The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
How Should a Bureaucrat Proceed if He Doubts a Contractor's Self-Declared Race?
For federal transportation contracting and for Small Business Administration progams, it's advantageous to have one's business certified as a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, or DBE. The simplest way of gaining DBE status is for the business to be at least 51% owned by a member of one of the "official" minority groups--Asian American, Black, Hispanic, Native American, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander--as such businesses are considered to be presumptively disadvantaged so long as they don't exceed certain income thresholds.
But what happens if the government official suspects that the owner who claims minority status is not actually a member of the group he claims membership in? Almost everything I've read on the topic in the academic literature would suggest that the government does not arbitrate disputes over racial identity, and thus must certify based on self-identification.
This, however, is not true.
49 C.F.R. Section 26.63 - What rules govern group membership determinations?(a)(1) If, after reviewing the signed notarized statement of membership in a presumptively disadvantaged group (see §26.61(c)), you have a well founded reason to question the individual's claim of membership in that group, you must require the individual to present additional evidence that he or she is a member of the group.(2) You must provide the individual a written explanation of your reasons for questioning his or her group membership and a written request for additional evidence as outlined in paragraph (b) of this section.(3) In implementing this section, you must take special care to ensure that you do not impose a disproportionate burden on members of any particular designated group. Imposing a disproportionate burden on members of a particular group could violate §26.7(b) and/or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 49 CFR part 21.(b) In making such a determination, you must consider whether the person has held himself out to be a member of the group over a long period of time prior to application for certification and whether the person is regarded as a member of the group by the relevant community. You may require the applicant to produce appropriate documentation of group membership.
The SBA provides the following additional guidance: "individuals who claim disadvantaged status as [for example] Hispanic Americans may establish their membership in that designated group by providing a birth certificate showing race, membership cards to exclusive Hispanic groups, or other evidence." Office of Business Development US Small Business Administration, Standard Operating Procedure for the Office of Business Development SOP 80 05 5 (2016), 81. If there is additional DOT guidance, I haven't been able to locate it.
What's left uncertain, meanwhile, is whether (a) the decisionmaker must also consult the official federal definition of the group, under Statistical Directive No. 15, which is discussed in detail in this article and in my book Classified; and (b) what happens if the individual meets the federal definition but does not generally hold himself out to be a member of the group (but will acknowledge his minority ancestry if asked) and/or is not regarded by others to be a member.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I fail to see how they can say somebody can change their sex at any time...but their race is just too far.
It doesn't benefit the Democrat destruction of America plan.
Too bad I can't register as a teenaged mutant ninja turtle.
That always bothered me and I've never even heard an attempt at an explanation from the progs.
Because!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! thats why!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You left out the FU.
And then there will be the day of reckoning when the White man rises up and says NO MAS!!!
This program has got to go.
Horrors, an ID law for benefits. SCOTUS will never allow it.
In making such a determination, you must consider whether the person has held himself out to be a member of the group over a long period of time prior to application for certification
First prong should be easy enough– anybody with half a brain who has a halfway plausible claim to be a member of the melanin nobility starts claiming it early, certainly no later than college application season. Relatively few are going to be tripped up by just now claiming to be a member of one of the advantaged groups.
and whether the person is regarded as a member of the group by the relevant community
Second prong seems totally unworkable and seems to create an infinite chain of racial certification. How do I know who the relevant community is? Seems like I need to know someone’s race before I can decide if they’re part of the community that can form a judgment, but the reason we’re here in the first place is that such determinations are extremely difficult. Even if I can get past that hurdle, then what? Do I conduct a survey? Do I consult community members who actually know this person or at large? Do I describe the person or show a photograph or what?
I have to imagine then rather than engage with this topic, most public servants will just racial claims at face value and get on with their main job.
Hispanic Americans may establish their membership in that designated group by providing . . . membership cards to exclusive Hispanic groups
Did not even know that was a thing and my father is a Mexican national. Very curious how they screen their membership to make sure no outsiders get in.
This regulation requires any bureaucrat who has doubts about an applicant's race or ethnic background to do some extra work to get proof to rebut his or her doubts. Moreover, this extra work entails writing a statement explaining the reason or reasons for doubting the applicant's purported racial/ethnic identity. Such statements alone could in turn easily trigger allegations that the bureaucrat is a racist and should therefore be fired. All but the dumbest bureaucrats instinctively recognize this risk to their personal wellbeing and therefore choose to accept every applicant's representations at face value. That's entirely consistent with the section of the unofficial bureaucrat's bible that plainly states "It is far better that 100 fraudulent applications be granted, than one bureaucrat be accused of racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other trendy form of prejudice.
Given it basically flags the fact in the guidance that raising this concern could result in violating another law I’m sorta inclined to agree with you.
But realistically, that’s not what this is about. Practically, it just means that if someone shows up and is obviously lying or doing it as part of a stunt (the kind of cases where the bureaucrat would be hung out to dry if they *didn’t* challenge it…think some white guy who decides to say they identify as black) they can be denied.
Basically, the enforcement mechanism is the big social risk involved if you are found out to be falsely (according to the currently accepted social norms) claiming group membership.
Should Donald Trump be handcuffed if arrested, or should he receive some type of special snowflakey treatment based on one classification or another?
Who decides? A judge? A police officer? A jail official? A prosecutor? A Secret Service representative?
Should the decision on handcuffs with respect to his first arrest influence the decision with respect to subsequent arrests?
Kirkland is pointing somewhere else, as he frequently does when a post has information which is unhelpful to him and which he can't refute.
Kirkland would probably approve using deadly force to arrest Trump for the crime of jaywalking with felony enhancements
Hey, he's former Penn State Defensive Coordinator Jerry Sandusky, had a few TBI's in his time, and he's got the Alzheimers, which is why he's calling himself Reverland Kirkland (if you were Jerry Sandusky wouldn't you claim to be someone else?)
The subject was classifications (and special privileges associated with classifications).
I did not consider any information in the original post to be unhelpful and have no interest in any rebuke. One Conspirator has an intense focus on classifications, apparently disdaining them, particularly when used by government.
Well, except in one particular, life-defining context. In that context, oddly enough, Prof. Bernstein seems intensely supportive of government classification (and government action based on that classification).
He got the opposite of snowakey treatment up to this point, with politcal rivals loudly and deliberately pursuing him because he was political opposition.
State officials took up the slack, offering to continue pursuing their political rival, should he attempt to pardon himself, which did not happen.
None of this bothers anybody for some strange reason.
"Nobody is above the law!" Yes, but all laws, including not using the power of government against your political enemies, which is the real reason for the 4th and 5th Amendments. And 1st.
That is an unusually unpersuasive assertion. It seems more likely that investigations of, claims against, and charges against Trump were delayed by his position as president.
But longshots like that are nearly all Trump fans have left.
Carry on, clingers. Your betters will let you know how far and how long, as usual.
Jerry Sandusky ladies and gentleman (actually Jerrys just into the Gentlemen, and I do mean "Into"), Jerry Sandusky, telling you how "Far and How Long" he would like to give it to you, which is why he's currently at
https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
“Should Donald Trump be handcuffed if arrested”
I’d say treat him identically to anyone else accused of six-year-old non-violent misdemeanors, but I suspect you would be displeased by the result.
The standard treatment in that context appears to involve handcuffs and a perp walk.
Are you sure you favor the standard treatment?
I expect he will receive snowflaky favorable treatment. And that his delusional, half-educated, bigoted fans will still whine about it.
Go to your local law enforcement office and file a police report alleging someone committed a non-violent misdemeanor over six to seven years ago. The result will involve neither handcuffs nor a perp walk, anywhere in the country. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.
Jerry only knows about his own "Perp Walk", which unfortunately for the sphincters of a generation of young boys, came about 30 years too late.
Depends on the prosecutor and the police. I know that lefty-left prosecutors in Boston love to arrest nonviolent white professionals and force a perp walk. It soothes their guilty consciences for all the POC they forced to perp walk after arrests for violent felonies.
Tom Wolfe wrote a novel about this.
The precipitating event with respect to Donald Trump (in New York; Georgia and the government's selection of court in the documents case may differ) would be a criminal charge signed by a grand jury foreman. Why are you writing about about a report to police? You seem confused.
That you completely ignored that the NY case involves a non-violent felony is duly noted. That is the important difference. Which you know and dishonestly ignored.
A grand jury can indict you for not paying parking tickets, but that won't get you a perp-walk.
The standard treatment for boys in your care involves you penetrating them.
"The standard treatment in that context appears to involve handcuffs and a perp walk."
Name one case in the last 20 years where that happened for a technical misdemeanor violation.
Personally, I want to see Trump arrested and put away. As I have said here before, the Georgia charges are the most likely to send him to jail. But the charge that the NY County DA appears to be contemplating is absurd. Arresting Trump for that is akin to arresting Charles Manson for having unpaid parking tickets.
And given where NYC is today, the DA has much more important things to pay attention to. If Trump put on black face and beat up elderly Asian women on the subway, he would walk. Misreporting a payoff to a prostitute, if that is what he did, is very low on the list of problems facing NYC.
I don't know Jerry, did they handcuff you? You probably liked it.
Alvin Bragg is a retarded ape.
No. He is a clumsy political operator looking to get political capital out of charging Trump.
I hope it backfires on the left, and that they get something that makes 1/6 look like a quite protest.
I fear a wholesale attack on innocent Blacks.
That's an oxymoron.
Kirkland, a Trump arrest will result in blood on the streets.
Pray it doesn't happen.
So, you seem to be saying that the long string of law schools that accepted that Senator Lieawatha Warren was Cherokee had the burden of showing that she was a lying POS? After all, she grew up in Oklahoma, where the Cherokee tribe was forcibly relocated to, in order to resell their valuable farmland to white settlers. Thank you, Dem hero Andrew Jackson.
You, Bruce Hayden, are precisely the target audience of the Volokh Conspiracy in general and Prof. Bernstein in particular. Congratulations all around!
High Praise from a master of Defensive Strategy, is S-S-S-S-S--T-T-T-T-uttering John Fetterman still working on your C-C-C-C-C_-mmutation??
Frank
I would expect an illiterate, autistic, disaffected culture war loser to be more sympathetic to someone in Sen. Fetterman's position but you seem to lack any redeeming features that might offset your bigotry, ignorance, and conservatism.
The Volokh Conspiracy still loves you, though.
So I'm taking that as a N-N-N-N-N-o??????
hey, watch "Escape at Dannemora" although with your preference for young Ani, you probably prefer
https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
The principle is "otherwise qualified" and he ain't.
"Lieawatha Warren"
The usual is "Fauxcahontas". +10 points for originality.
Yeah, idiotic name calling really adds a lot to any discussion. Pathetic.
What we need are specialized bureaucrats to assign everyone in the country a race and an ethnicity, so that other bureaucrats will have clear guidance.
There should be Racial Classification Boards for each region to assign every person their own race....
https://overcomingapartheid.msu.edu/multimedia.php?id=65-259-2
...and a national Appeal Board to make final decisions.
https://sthp.saha.org.za/memorial/race_classification_board.htm
In letters to county vital statistics registrars in Dec 1941, Jan 1942 and Dec 1942, Plecker, architect and chief enforcer of the 1924 Virginia Racial Integrity Act, identified my greatgrandparents and grandparents, by family name and county (along with hundreds of others), as "negroid mulatto mongrels" passing as white or Indian, and ordered all their birth and marriage records changed to "Colored". Is that official enough?
That is quite distressing, and sounds very much like the apartheid system.
I had heard of Virginia's "Racial Integrity Act" before, but haven't had the pleasure of meeting anyone whose family actually got messed with by that law.
Margrave, that law was just a tiny exposed bit of a monstrous, multi-faceted, and all-pervasive culture phenomenon. It was racist. It purported to be scientific. It was ignorant. It was idealistic. And it was malicious, all at once. And it commanded inexorable political power wherever it thrived.
It was a phenomenon which entangled with a bogus sense of historical validity—anti-black racism—other racialist prejudices—eugenics—popular horror at unexplainable disabilities like epilepsy, and other disabilities judged publicly burdensome—and ill-educated but aspirational notions of scientific progress. To embrace the entire paradoxical evil of it became for millions of Americans their best hope for social advance—however limited that hope for advance might be—while to reject it came with a near certainty of social ostracism.
Of course none of it made sense, but almost all of it had cultural salience throughout most of the South, and across the rural Midwest. It was a mash-mash so incoherent that it could scarcely be counted an ideology—but so close to socially mandatory that it could not be anything else. Parts of it were near-universal nationally.
To those of us who were young and attempting to find our way to adulthood, but with lives begun pickled in that toxic stew, the confusion itself was one of the principal hazards. Nobody is born equipped to unravel nonsensical benightedness in places where it is almost universally honored, and even celebrated as normative and virtuous.
Anything that pervasive eventually gets experienced day-to-day more as habit than otherwise—even by the people it oppresses—which makes it possible to bring it into the light for examination only by a mighty effort. In retrospect, it seems almost miraculous that such an effort came to pass.
Few of the commenters here show themselves to have grown up in that time, under those conditions. Which is a very good thing. But it is also a reason they fail to recognize, or to understand, or to respond appropriately, to the remnants of that culture which still persist.
When I read confident assertions of a post-racial reality on this blog, especially from the conspirators themselves, I bite my tongue far more often than I reply. But it remains true that they have no idea what they are talking about. They show whenever they try to do it that they will never be able to reason their way to the insight necessary to discuss the meaning of a broadly reified unreason which they never experienced, and cannot hope to understand.
The eugenics fetish celebrated itself as forward-looking and scientific, it had a research institute
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_Record_Office
It used to be au courant among the better sort of peple.
Just like modern forms of racism are au courant today.
When I was a kid, back in USSR, I once got a peek in the teachers’ “journal.” (A big notebook where all our grades were marked.) There was a page in the back that listed all the kids’ “nationalities” — Russian, Ukrainian, Moldavian, Jewish, etc.
It was a bit of a shock. Even back then, the idea of the government — in this case, our school — “keeping track” of “who is who” bothered me.
To dispel Bernstein’s uncertainty is simple enough. One wonders how someone who honestly wonders about the answers, who wrote a book about racial classification, and who was able to quote 49 C.F.R. Section 26.63, couldn’t find these answers himself.
a) “49 CFR § 26.5 – What do the terms used in this part mean?” gives a bunch of definitions; interestingly, “(ii) “Hispanic Americans,” which includes persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Central or South American, or other Spanish or Portuguese culture or origin, regardless of race; ” so apparently Portuguese and Brazilian is within this definition, unlike Hispanic in an earlier thread.
b) 49 CFR § 26.61 – “The firm seeking certification has the burden of demonstrating to you, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it meets the requirements of this subpart concerning group membership …” If they don’t represent themselves as being a member of such a group, it doesn’t matter because they are not seeking certification on that basis.
Edited to add: There was less information to search regarding the SBA rules; but
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-13/chapter-I/part-124/subpart-A
seems to have some definitions but not for "Hispanic" that I could find, and maybe that would be the usual federal definition so the Portuguese Americans may be out of luck there. But someone could petition the SBA to recognize Portuguese Americans as a presumptively socially disadvantaged group, and particular individuals not in any such group could document that they are socially or economically disadvantaged.
What question do you think that answers? Those are basically the DOT's take on Directive 15, adding Portuguese. But if someone shows up and claims Hispanic status, and doesn't have community recognition and doesn't hold himself to be Hispanic, but does meet the definition quoted, what then?
How is the individual NOT holding himself to be Hispanic if he claims Hispanic status?
Among the questions answered:
"what happens if the individual meets the federal definition but does not generally hold himself out to be a member of the group" - the individual must assert membership in the group, or present evidence of being socially or economically disadvantaged otherwise.
"is not regarded by others to be a member" - the major enforcement mechanism appears to be others asserting that the individual is not disadvantaged; "An individual must demonstrate that he or she has held himself or herself out, and is currently identified by others, as a member of a designated group if SBA requires it", and presumably if others dispute it the SBA would require it.
The DOT includes a definition of Hispanic, so they should not need to consult any other. The SBA does not seem to include its own definition, so it would probably depend on the common meaning of Hispanic, which might be the most common federal definition or a more inclusive definition like the DOT one. A Portuguese American could presumably bring a challenge if they are denied the presumption of socially and economically disadvantaged provided to Hispanics, but it might be more useful to request inclusion as a group.
You can reach the SBA stuff from the link I previously posted. You can find the definition for the DOT at
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/26.5
"How is the individual NOT holding himself to be Hispanic if he claims Hispanic status?"
He's claiming Hispanic status to get DBA certification. His name is Sven Jonson. He looks like a blond viking. He's from small town in Idaho. The certifying officer is suspicious. So he asked Jonson to present evidence that he holds himself out as Hispanic or that others consider him to be Hispanic. He presents none, but presents evidence that his great-grandfather immigrated to Idaho from Spain, so he meets the definition of being of "Spanish origin." What then? (In fact, some ALJs faced with this issue have said that he doesn't get Hispanic status, and some have concluded the opposite. The former group suggests that the puropse of the rules is to ensure that the benefits go to people who have faced discrimination thanks to their Hispanicness, while the other side just reads the rule literally, anyone of Spanish origin qualifies, regardless of anything else.) So, no, this doesn't resolve the issue.
"He’s claiming Hispanic status to get DBA certification." So how is he not holding himself out as Hispanic, even if he hasn't done so previously?
His claim of membership in a disadvantaged group gives him a rebuttable presumption of disadvantage; the situation you describe would appear to provide enough basis to initiate a procedure rebutting the disadvantage he claims. The agency is asked to certify that he's disadvantaged, not that he's of a particular race or ethnicity.
The whole thing seems reasonably described in the links I gave. You might ask actual bureaucrats who manage these programs, if you're really interested in finding out rather than the alternative.
This is great stuff. CFR delivers once again!
Bernstein, unbeknownst to you, Johnson is a descendent of the socially marginalized Hispanic/Norwegian cross culture—with an intermixture of Basque heritage via his great grandfather—long established in Idaho south and west of the Snake River. There he grew up in a modest adobe homesteader's cabin. Also, he struggles to get along in his previous physically-demanding occupation because of permanent disability from rodeo injuries he suffered competing in the Nampa Stampede.
By the way, as a relentless cataloguer of ethnic and social classes, with attention to all the finer details, what do you make of the history of Basque influence in Idaho?
I once tried to look into the history of conflict between Basque sheperds and non-Basque farmers in the West, and whether it manifested itself in law, but there was surprisingly little written about it, given that it seemed to be a big issue at the time.
As for your added bio details for Sven, you can prove that you are disadvantaged through other details, but it would be easiest for him just to rely on Spanish heritage. Oddly, Basques seem to get grandfathered in based on country of origin, even though they are not really of Spanish descent or culture.
I am curious to know what made you think there was a big issue, or even a conflict. Farming in Idaho is not possible at the elevations where Basque pastoralists tended sheep. Above 6,000 feet in Idaho, a killing frost can be expected in every month of the year. The Basques ran their sheep on summer range, almost entirely at elevations higher than that, right up to the tree line, typically in the range of 6,000 feet up to 9,000+.
Also, there has never been a shortage of land for agriculture in Idaho. You can get land to farm there nearly for free today. Putting water on it is the problem. All the conflicts are over water.
Despite being perhaps the only Rocky Mountain state which continues to have a bit of surplus water in principle, the lower-elevation geography—the only geography in which farming can be practiced, features deep canyons, and near-deserts covered in basalt, with water flowing beneath. That makes putting that surplus water to use a daunting practical problem.
The water still available at higher elevations can’t be matched to any crops which can stand the climate. As that water flows lower, it disappears under the basalt, only to reappear in canyons so deep and narrow that matching it to arable fields is impractical.
Existing irrigated agriculture took advantage of opportunities to withdraw water at higher elevations in the southeastern part of the state, and ship it westward by long canals to lower elevations, where it could be put to work in fields reclaimed from the basalt, or in a few naturally favored bottomlands. All that could be done by that method was more or less completed more than 50 years ago.
"I am curious to know what made you think there was a big issue, or even a conflict."
There were some pretty big conflicts between sheepherders and ranchers, commonly called the Sheep Wars. There were about land, not water.
If you are quibbling about whether ranchers are farmers, quibble away.
If you are quibbling about how many sheepherders are Basques...
... "How Basques Became Synonymous With Sheepherders in the American West".
Bonus joke: My FiL was a district ranger. One of his summer duties on summer horseback patrol was to check in on the shepherds. These spent the summer in little wagon campers (see wiki article titled 'Shepherd's_hut'). Spending all that time alone tended to make them ... pretty bachelor. Anyway, as he tells the story, he swings by a wagon at about supper time and the shepherd invites him in for dinner. He is a little concerned about the state of housekeeping and asks 'Has this plate been washed?'. The shepherd testily replies 'It's as clean as Soap and Water can get it!'. My Fil has his dinner, after which the shepherd takes the plates outside, sets them down, and whistles for his dogs: 'Here Soap! Here Water!'.
It may or may not be true, but if you've met some of those shepherds it's plausible enough 🙂
Absaroka, missing from both links: "Idaho."
Missing from Idaho, (I think, because I never heard of it in years living there) the range wars that happened in the other states your links mentioned. I recall hearing that in the 1930s Idaho shipped more sheep than any other state.
Indeed so. Also not limited to Idaho: "I once tried to look into the history of conflict between Basque sheperds and non-Basque farmers in the West,..."
I'll throw this in here. It seems to fit.
Every year I have mandatory training about the types of vendors and sub-contractors we use. Since much of our business is with Governments (Federal, State and Local) we have to use a certain percentage of specific vendors or contractors including DBE and Woman owned companies. What happens if one or more of those companies has misrepresented themselves?
I dunno – how much do you contribute to your Congressperson’s campaign fund?
Aren't you working from the government supplied directory of such businesses?
Never heard of it.
Where do you find the vendors or contractors? My experience is that they have to be approved by the DOT or the SBA or whoever to count against the requirement, and you're presumably off the hook if you rely on the agency's determination.
But what happens if the government official suspects that the owner who claims minority status is not actually a member of the group he claims membership in?
How about the "Government Official" minding his/her/their own fucking bid-ness, before I have Hugo Steeg-Leetz play Colonel Hans Lada some "String Music"
and yeah, I'm one of those A-holes when I'm asked "Sex" write "Yes, Please" and "Ethnicity" is "Amurican"
Frank "Name??? Puddin' Tane!!!!"
Did you hear the Pentagon's Diversity Chief whining on Twitter about how's she sick of "white folx"?
I hope China or Russia nukes DC. That would be the best thing for freedom and liberty to ever happen in all of human history.
Just Googled her, https://www.dodea.edu/newsroom/pressreleases/wing-selected-as-dodea-chief-of-diversity-equity-and-inclusion.cfm
I was wondering where Aunt Jemimah went when she lost the Pancake Syrup gig.
While nuking DC is a bit much...the idea of the States intervening and stoping deficit spending, ending the Fed (it is an illegal dept), and shutting down about 3/4 of all agencies would be a good thing. At this point, the Federal Govt is empire with bolsheviks running the show. Neither party is going to do anything to force the govt to abide by the Constitution. The States created the Federal Govt and it is time they saved it.
Once again: the states did not create the federal government.
So it sprang into existence full blown from nothing?
No, the people of the United States created it. And then the federal government went on to create most of the states.
That's why it's never going to happen. If they nuke DC we might get somebody competent in charge.
"membership cards to exclusive Hispanic groups"
"I'm guessing my "Cheech & Chong Fan Club" card from 1977 won't suffice "
"present additional evidence that he or she is a member of the group" How about a "23 & Me" report showing I'm 1/1024th Aleut?? worked for "Poke-a-Hontas" Lizzy Warren
Frank
and before Queenie busts my balls for Dangling my Participle in Pubic, there is a "Cheech & Chong" Fan Club
https://bowlmates.cheechandchong.com/membership-options
Frank
What qualifies as probable cause to doubt my racial classification?
Study these manuals to weed out the whites:
https://stuffwhitepeoplelike.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/book-shots-for-blog2.jpg
If you claim to be Afro-Amurican and you show up on time.
"What qualifies as probable cause to doubt my racial classification?"
Somebody credibly suggests otherwise? For example, controversy about Rachel Dolezal, leading to her resignation as president of an NAACP chapter, arose because her parents said she was white.
and Dr. Rachel Leland Levine, Assistant Secretary for Health was born as "Richard Levine" with a Dick. Despite the name change, she still has an XY Genotype and either a Dick or a scar from where it was chopped off.
So he/she's obviously not "Black" because you ever tried to chop off a Black dudes Dick?? It's why they're always holding on to them (HT E. Murphy) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvcwjSSKfYQ
Here's an example from my book, where the govenrment rejected a woman with Spanish maternal grandpaents' claim to Hispanic status: "The officer noted that neither Combs’s maiden name nor her married name was recognizably Spanish, and her blond hair and blue eyes did not give her a noticeably Hispanic appearance." Seriously. Now, what raised suspicions to begin with, the record did not state.
Ever watch one of those "Telenovelas" on the His-Spanic channels? Nothing but Blonde hair/blue eye (who's looking at their eyes??) beauties. (Great spank bank material, the women are hot tol)
I understand AlGore invented these new inventions, called "Hair Dye" and "Contact Lenses"
Frank "Don't bother me, I'm "Watching" Rebelde"
DBE are illegal as they allow govt to discriminate. The rational has always been flimsy. The CRA said govt can't discriminate or pass laws forcing people or companies to. Of course, they then had to write sections that were about quotas which kind of makes the whole moral aspect of the CRA trashed. One thing to say if you meet the standards (say test scores) to get into the college or police academy but denied because of your race versus..a set aside based on your tribe which is based on some real or imagine or hard to measure sunk cost. The last company I worked for had "DIE" groups. They spent a lot of time promoting the "women's group"..the funny thing was 80% of my department including upper managers were woman. There was no say Italian American Male group allowed. It is all BS....lawyers trying to put their finger on the free market and free association. All these programs are just grifter programs..often a firm will have a DBE as a subcontractor to get the contract and the DBE does nothing but collect a check. Makes white NYC wealthy bolshie liberals conscience feel better but for ethnic whites..it is pure evil.
Of course, Rachel Dolezal claimed to be black for years, and was accepted enough to wind up president of a chapter of the NAACP.
This is a regulation, not a law. And how can such a transphobic regulation be squared with Bostock? Bostock stands for the proposition that treating transsexuals differently based on a claim a person is”really” a different sex from the one they identify as constitutes discrimination on the basis of gender identity, which is simply discrimination on the basis of sex.
How could racial identity possibly be any different? Bostock was decided on the basis of textualism. And the text for race is identical to the text for sex. There is no textual basis for treating transracial identity any differently. If Bostock means what it says and isn’t simply a subterfuge for the justices personal preferred policy outcomes, this regulation has got to go.
That is not an accurate understanding of Bostock.
Bostock stands for the broader proposition that acting like a member of the other gender is protected. But that encompasses the narrower activity of claiming to be a member of the other gender.
"whether the person is regarded as a member of the group by the relevant community."
If the motive is to remedy discrimination with more discrimination, the test should be "whether the person is regarded as a member of the group by the general public." (Or more specifically, by people spending money.) Outside of procurement law discrimination based on a mistaken belief in a person's protected status can be actionable.
Along with the pitch clock, pick off restrictions, MLB needs to do something to encourage Hispanic participation, of the 33 players with over 3,000 career hits there's only 7 Hispanics (Albert Pujols, Adrian Beltre, A-rod (Cheater) , Miguel Cabrera, Rod Carew (also a Jew, don't tell anyone the "3000 Hit Club" is restricted, he converted), Rafael Palmiero (cheater), and Bob Clemente (squeaking in with #3,000 in his final game)
also 7.5 Afro-Amuricans (Jeter is the "0.5")
but should Carew/Clemente/Beltre/ count as "Black"?? (Ty Cobb yells "Yes!!" from the Grave)
As a Braves fan, if a team of Bantu Tribesmen could beat those cheating Astros, I'm on the reservation,
Frank