings by documenting that providers are less likely to deliver effective treatments to people of color when compared to their white counterparts—even after controlling for characteristics like class, health behaviors, comorbidities, and access to health insurance and health care services. For example, one study of 400 hospitals in the United States showed that black patients with heart disease received older, cheaper, and more conservative treatments than their white counterparts.

[Artifex]

Looks like Bob is still on top of things ...

Rather than the scores of critical papers cited, we have one weak political puff piece using weasel words instead of any sort of reasonable metric or stat. You being you, I suppose it is not surprising that you would try and misrepresent this as a scientific study.

I have to admit, after reading through it for arts sake, it does sound a lot like the usual bad faith buffoonery with the usual Sarcastro style. We have a couple of "some scholars have concluded" after which there is more drool than actual argument. Even your political sources seem allergic to links and like to argue by assertion.

[Absaroka]

Gotta say, that's a pretty unpersuasive source.

1)The underlying studies might or might not be persuasive, but they aren't linked, or even referenced by a title I could search for. I looked for '2005 study from the Institute of Medicine' and found an abstract for one that might be the one referenced, but I'm not going to take the time to hunt down what might or might not be the right study.

2)And I'd want to read the actual study. The list of various bad things ('more amputations', 'less mastectomies', 'less bypass') - are they the result of p-hacking? There is no way to know without looking at the actual study. How exactly did they account for all the confounding factors, etc, etc.

3)The list of books by the article author ('Reproducing Race: An Ethnography of Pregnancy as a Site of Racialization', 'The Poverty of Privacy Rights', 'Critical Race Theory: A Primer') make me wonder about her impartiality. It's like when I read 'John Lott's new article says gunz-r-good' I set my skeptometer up a couple of notches. Some of Lott's work is good, but he surely has a slant; I read his stuff carefully before accepting his conclusions.

The bottom line is the linked article isn't too persuasive/helpful from a trust-but-verify perspective.

[Sarcastr0]

The ‘puff piece’ cites actual papers. It’s more quotable though. Actual social science numbers are there if you do any looking at all.

Not that you are conviceable, Artifex. If I had posted a paper you would have called social science liberal balderdash.

When I next get a chance I’ll see what I turn up on Google Scholar to see what you say.

[Artifex]

The ‘puff piece’ cites actual papers. It’s more quotable though. Actual social science numbers are there if you do any looking at all.

No it really does't. It does the Sarcastro handwave and is remarkably opaque about its data sources and methodologies. It is a pure "hooray team" puff piece. I can see a true believer like yourself might take numbers pulled out of someone's ass as gospel. Those of us that think critically have seen enough p-hacking and other Sarcastro style misbehavior that the sources and methodologies are very important elements.

Not that you are conviceable, Artifex. If I had posted a paper you would have called social science liberal balderdash.

Ah, your routine dishonesty. After you read my mind, what we need next is a lunkheaded whinge about "my" telepathy right ? The problem with Sarcastro style thought is not the point where you end up. Narrative thinking is simply not terribly useful at accurately describing the world.

[Sarcastr0]

OK, here we go!

Using data from the US Early Childhood Longitudinal Study—Kindergarten (ECLS-K; N = 10,115), we apply an intersectionality approach to examine inequalities across eighth-grade outcomes at the intersection of six racial/ethnic and gender groups (Latino girls and boys, Black girls and boys, and White girls and boys) and four classes of socioeconomic advantage/disadvantage. Results of mixture models show large inequalities in socioemotional outcomes (internalizing behavior, locus of control, and self-concept) across classes of advantage/disadvantage. Within classes of advantage/disadvantage, racial/ethnic and gender inequalities are predominantly found in the most advantaged class, where Black boys and girls, and Latina girls, underperform White boys in academic assessments, but not in socioemotional outcomes. In these latter outcomes, Black boys and girls perform better than White boys. Latino boys show small differences as compared to White boys, mainly in science assessments. The contrasting outcomes between racial/ethnic and gender minorities in self-assessment and socioemotional outcomes, as compared to standardized assessments, highlight the detrimental effect that intersecting racial/ethnic and gender discrimination have in patterning academic outcomes that predict success in adult life. Interventions to eliminate achievement gaps cannot fully succeed as long as social stratification caused by gender and racial discrimination is not addressed.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141363

[Sarcastr0]

We show that county-level estimates of racial bias, as measured using data from approximately 1.6 million visitors to the Project Implicit website, are associated with racial disciplinary disparities across approximately 96,000 schools in the United States, covering around 32 million white and black students. These associations do not extend to sexuality biases, showing the specificity of the effect. These findings suggest that acknowledging that racial biases and racial disparities in education go hand-in-hand may be an important step in resolving both of these social ills.
...
It should be noted that our analyses cover the vast majority of school-aged students in the United States, and our models include a large set of covariates, suggesting that the relationships between bias and discipline are not due to confounds that can often co-occur with racial disparities, such as socioeconomic status or population demographics.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1808307116

[Sarcastr0]

Additionally, much of the long-standing systematic equality and injustice has surfaced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Scientists have found that racial minorities are disproportionately more likely to experience infections and mortalities than other groups. Although such inequality exists even after controlling for socioeconomic class, there are still factors that contribute to increased risks among racial minorities, for example, healthcare access and utilisation, occupation, housing and discrimination.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00344893.2020.1843108

[Sarcastr0]

See also:

https://www.npr.org/2021/04/07/984784455/a-brief-history-of-how-racism-shaped-interstate-highways

This is still a thing that is going on in black communities. I hear about it from black folks even in the pretty well-heeled groups I travel in.

[Absaroka]

Thanks fro the NPR article. I followed one of the footnotes in the linked SSRN article and just splurged $15 on a used copy of Caro's book on Robert Moses. Caro is a legit source, and if the article is citing him correctly that's pretty bad.

Some of the other claims seem a little more sketchy - to take one example, look at I-579 in Pittsburgh and select google maps 'terrain' layer. It looks like a pretty natural routing to me, as in 'where else could you route it?'.

That's not to say poor people don't get shafted by freeways^H^H^H^H development in general. For one thing roads tend to follow the terrain. Early on, being close to the road is probably an advantage, but as traffic increases, no one wants to live there. I've lived in houses that back right up to both interstates and railroads, and the noise (or in the case of a railroad the ground bouncing up and down) aren't amenities. So those neighborhoods go down hill, and when you go to build a freeway along the existing transportation corridor, yep, the poor folks get hit. But that's not racism of the sort the Caro book apparently documents.

And upscale places have a lot more clout to get things their way, e.g. the I-90 tunnel through Mercer Island near Seattle - IIRC that's the single most expensive mile in the interstate system. But they didn't push for a tunnel so they wouldn't have to watch black people drive by, they pushed for a tunnel because they didn't want the noise, and they had the money^H^H^H^H clout to get their tunnel. The majority-minority places in Seattle, like the neighborhood I lived in, didn't have that clout.

[Sarcastr0]

! Caro's Moses book is on my list as well!

First Truman and Ike, but then I think him. With lotsa sci fi in beweeen.

Reading Children of Ruin now.

[Absaroka]

"Expectations, where you live, who you know…all of these favor whites."

"Expectations, where you live, who you know…" are surely a factor. If you grew up in an upper class environment, those factors will indeed give you an advantage - regardless of your race. But if you are a white kid raised in a single wide in Appalachia, by a single mom who works at the Dollar Store, you might feel that you aren't exactly rolling in privilege relative to the kids of a black GS-15 who grew up attending St. Stephens.

I don't mean this as a personal attack, but I sure get the sense that the bottom income quintile is a foreign land to you.

[Sarcastr0]

No, it's a fair thing to point out. And shows I'm not making myself clear.
Race isn't the only factor in someone being set up for success - not hardly. But race turns out to be an issue independent from wealth. Which is why you can't just address race issues by addressing class.

Leaving unconscious expectations aside, since the research is a bit equivocal on the upshots there, there's plenty of other ground to cover.

Even well-to-do black networks don't have the institutional reach whiter ones do. And it can be tricky for blacks to break into whiter networks - networks spread by who you're comfortable knowing or hiring or who you are related to.

And the location stuff is wild - blacker neighborhoods are to this day treated worse by policymakers than similarly situated white neighborhoods. Probably has to do with political networks, I'd guess.

[Absaroka]

"But race turns out to be an issue independent from wealth."

Whatever the size of that effect, I still don't think it justifies treating people differently based on race. On the average men have bigger feet than women[1], but they still get shoes that fit their individual feet. If some particular woman's feet are bigger than some particular man's, you give her the bigger shoe.

That is the fundamental and perennial disagreement on these issues - do we treat everyone as individuals, or do we treat them as mere instances of some group, as if they had the mean attributes of the group.

[1]can I still say that? 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

Whatever the size of that effect, I still don’t think it justifies treating people differently based on race.

That's a fair value judgement to make. I make a different one. Not just for equity reasons - that's nice and all. But also because those network effect means we're leaving good talent on the ground. Not just good talent, talent with a more various perspective than our current talent pool. And that kind of perspective variety is how you get the innovative research approaches these days.

I don't like your feet analogy, because social issues are not like physical characteristics. The mechanism of addressing social issues is society, and one of the bigger tools our society has is government policy. If there was some cultural issue with men getting shoes, I'd say maybe we need to take a look at tht.

The way that I make the individual/group distinction myself is that areas where society has in the past treated groups in ways that have caused problems for individuals? That's the places you should examine whether group-based policies should come into play.

Though separately from all that, you should check whether there are systematic errors in how you evaluate individuals that means you're ignoring individuals who could be very helpful to your program or company or whatever.

[Sarcastr0]

That’s a fair value judgement to make. I make a different one.

To be clear, I think you can easily be against race-based affirmative action and not be racist. I was that for quite a while.

But a lot of folks here when challenged on this subject (not you, obv), break out all this neo-phrenology. It's wild.

[Stephen Lathrop]

To be clear, I think you can easily be against race-based affirmative action and not be racist.

That is not clear. You could make it clear if you substituted "bigoted," for, "racist." But however motivated, opposition to race-based affirmative action is objectively racist.

Of course I am aware of the many commenters here who assert vociferously that support for race-based affirmative action is racist. Both history and present reality make them wrong, even in the always-impossible-to-determine instances where bigotry is not their motivation.

That's before you get to the problem of disentangling bigotry-based racism from White grievance. White grievance is a different and completely understandable affliction, but no less morally challenged for being comprehensible in principle.

I wish affirmative action policy had been better designed, with accountability built in to assure high-status white males shared policy-inflicted burdens which hit low-status white males much harder. I wish there had not been pretense that ameliorative benefits for affirmative action recipients could be had at no cost to anyone else. I wish there had been accountability to assure that the same low-status white males would not be required to pay again and again, and suffer repeated personal loss, for a societal burden which should have been spread wider and thinner. Our nation would have been a different and far less troubled place if that had happened.

None of that tells me anything about my personal responsibility to avoid racism. None of it gives me license to overlook that policy choices which continue systematically to burden Black descendants of American slaves, and indigenous Americans, are objectively racist, and should be opposed on that basis.

[Ben of Houston]

I would think if you call up scientists that you would know not to conflate correlation and causation. White people tend to live in better areas and know people in better situations.

However, that's an individual benefit to people from wealthier and better connected backgrounds. It has nothing to do with skin. A poor child from a trailer park will have no connections or wealth no matter how tan he is.

Discrimination is not against or for groups. It is for and against individuals. And individuals do not have white privilege.

[Randal]

There literally is no pro-white agenda...

Uh, false. There are lots of white nationalists. The leader of the Republican party panders to them constantly.

... nor is there any perk and privilege for being white.

This just proves your ignorance. There are a bazillion de facto perks and privileges for being white. It doesn't mean you need to feel guilty about it, but demonstrating some awareness of the situation would make your policy opinions more credible.

[Bob from Ohio]

"lots of white nationalists"

Define "lots"?

Define "white nationalists"?

Describe what institutions they control.

[Randal]

Um, if you don't know what a white nationalist is, I don't think I can help you.

Again, thank you for making my overall point: the grotesque ignorance of the right.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its just an epithet.

[Randal]

And, thank you once again!

[Bob from Ohio]

There is a minuscule number of "white nationalists" who wield zero influence. Its just an insult and those who use it are showing their ignorance.

[Randal]

Ok I've just gotta keep you talking... say something else!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

And you, Bob from Ohio, are just an obsolete, doomed bigot who seems to resent his betters (from a perch proofreading deeds in Left Behind, Ohio despite a claim to possess a law degree).

[Cheerio]

Constant use of terms like "betters" doesn't do much to help your side's look of condescending elitism...

Every now and then you show glimmers of thoughtfulness amidst the hateful screeds...alas, this wasn't one of those times...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Some people contend that preferring reason to superstition, education to ignorance, progress to backwardness, inclusiveness to bigotry, science to dogma, modernity to insularity, and the like is “condescending elitism.”

Those people are obsolete dumbasses.

[Krayt]

Most immigrants come here to live free, free of dictatorship and corruption, and are just happy to make their own way with that burden lifted.

We wring our hands over trivial shit that doesn't even show up on radar in most other countries.

[Michael P]

You claim the policy has a basis. What’s the defensible basis for putting this American-born restauranteur ahead in line of one born in Armenia, solely because of the ancestry of the former?

It sounds like you don't want to examine ridiculous outcomes of a policy because of your prejudices.

[Randal]

So, you would support putting the Armenian ahead of the American-born restauranteur?

[Michael P]

No, I don't think either identity is a remotely sound basis for tiered access to federal loans or grants or whatever. You're the one who sees race-based logic everywhere.

You said there was a basis for this policy. I assumed you meant one that could be defended. So please, identify that basis and explain why it's defensible.

[Randal]

So then what are you talking about?

1. I already said that the bases aren't defensible. But if you don't even know what they are, why are you here? You're too ignorant to contribute anything useful. And my whole point was to shine a light on that ignorance, so, thanks.

2. It has nothing to do with Armenian strawpeople.

[Michael P]

1. You said there were "better reasons not to", not that the policy was indefensible. I wanted to see how you define the basis for this policy, rather than expecting you to defend my characterization of the basis, but if you concede it's indefensible, then we are left with your rant about what you feel other people think as a distraction from the actual question of whether this policy should be upheld or struck down.

2. So why did you ask whether I thought Armenian strawpeople should get preferences?

[Randal]

1. Yes, I thought my rant was pretty clear from the beginning, but I'm glad you figured it out!

2. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

[M L]

The lie is that when some people don’t agree with open borders, or think that governments should put the economic and other interests of their citizens first above that of others (very diverse citizens in the US’s case), that is a “pro-white agenda.”

[Michael P]

It reeks of projection, much like these people who treat race neutrality as hostility: https://americanindependent.com/republican-study-committee-covid-19-relief-farmers-racism/

[Sarcastr0]

I don't agree with open borders. But I manage to do so without saying Dems favor looser immigration policy because they are planning to replace white people with more docile and Dem-voting minorities.

That's where the pro-white agenda comes in.

[David Bernstein]

"I don’t agree with open borders. But I manage to do so without saying Dems favor looser immigration policy because they are planning to replace white people with more docile and Dem-voting minorities."

I wouldn't use the word "docile," but it's certainly true that liberal Democrats used to often be anti-immigration, and especially illegal immigration (including Cesar Chavez) back when they stilled relied on industrial labor union votes. Now that industrial unions are a non-factor, and intead their coalition depends in signficant part on Latino voters, they have switched positions. I wouldn't say they are going for "replacement," but the positions following the political incentives isn't a coincidence, either.

[Randal]

Of course Democrats are trying to appeal to Latino voters! Republicans are also trying to appeal to Latino voters, if you haven't noticed. There's every reason for a political movement to want to include Latinos. What are you even talking about? This seems totally unresponsive to Sarcastr0's point, which was about the facockta "great replacement" right-wing tripe.

[David Bernstein]

It's not just that Democrats want to appeal to Latinos already in the US, they have an incentive to bring more Latinos into the US to get more Democratic voters. There is nothing terribly conspiratorial about it, back in the day we had the same dynamic, big city Democrats 100 plus years ago being pro-immigration, Republicans from Protestant parts of the country against. Democrats also have an incentive to get Latinos to think of themselves as "minorities" instead of merely "immigrants" because "helping minorities" is the Democrats' brand. But one major reason that fantasies of a "permanent Democratic majority" haven't played out is that many Hispanics are assimiliating into the general "white" population, in particular through marriage. (The other factor is that as the Democrats brand themselves as the party of elite whites and minorities, they lose additional non-elite white voters).

[Randal]

I couldn't follow that at all. First you said

I wouldn’t say they are going for “replacement,”

Then you said

they have an incentive to bring more Latinos into the US to get more Democratic voters. There is nothing terribly conspiratorial about it...

What exactly do you mean by "bring more Latinos into the US" and "get"? It sounds really close to Great Replacement, which is nothing if not conspiratorial. It could mean something else, but then why put it so cagily?

[M L]

Addition of voters isn't the same thing as replacement. My five year old could follow that. I don't think you are being honest. Why would you try to deny something that Democrats openly and frequently admit, and write about in op-eds and so on, or call it a conspiracy theory?

[Randal]

If by "bring more Latinos into the US" he means "don't put immigrants in cages and take away their kids," and by "get" he means "Latino citizens will vote Democratic," then sure... but that's the same as "appealing to Latinos already in the US".

If by "bring more Latinos into the US" he means "catch-and-release," and by "get" he means "wait 30-odd years for those people to have children and for those children to turn 18," then that's a retarded conspiracy theory.

There are other things it could mean, but who knows? I'm hoping for clarification.

[M L]

Yes, the next bit of fun is where you pretend that you don't understand immigration policy, the Flores Settlement, Remain in Mexico, blanket amnesty, etc. Maybe I'll have time for that later!

[Sarcastr0]

The Great Replacement is not our branding, ML - it's the White Supremacists'.

Probably a generational timescale thing.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, parties follow political incentives from within their coalition. I don't think this is particularly notable.

The policy preferences of Latino voters is changing, and that may mean the Democratic Party's position will change yet again.

Which is how it has ever been in a democracy.

[M L]

Political incentives, and the parties following them, are indeed very notable, and should be discussed frequently, even though the basic dynamic of parties following political incentives is nothing new.

This is especially true when party lackeys curiously try to deny the existence of those incentives or deny that their party is following them.

[Sarcastr0]

What are the secret incentives being denied? Is it the Great Replacement?
Because that's not incentivized, on accounta being dumb as hell.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s not just that Democrats want to appeal to Latinos already in the US, they have an incentive to bring more Latinos into the US to get more Democratic voters.

That’s not why Dems favor looser immigration policy. It’s not why they say they do, and it’s not really a very efficient or reliable way to get new voters if you think about it.

I'm also having trouble seeing how your stated view here is different from the Great Replacement conspiracy theory.

[M L]

So the political incentive is there, but Democrats aren't following it? But they happen to align with it for other reasons? Got it. I guess that would be notable then!

[Sarcastr0]

You: "So the political incentive is there,"

Me: "it’s not really a very efficient or reliable way to get new voters if you think about it."

You were so freaking eager to say Dems are into this, you failed to read my actual comment.

So no, the incentive isn't there. It's a dumb white supremacist conspiracy theory. Weird you like that, huh?

[M L]

Above, you admitted the incentive is there and the party follows it. And this is so humdrum and not notable.

In your next comment, you again admitted the incentive (while saying it's not very efficient or reliable), but denied the party follows it.

Now, it's "the incentive isn't there . . . and you're a racist."

This has been another edifying episode of Discussions with Sarcastro.

[Sarcastr0]

The incentive is not that there will be new voters, the incentives is that Latinos have solidarity with other Latinos that we treat like crap. Dems therefore advocate to treat them less like crap.

When I said it was this incentive not the great repelacement nonsense, you objected. Remember? It's just right up there!

Because you love the Great Replacement racist conspiracy theory with a great white love, and it seems to have messed up your reading comprehension.

[M L]

"I don’t agree with open borders."

What level of immigration do you think should be allowed? And is that higher or lower than the level of immigration that you think would be optimal strictly for the economic interests of diverse, working class Americans?

Currently, we have unprecedented levels of legal immigration. In addition to that, Biden has welcomed 4.9 million illegal immigrants crossing the border, just in the first 18 months of his administration.

Apparently that doesn't even include visa overstays. Just border crossers. https://www.fairus.org/press-releases/border-security/fair-analysis-49-million-illegal-aliens-have-crossed-our-borders

" . . last month’s figures actually represent a 325 percent increase over the average number of July apprehensions under the Trump administration. More significantly, July numbers bring the total of illegal aliens crossing our borders since President Biden took office to 4.9 million, including some 900,000 “gotaways” who eluded apprehension and have since disappeared into American communities.

“Roughly the equivalent of the entire population of Ireland has illegally entered the United States in the 18 months President Biden has been in office, with many being released into American communities. In that time, the Biden administration has blamed an unprecedented surge of illegal immigration on all sorts of external factors, except their own sabotage of our nation’s immigration laws. The endless flow of illegal aliens and the incursion of lethal narcotics pouring across our border will not end until this administration demonstrates a willingness to enforce our laws,” said Dan Stein, president of FAIR...

This includes the 3.9 million nationwide total reported by CBP – which includes a whopping 3.4 million at our Southwest border – as well as approximately 900,000 gotaways who have entered the country undetected per agency sources."

[Sarcastr0]

The appropriate way to deal with illegal immigration is an utterly different policy question from what level of legal immigration I would like to see.

You seem to think of them as the same issue, which is telling.

One thing I don't care about at all is you waiving big numbers at me and telling me it's bad. Your quotes are devoid of functional analysis, they are a pure appeal to nativism.

[M L]

They are obviously interrelated. But that's fine. Just stick to the question. If you could set the level of immigration, what do you think it should be?

[Sarcastr0]

No, they are not. Unless you are talking only about visa overstays, which…it’s quite clear is not your main beef. Setting visa and greencard procedures and levels is in no way similar to border monitoring and enforcement, nor to business ID regulations.

The only way they are related is if you’re scared by the undifferentiated mass of noncitizens.

[M L]

If you could set the level of immigration, what do you think it should be?

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know. Higher than it is now.

[Mr. Bumble]

Legal immigration or illegal alien migrants and visa overstayers?

[Sarcastr0]

Nothin' but illegals. Love them - down with the border!

You ask silly things sometimes, man.

[Sarcastr0]

And your 'citizens first above all others' is also getting into some iffy territory.
Citizens get certain stuff no one else does, but residents and immigrants and even illegals are still human, and should be treated as such. Even if it means citizens may not get the maximum of their interests sometimes in order not to utterly exploit all other populations.

This is something enshrined in the Constitution, and American citizens have and continue to vote vote to be still more inclusive than your defensive crouch.

[Jmaie]

"And your ‘citizens first above all others’ is also getting into some iffy territory."

I didn't read anything in ML's comment suggesting that non-citizens aren't deserving of humane treatment - just that our citizens' economic interests should be the government's priority over would-be migrants. Is that a problem, from a policy perspective?

[Sarcastr0]

Would be? He didn't say anything about would-be:

"governments should put the economic and other interests of their citizens first above that of others"

[Jmaie]

Are we quibbling about the difference between "others" and "would-be migrants?"

Either way it doesn't address my question...

[Sarcastr0]

I'm saying he's going against current already here immigrants. And residents.

[Jmaie]

Thanks for the clarification, I believe I now understand your take. But still – nothing in ML’s comment suggests treating non-citizens inhumanely.

From here it appears you think ML is engaging in icky thoughts, i.e. that those folks are a problem only because they are brown. Perhaps I am mis-reading you, if so I apologize. And I can’t read his/her mind either. But I would point out that limiting immigration for economic reasons is a position held (at various times at least) by folks across the spectrum. Left, right, white, black, brown.

[Sarcastr0]

Nah, I don't see race here.
I do see dehumanization. A sense of national responsibility that is largely defensive, devoid of senses of generosity and mercy.

It's more America First than fear of the darkies.

[Jmaie]

In a country of 330M, policy can't really be set based on anecdotal incidences. We are currently allowing millions of undocumented folks across the border annually, which is *more* than generous. Or merciful.

And you still haven't explained how this is good idea vis-a-vis the economic prospects of our less accomplished natives who have to compete with them. Not a moral judgement, just a policy discussion.

[Randal]

Immigration enforcement doesn't have to be a pro-white agenda, but then why are you so focused on the southern border? Most illegals living in the US are white, and most of them did not get here by sneaking over the southern border. So it seems like you've got a race-based immigration policy, in practice.

Throw in the fearmongering around "murderers and rapists" and the "great replacement" bullshit, and it's all looking pretty fundamentally pro-white.

[Jmaie]

"Most illegals living in the US are white, and most of them did not get here by sneaking over the southern border."

Cite?

[M L]

I don’t think he will be able to provide a cite. I think what he is referring to is a quite different claim that the incidence of visa overstays for certain years exceeded the number of illegal crossings during that year. But that says nothing about the overall population. For example someone overstaying their visa for 1 day is counted. And, that was before Biden I think. Keep in mind also that estimates of illegals in the country vary by more than 100%, with some sources severely underestimating.

[Michael P]

He's probably also assuming that a large majority of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America are White Hispanics, which could be true, but I can't find any specific statistics that say either way.

[M L]

Right, and that kind of brings us full circle here, to the point: "White," or "Hispanic," or whatever other label, in their usage, always just means whatever is most rhetorically convenient at the moment. Like that White, er, White Hispanic guy George Zimmerman.

[Jmaie]

I am actually hoping for a link to a study/article/etc.

[Michael P]

I looked, and the most precise breakdowns I could find were about country of origin, age, how long they've lived in the US, education, number of children, and the like -- no direct racial or ethnic demographics (for example, at https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/population-estimates/unauthorized-resident).

It's also hard to get trustworthy data on the actual fraction over visa overstays vs illegal border crossings among illegal immigrants. NPR points to the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics as support for a claim that visa overstays greatly outnumber illegal border crossings, but I can't find those numbers at that web page. In contrast, the report "Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2015–January 2018" (sorry, at hyperlink limit) says this:

DHS
administrative records (mainly consisting of suspected
overstays by nonimmigrants in the Venezuelan case) suggest
a somewhat smaller net population increase of about
75,000 people.

Particularly in context, this supports the claim up-thread that a significant fraction of visa overstays are non-immigrant (i.e. they return to their home country fairly soon).

[Randal]

I couldn’t find the one I was thinking of, but this will do. It’s a bit old is the only problem (2014):

https://cmsny.org/publications/jmhs-visa-overstays-border-wall/

• In 2014, about 4.5 million US residents, or 42 percent of the total undocumented population, were overstays

Back then it was still under half, but growing fast.

[M L]

Visa overstays should be enforced, too.

[Michael P]

Most illegals living in the US are white

No human being is illegal, only their presence in a country.

That's a pretty revealing choice of wording by you and Sarcastr0.

[Randal]

I'm not much for political correctness.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or honesty.

[Randal]

You think I'm lying about not caring for political correctness? That's retarded.

[Mr. Bumble]

My reference was to the majority of your comments, like this for example:

"Most illegals living in the US are white, and most of them did not get here by sneaking over the southern border."

Care to expand on that?

[Randal]

See above.

[David Bernstein]

Mr. Leon is white. So if there is a pro-white agenda here, it would be to give him benefits.

[Randal]

Do you feel as though that's a substantive response?

[David Bernstein]

Yes. You seemed to have missed the point of the post, which is not that "non-white minorities" shouldn't be getting favoritism, but that Mr. Leon suggests that not giving him favorable treatment is excluding non-whites, but he is white himself.

[Randal]

You're really going with that? Your post is agnostic towards racial minorities getting favoritism?

Wow.

[David Bernstein]

I asked why Mr. Leon, specifically, should get a preference, because I thought it was very ironic that the Post used a white guy to try to demonstrate Miller's hostility to minorities, and also weird that Leon says that *other* people are white. (I don't otherwise blame Mr. Leon for applying for preferences if he can get them, but his suggestion that he's not white is a bit much.) Do you have a good answer as to why white people who happen to have some Spanish-speaking ancestry should be getting preferences? Because I'd be curious to hear one.

[Randal]

Do you have a good answer as to why white people who happen to have some Spanish-speaking ancestry should be getting preferences?

Let's imagine it's the same as for why Asian people should be getting preferences.

Do you see why that makes your racial-minority-agnostic claim ridiculous (and actually a bit racist, if you take it to its logical conclusion)?

[Michael P]

You have a very active imagination. Could you do less imagining and more stating your argument?

I think a lot of us would say that any "good answer" to why Asians, as an identity group, should get special treatment are purely imaginary. Prof. Bernstein has posted several times on that arbitrary lumping-together. So making an imaginary analogy to an imaginary answer about an arbitrarily defined group doesn't seem like a strong argument.

[Randal]

Thanks, once again, for making my point for me. This is so easy!

(The point being, it's pretty mendacious for DB to be claiming that his post is neutral with respect to racial preferences.)

[Michael P]

You are simply proving my point about your overactive imagination.

[Randal]

That... doesn't make sense. But it's sweet of you to be trying to use my rhetorical tactics against me! ♥️ Warm those cockles.

[Michael P]

To the contrary, you are the one who is not making sense. You keep insisting that the post says something, even when the post doesn't raise the topic at all, simply because you have convinced yourself that Bad People all secretly (or not-so-secretly) believe that. It's in your imagination. When we point that out, you claim that we are proving your point. More imagination.

Or maybe projection of your own racism.

[Randal]

Ok, this should be interesting. What's the point of the post, in your own words?

Keep in mind that the title is About the Restaurant Revitalization Fund's Minority Preferences…

[David Bernstein]

Asian is a silly category, but to the extent is has any salience, the idea would be that they suffer racial discrimination either because they "look Asian" (say, a Chinese person), have dark skin (most South Asians) or both (many southeast Asians). So that still leaves the question of why white Hispanics are eligible. The best argument is that they may get residual discrimination based on their last name being associated with non-white status, but the preferences apply to David Bernstein from Mexico as much as anyone else.

[Randal]

Ok so wait. You're saying that you get why Asians are discriminated against, so preferences for that group are ok, but you don't understand why Hispanics are discriminated against, so preferences for that group aren't ok?

This is where you start to sound a little racist. People are discriminated against for all kinds of reasons other than how they look. (And that's without even getting into the extent to which self-identifying as Hispanic correlates with physical characteristics.) Catholics famously suffered discrimination, also Irish and Italians (which, again, just because you label them as "white" doesn't mean they aren't at all physically distinguishable from e.g. Brits and Scandinavians).

As you know, I'm not a huge fan of the federal government's categories. But it's beyond rich for you to be here suggesting that the only valid categories are the ones that the federal government classifies as "races."

As we discussed above, political parties (and hence politicians, and hence policymakers) have an interest in relevant demographic groups. It turns out that Latino is a relevant group. They have statistically different voting behavior, purchasing behavior, cultural background, income, etc. That makes Latinos interesting not only to politicians and advertisers, but to entire industries such as entertainment, food, medicine, and sports. The same is true for other relevant demographic groups. (The whole shift in focus from Hispanic to Latino can be seen as a response to market pressure to more accurately define the relevant demographic group from the perspective of statistical significance as well as self-identification.)

So, out of the gate, it's silly to pretend like race / ethnicity is an irrelevant consideration. They're clearly hugely relevant across society. And the relevance of a given group isn't defined by how easily you, DB, find it to discriminate against them. It's determined by how cohesive the group is in terms of its behaviors and opinions, the extent to which that makes the group interesting economically and politically, and the resulting desire for people to self-identify into it.

Given that these economically relevant demographic groups exist, it makes tons of sense to take advantage of them for policymaking reasons. Those reasons can be but aren't always about counterbalancing ongoing discrimination. They could be about a more equitable distribution of opportunities, or even just taking advantage of the statistical differences in order to more efficiently distribute resources.

As I said at the beginning, I don't think those reasons survive against equal protection considerations for the most part. But they certainly don't revolve around your ability to think of ways to discriminate, the details of the categories themselves, the self-identification choices of individuals, or the government's use of the terms "race" and "ethnicity."

[David Bernstein]

"You’re saying that you get why Asians are discriminated against, so preferences for that group are ok, but you don’t understand why Hispanics are discriminated against,"

No, I'm saying there is a plausible basis for distinguishing Asian Americans from whites in public policy, but not one for distinguishing white Hispanics from other white immigrant/ethnic groups.

[Randal]

I’m saying there is a plausible basis for distinguishing Asian Americans from whites in public policy, but not one for distinguishing white Hispanics from other white immigrant/ethnic groups

Right, and that plausible basis is, you thought of an easy way to discriminate against Asians. You haven't mentioned any other plausible basis.

For someone as obsessed with antisemitism as you are, you'd think you'd understand a little something about discrimination against white people. Would you be making the same case if it were Jews instead of Hispanics getting the preferences?

[David Bernstein]

Noting that people sometimes discriminate against Asian Americans based on skin color and appearance, which hardly seems controversial, is providing people an excuse to discriminate against Asian Americans? Please.
Beyond that, my book goes into some detail about the origins of the classifications, and it could have been Jews in, "Hispanics" (a term that didn't exist at the time) out. Which also would have been arbitrary. But in any event, my point is much narrower. Mr. Leon expresses dismay that non-white people like himself can't get preferences, yet by government rules, appearance, common parlance, and ancestry, he's white.

[Randal]

Really. You posted this whole diatribe simply because you disagree with one guy’s self-identification. That is so implausible as to be dishonest. I mean, it’s better if you’re lying, because that’s such a mean and petty thing to do that one hopes you were doing it to make some sort of larger point beyond trying to embarrass Mr. Leon.

Like, what’s your next post gonna be? “Blond man who eats bacon erroneously claims to be Jewish?”

[Ben_]

Free stuff for the special people. Because you probably deserved Covid-enforcement predicated hardships, but the special people are supposed to be exempt from all misfortune and any negative happenstance.

[Sarcastr0]

...You think minorities were immune from Covid restrictions?

Not everything bad that happens to you is some kind of anti-white oppression plotted by Democrats.

[Ben_]

Democrats always seem to choose that way though. Anyone paying attention sees who is valued and who isn’t.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, your post above is flat false, so of course you see stuff not many others do.

[Ben_]

You are incorrect. And also you seem to be very bad at discerning one type of statement from another. Maybe you’re just pretending.

[Sarcastr0]

Minorities were not exempt from Covid hardships. Nor were they supposed to be.

[Ben_]

No one said they were exempt. Dems want them to be exempt. Others not so exempt.

[Sarcastr0]

Plenty of Dem states. Didn't happen. You remain insane.

[Ben_]

Something didn’t happen?

[Sarcastr0]

Dems wanted minorities to be exempt from Covid restrictions you say. Plenty of Dem-run states. Minorities were not exempted.

Your insane position does not hold water.

[Ben_]

That’s why they wanted minorities first in line to get compensated.

[Sarcastr0]

Compensated for what? Covid restrictions?

[Ben_]

That’s the topic, yes.

[DaveM]

Note that under federal law, "Hispanics" are, for rather obvious reasons, deemed an ethnicity who could be of any race.

I did not know this. That's amazing. I once lived in Texas for 6 months. Is that close enough to the border with Mexico to qualify as a Hispanic and therefore of any race? The mind reels at the possibilities, to say nothing of the cold, hard cash incoming.

[Jonathan Affleck]

What makes Gregory León Hispanic but his father's immigration from Venezuela? We don't even know whether his father was originally from Venezuela. About half my family immigrated into the USA from Mexico after they emigrated from Ukraine to Mexico. It boggles the mind that these "Mexican" family members, who barely speak Spanish, should be considered Hispanic, Latin American, or Latinx on the basis of a few years residence in Mexico.

My mother is nonwhite, but I'm white. I attended the best prep school in the USA, Brisk Jewish seminary (Harvard of Ultra-Orthodox Jewish seminaries), and Ivy League universities. I never categorize myself as either nonwhite or Hispanic (my mom technically is a Jewish Ibero-Berber). To characterize myself as anything but a privileged white is unethical and mendacious.

[Dr. Ed 2]

To characterize yourself as anything other than privileged would be unethical and mendacious.

Do not forget that there are more White families on Welfare than there ARE Black families....

[David Bernstein]

No one is forcing anyone to check the Hispanic box, but the federal definition of Hispanic is sufficiently capacious ("of Spanish origin or culture," which in practice means you have ancestry in a Spanish-speaking country) to includes lots of white people (And, as I noted, Hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race, so there is no reason under the federal definition one can't be both Hispanic and white. Like Fidel Castro!)

[Jonathan Affleck]

I tend to consider Hispanic to be a cultural rather than an ethnic description, and Hispanic might be closer to a supercultural designation because in theory it could encompass the linguistic groups in Spain (without the Basques), my haketiah-speaking relatives, Balkan Spaniolish speakers (are there any left?), and Dutch Dzhudezmo speakers (are there any left?).

Popular Judeo-Spanish literature had nothing in common with popular Spanish literature although there was a lot of folk music overlap.

I've read that the three Jewish spanish dialects diverged hugely, but the basic grammar was the same. I consider Ostjiddisch and Westjiddisch to be different languages because there were major grammatical differences.

I could probably make the same observation about German in the 19th century. Prussians, Bavarians, and Swabians all considered themselves German, but were they the same ethnicity? The spread of standard German and public school education probably leveled ethnic differences.

It seems insane for the government to be in the ethnology business.

[Jonathan Affleck]

A Zionist fanatic would claim that my mother and my father belong to the same ethnic group although they do not belong to the same race and had nothing in common but religion.

One can legitimately doubt whether a Jewish Galitzianer and a Jewish Ibero-Berber practiced the same religion. The same Zionist fanatic would also assert that Jews of Spanish origin were ethnically different from Christians of Spanish origin.

[David Bernstein]

By Zionist fanatic you seem to mean (a) people familiar with the relevant DNA studies, which show that Sephardic Jews are much closer genetically to Ashkenazic Jews than to Spaniards; and (b) Jewish people themselves, who always treated each other as members of the same people, e.g., Sephardic Jews in Turkey ransomed Jewish Ashkenazi slaves in the 17th century sold in Istanbul.
"One can legitimately doubt whether a Jewish Galitzianer and a Jewish Ibero-Berber practiced the same religion." Completely ridiculous. Had very similar rules, prayers, etc. Relied on the same Talmud. Spanish Jewish authorities like the Rambam and his grandchildren were well-respected in Ashkenazi circles, not to mention Rashi (though he lived in France). Also, a fair number of Sephardim found their way to Ashkenazi redoubts and assimilated into them over time. Which wouldn't have happened if they perceivd themselves to be of different religions or different peoples. Where did you come up with this stuff from?

[Jonathan Affleck]

Zionist fake scientist-propagandists cooked the data. Now that we can do high-resolution genetic studies, the Zionist fake scientist-propagandists have gone silent. See High-resolution inference of genetic relationships among Jewish populations.

[Jonathan Affleck]

The Zionist fake scientist-propagandists cooked the data with bogus sample populations and equally bogus comparison populations. This article explains the garbage statistical methods that Zionist fake scientist-propagandists used. See Why most Principal Component Analyses (PCA) in population genetic studies are wrong.

[Jonathan Affleck]

David, Don't be ridiculous. I grew up with Jewish Galitzianer relatives and with Jewish Berber relatives. There was almost no similarity.

Before Vatican II a Roman Catholic service in Ireland and a Roman Catholic service in Sicily were identical. Yet no one would ever think to claim that Sicilians and Irish are the same ethnic group.

Jewish Berbers and Jewish Galitsianers pray very differently. And from that starting point onward the differences get much bigger.

Except for my father, my mother hates Ashkenazim. I will explain the reason, but she would tell the story with more invective.

My Mom’s Story

After the depraved and evil white racial supremacist Zionist colonial settlers perpetrated genocide on the native Palestinian population from Dec 1947 through 1949, the disgusting Zionist leadership realized that it could not hold stolen Palestine without an influx of cannon fodder, bullet catchers, and mine finders. The villainous Zionist leadership contrived to destroy the communities of Jewish Arabs and Jewish Berbers to force the members of these communities to emigrate to stolen Palestine even though in the minds of the perverted Zionist leadership, Jewish Arabs and Jewish Berbers were considered genetically and racially inferior. The vile Zionist leadership hoped that Jewish Arabs and Jewish Berbers would die in the service of Zionism and would thereby remove themselves from the gene pool.

Mom was 16 when a white racial supremacist Zionist "snake oil salesman" ‬ (שליח) tricked her family into leaving their homes for the Zionist state. As soon as the family arrived, the vile white racist Zionist anti-Jews doused every member of the family in insecticide because to the sick and perverted Zionist anti-Jews, a Jewish Berber was dirty and primitive. My mom's father was a respected scholar and refused to allow his family to live in homes stolen from Palestinians. Zionist anti-Jews beat him almost to death. I suppose he was lucky. If he had been Palestinian, the Zionist anti-Jews would have murdered him. My grandfather had no desire to become an ersatz native collaborator in the service of white racial supremacist genocidal European Zionist colonial settler anti-Jews. He took the whole family out of the Zionist state as quickly as possible.

My Mom does not hate my father because he helped her family after her father was beaten senseless and made it possible for Mom's family to leave the Zionist state.

Afterward

My Mom hated my first two Ashkenazi wives but loves my third wife, who is Palestinian. Mom tells me my wife is a genuine Judean אֵשֶׁת חַיִל -- someone a female Zionist colonial settler can never be. They can spend hours together and make each other happy.

[David Bernstein]

If this isn’t a parody, it should be. Especially the evil Zionist geneticists who someone persuaded the entire world of genetics that Sephardic and Ashkenazic Jews share genes going back approximately 2600 years. Either that, or your mom is a Communist, because this is exactly how Jewish Communists from the Arab world sound.
In case you are serious, there is no such thing as Jewish Berbers, though there are Jews who lived among the Berbers in North Africa. And the difference between Catholics and Jews ais that Catholicism is a universal religion, and Judaism a tribal one.

[Jonathan Affleck]

David, Have you studied classic languages and history? I have.

Anyone, who studies classical literature and history, quickly realizes there were three forms of Judaism in the Greco-Roman period.

There was a Greek language Judaism among the Judaic population of the Roman West. Descendants of non-Judean converts to Judaism practiced this religion.

In Palestine there was a Hebrew/Canaanite version of Biblical Judaism that Judeans, Samarians, and other peoples of Palestine practice.

In Mesopotamia there was an apodictic legal form of Judaism that non-Judean Aramaic speakers practiced. There was a Temple to El-Yahweh in Casifia/Ctesiphon.

The maniac Bar-Kochba and delusional Tannaim like Akiva discredited Judaism in Palestine because Bar-Kochba persecuted the peasantry (90% of the population) and the Tannaim supported him.

After the Romans and foederati crushed Bar Kochba, the peasantry quickly converted to Christianity. Judah the Prince and Nathan the Babylonian tried to slow the conversion by introducing Mesopotamian apodictic legal Judaism, which was less Temple-focused, in codex form to compete with Christianity, which was the ultimate codex religion, but Mishnaic Judaism obtained no traction in Palestine for a number of reasons.

No Judeans left Palestine. The Roman Exile is a metaphor for the transformation of Judaism from the religion of Judea into a religion that only descendants of non-Judean converts practice.

A Zionist colonial settler in stolen Palestine is a murderous genocidal invader, interloper, thief, and impostor.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Yes David, Jewish communists from the Arab world casually use phrases from Mishlei (Proverbs). Her father was considered the poseq for his community. I have to wonder whether David does stand-up comedy.

[David Bernstein]

You have a very creative mind, but this study agrees with previous studies: most Jewish groups have common ancestry, Ashkenazim fall in between southern Europeans and Middle Easterners. The authors explicitly acknowledge the existing consensus that the major Jewish groups are connected and don't dispute it. They go into more detail about the differences between the different *subgroupss* of Jews than previous studies have. Don't see why you think this helps you.

[Jonathan Affleck]

People in the Zionist sense was not a concept among Jews in the 17th century. You are referring to the Chmielnicki Rebellion. The sufferings of the Jews during the Rebellion are highly exaggerated. Lucy Dawidowicz claims 100s of thousands of Jews were murdered. It's crap. Maybe 4-6,000 died in collateral damage and because of the general destruction.

Chmielnicki targeted the Polish szlachta not the Jews. Chmielnicki's followers hated the Jewish arendars with good reason, but Chmielnicki valued the Jewish commercial financial class and protected the members of this class.

Some of Chmielnicki's Tatar allies took a few hundred Jews to Istanbul and expected to be paid for their efforts. The local Jews compensated the Tatars. The Jews did so because it was a religious obligation not out of some sort of Zionist ethnonational solidarity, which would have been completely alien to 17th century Jews, who would have considered the phrase העם היהודי to be blasphemous.

[David Bernstein]

Of course, modern Zionism did not exist before modern Zionism. But of course Jews thought of themselves as a nation before modern Zionism. Jews after all had their own kingdom in Judea (twice), and tried to reestablish it several time thereafter, the last time by force in 613. In the 17th century, Shabtai Zvi's false messianic reign was attractive in significant part because he promised a return to a sovereign Zion. And the Hagaddah declares the wish for "next year in Jerusalem." And Jews were largely self-governing (autonomous) until the 19th century in most of the world, heightening their sense of separate peoplehood.

[Jonathan Affleck]

David Bernstein, Go ahead and believe nonsense if it makes you feel better, but keep in mind that genocide is a US federal capital crime: 18 U.S. Code § 1091 – Genocide. There is only one clear definition of terrorism in the US federal criminal code. We find that genocide is a form of terrorism according to 18 U.S. Code § 2339A – Providing material support to terrorists.

A depraved Zionist distorts Judaism to justify genocide and material support to terrorists.

“Next year in Jerusalem” does not show any desire to “return” to Palestine. It is wish for the Messiah to come to rebuild the Temple so that Temple sacrifices and pilgrimages can resume. Isaac of Tyrnau added the phrase to the Ashkenazi Haggadah in the 15th century in response to the conversion of Hussites to Judaism.

I can go through any prayer you choose and explain its true meaning and why Zionism is a complete lie.

In A Genuine Jew is Not a Zionist, I explicate “Aleinu”. I don’t want to add a lot of text that most participants on this web page can’t read.

Zionism is not part of Judaism. Zionism murders Judaism by transforming it into a program of genocide.

The Zionist concept of “return” is completely alien to Judaism. A Zionist colonial settler anti-Jew in stolen Palestine is a vicious bloodthirsty murderously genocidal invader, interloper, thief, and impostor. A Zionist colonial settler anti-Jew is an international criminal and an enemy to a Palestinian, a Jew, and the entire human race.

[David Bernstein]

That's quite a remarkably bad and tendentious translation you have of Aleinu there. Particularly so if you put back the line taken out in deference to Christian censors: Here is a much better translation “who has not made us like the nations of the world and has not placed us like the families of the earth; who has not designed our destiny to be like theirs, nor our lot like that of all their multitude, for they bow to vanity and emptiness and pray to a god who cannot save.” Saying that God hasn't made us "like them" means that Jews have a special fate as servants of God. Nothing to do with Jews not being a nation.

[Jonathan Affleck]

It's not my translation. It was made by a Hebrew translator, who is often praised.

While I am fluent in Rabbinic Jewish intellectual culture, a Zionist anti-Jew is illiterate and only knows the poison of Zionism, which is congruent in its perverted concepts to Nazism.

Because a Zionist anti-Jew only knows Fake Invader Hebrew, he does not understand the archaicizing Hebrew of prayers.

שֶׁלֹּא עָשָֽׂנוּ כְּגוֹיֵי הָאֲרָצוֹת

uses the archaic abstraction by pluralization.

It is perfectly reasonable and better captures the sense of prayer to take גוֹיֵי הָאֲרָצוֹת as an abstraction of a nation in the lands (the world). The abstraction in modern terms is the nation state.

If one actually understands the Hebrew of prayers — something of which a Zionist anti-Jew is hardly ever capable, one sees a similar abstraction via pluralization in מִשְׁפְּחוֹת הָאֲדָמָה, which properly means via abstraction either tribe or clan of the soil (peasant clan).

A Zionist colonial settler anti-Jew is the product of the murder of Judaism at the hands of the atrociously antisemitic Zionist movement and of the Zionist state. He slices and dices Jewish scripture to normalize and to legitimize genocide of Palestinians, who unlike a depraved racial supremacist murderously genocidal Zionist anti-Jew actually descend from Greco-Roman Judeans.

[David Bernstein]

Alrighty then.

[Randal]

who has not made us like the nations of the world

It's at least interesting.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or Hispanic and black.

[Mr. Bumble]

Curious as to what category Haitians fall into?

[Jonathan Affleck]

The old terminology was creole of color. This nonsense makes one's head spin.

[Absaroka]

They speak French and Creole, so presumably not Hispanic? As opposed to the people on the other end of the island, who speak spanish, who are presumably Hispanic.

Which is perverse from a preferences POV, because Haitians are a lot worse off than people from the Dominican Republic.

[JasonT20]

Probably just Black. I would suspect very few Haitians would have any Spanish ancestry. It was controlled the longest by the French, but its population was largely made up of African slaves at the time of the French Revolution.

[David Bernstein]

Black/African American. Federal rule: Descended from "one of the black racial groups of Africa."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Some people seem intensely concerned about the prospect that anyone might receive preference or special treatment with respect to benefits from American government. . . although I sense they might endorse exceptions for (certain) religious claimants, at least one country, and Federalist Society members seeking federal clerkships.

[Ben_]

Here’s an example of what’s mostly missing from people in positions of authority in America:

https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2022/12/13/doctor-shares-must-read-thread-apologizing-for-being-wrong-about-covid-lockdowns-mandates-and-wow/

[Cheerio]

It's fair to say when the science is evolving and can change w/ new data, etc.

It's not fair to say, "and in the meantime, my best guess is inarguable!"

Nor is it honest to ever pretend than "science-informed policy" = "science."

[Ben_]

What about if you think the victims of your policies are deplorables and they deserve whatever hardship you can get away with causing them?

[Sarcastr0]

No, Ben, liberals did not invent anti-Covid policies to mess with conservatives.

[Ben_]

They aren’t sorry about it.

[Randal]

It’s fair to say when the science is evolving and can change w/ new data, etc.

Fauci and CDC did say that, a lot.

It’s not fair to say, “and in the meantime, my best guess is inarguable!”

Nobody ever said that. They did say, “and in the meantime, my best guess is controlling.” Because that’s how it works.

Nor is it honest to ever pretend than “science-informed policy” = “science.”

This I agree with. It bothered me every time the media referred to a policy as “science.” And they did. A lot.

[ReaderY]

While years ago my comstitutional positions weee generally well to the right of where the court was then, I find they are increasingly to the left of where the court’s right wing is now. In some cases I’ve changed. But in others, I haven’t, it’s just that the court as a whole has moved to the right.

On this issue, I think there is something to Justice Jackson’s “progressive originalism” arguments. The a somewhat narrow view of what the Court said in Brown v. Board of Education is that states cannot set up a de facto caste system that pervades every aspect of life and causes pervasive effects, focusing on the existence of major practical consequences and a plaintiff’s proof of them, as Brown did, as a trigger. But there is a great deal of gray between that and saying that any race-based distinction whatsoever is inherently unconstitutional because all race-based decision are inherently wrong, as a matter of constitutionalized morality.

For this reason, i have not been as opposed to some elements of affirmative action as many other regular Conspiracy commentators. In general, I don’t like trying to interpret of the constitution in terms of absolute moral principles to be sledgehammered into every aspect of society no matter how personal or trivial.

I try to apply this consistently. I don’t think equal protection and the logic of Brown should be sledgehammered into prohibiting gender-segregated bathrooms or different minimum dress for men and women, as seems to be the case; I think there has to be an additional showing, a connection between the dostinction and a caste system or overall unequal places in society, as occurred in Brown. I don’t think a distinction alone is enough.

But that same concern leads me to treat affirmative action more gently. It may be that recipients of special benefits have to make some showing of personal hardship related to societal discrimination. Professor Bernstein may be right that this particular case is an example of classification error. But among people with hardship, with the showing made, I think people discriminated against by society can be preferred at the margins.

I think too ruthless and perfect and exacting an interpretation of abstract constitutional principles is not good for society. I think there has to be some sort of threshold severity or at least materiality requirement before they can be applied. I think these are traditional classical conservative principles.

But the very same traditional conservative social stability, live and let live principles that I think counsel against letting movement social-change liberals be too ruthless about manipulating the system to actualize the abstract moral principles they discern pounding in their heads without anyone else’s consent or any consideration of the consequences, also counsel against letting movement social-change conservatives do the same when it’s the liberals on the other side.

If I have tried to communicate any one idea in my years commenting on this blog, this is probably it as much as any.

[Absaroka]

+1

[jdgalt1]

The answer to the article’s final question is simply no.

Those who assert that “affirmative action” is still appropriate are the ones selectively disregarding the suffering of others. Government must not.

[janicegrace]

The distribution of this fund requires better distribution by booking appointments, completing and submitting paperwork, uploading insurance forms, updating payment information, receiving and paying bills, communicating with their healthcare providers through secure, HIPAA-compliant messaging, and participating in telehealth visits: https://engagesmart.com/healthpay24/