I wasn't aware that the federal Civil Rights Act permitted discrimination on the basis of race, so long as it discriminated in favor of "historically disadvantaged" races.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 wouldn't be my first choice of document to use to support this, I would choose the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, but we'll go your way.
The CRA of 1964 addresses things in broad strokes, but is limited by states rights, therefore it can only enforce compliance with on institutions receiving "Federal Funding".
Right now, all states accept Federal funding for public schools. "
(Though TN wanted to opt out, don't know if they did)
New York gets around 5% of their public school funding from the feds.
But here's what we/I don't know and why I need to read more.
1. Where is the recruiting taking place?
2. Are the higher institutions where the children are going for this opportunity receiving any federal funding?
It's a program that's been in action for 40 years and that this is the first time someone has noticed it violates a significant portion of the CRA? Unlikely.
How can this be an issue if Affirmative Action was not so? That was an executive order, yes, but does an EO supercede a legislative act? If it's not challenged it can.
The Civil Rights Act, important as it is, as symbolic as it is, is porous as fuck.
That's why I believe referring to the Equal Educational Opportunities Act would serve us better as a basis for this conversation.
The court case will hinge on where those children are recruited from, how are they nominated.
It sounds like, at first blush, info is sent home to parents perhaps giving it the beginning of the school year outside of the school year outside of the school building I don't know and then they submitted independently directly to the program.
Is that still use of a federally funded entity? That is what the judges are going to be deciding, this is not going to be a reinterpretation of the Civil Rights Act. It's going to balance solely on where the line is drawn as to where one is under the auspices of that funding.
As you probably well know this could get as detailed as to whether postage and mail service are federally funded.
Then that will go into detail about postal employees receiving Federal benefits but not being Federal employees.
This is not going to be a question answered by pointing out a passage in the Civil Rights Act.
My assumption is that this program has been able to continue to operate because it is not federally funded and therefore the state can have whatever rules that it chooses for this particular program.
And if historical economic disadvantage is the criteria, I think that's reasonable.
This is a legal question that involves federal and state law and requires examination of funding etc etc it's not something that can be answered here I don't think.
But we can get as close as we wish, then continue on as information is introduced in the court case .
Also my feeling is that we are not getting a clear picture about precisely what the rules are for the program, and also what is within the program and who's teaching it and how are they paid.
There are a thousand questions
@DaveL that we can't possibly answer without more information
@DaveL, remind me to just post things like "Hmmm" or "Ms. Chiu has a nice haircut" or the perennial favorite I'll get lots of cookies for, the noncommittal "DEI again..."
Okay let me see what you have for me next..
It's been something of an article of faith for a generation of liberals
Ah, then we're in luck
that the failure of any subpopulation to match the racial, gender, ethnic, and religious makeup of the underlying population was per se evidence of discrimination.
Per se wouldn't have so many non-static options
@DaveL, would it?
In 4 words you have presented us with (you left out color and national origin , but that's OK, we're not assembling bombs here)
*rough, impossible math, only counting 2 genders, 3 races, *
That's 11 million variables to analyze and make specific guidelines of.
But I know what you're saying. And what you say is contracdory or at worst, not very nice.
The cause of any of those variables failing to thrive, as a population ( I want to make sure that we're in agreement that we are not referring to the individual, only a population group. Well have to figure out what we agree on that we can count as representative of a population. I'd say 70 to 80%? An adequate sampling to take a measurement of?)
Your contention is that when the measurements of a populations "success" is significantly than another groups, we
cannot blame it on the fact that Consuela gets called back for an interview 50% less often thatn Judy, an objectively testable premise, or Black drivers get pulled over on their way to work 15% more than white drivers, and this is accounting for proportion of local population, and they are searched three times more often than their white counterparts and they are found to be carrying Contraband or weapons 2.5 times less of the time than their white counterparts, but after the sun goes down that rate completely evens out as far as who is pulled over, we cannot blame it on discrimination, the fault lies elsewhere?
What do you propose accounts for discrepancies?
And this is where I hope you use caution because I already know what has been traditionally given as a reason and they generally include things like intrinsically lower intellect, propensity towards criminality, low moral standards.
So what do you feel, if we took those 3 things and discrimination off the table, what would be the cause?
If you said regional allergies or something else, anything else, as a cause of the effect of lower success rates, I will definitely listen.
I believe you are incorrect about who holds what as an Article of Faith.
You say liberals hold it as an article of faith that it is discrimination?
Then it can equally be said with the same amount of conviction that conservatives hold it as an article of faith that it is not.
That conservatives feel that if they don't see, they don't believe it exists.
If liberals say that they see it, conservatives don't believe it is the truth, they are "lying" ( that's not precisely the right word but...)
Here's something that is very misunderstood.
Liberals don't believe that conservatives see it, and say they don't.
Liberals believe conservatives actually DON'T see it. That they're not lying at all.
And that is why there is DEI. To force others to see things. And to become more aware of their unconscious choices and to see things that they don't see in their neighborhood
By extension, overt, codified discrimination was considered a form of non-discrimination if it was aimed at correcting such a discrepancy.
I think this is where the issue is here, the continued objections.
The purpose of codified discrimination is not to be non-discriminating. That's pointing out the obvious.
Sincere ignorance of that is what is, and this is only my thoughts, conscientious stupidity, refusal to understand that? Is why this shit is taking so long.
In my MLK thread riots and issues were compared. There is no reason that the George Floyd riots should have happened. Because there's no reason Chauvin should have done what he did and that wouldn't have happened if we were further along and it was normalized to see one another normally, but since people won't do that by choice it has to be forced so they get accustomed to seeing different types of people in different types of roles and it's absolutely normal.
ICodified discrimination is not trying to conceal itself in the cloak of non-discrimination!
When that basic principle is misunderstood and normally it's purposely, there will never be an end to this.
But the Civil Rights Act has nothing in its text that supports that kind of "corrective" discrimination, it simply forbids discrimination.
It's a Civil Rights Act was necessary to enforce the 14th Amendment.
And there has been amendments and executive orders and additional laws enacted because, because, people don't do the right thing on their own and that is why this saga continues on.
When you use the phrase , corrective discrimination , you're not using a legal term. The legal term for that is " legal remedy" and that's what we're talking about right now, legalities. We have to agree on the same language
" A legal remedy, also referred to as judicial relief or a judicial remedy, is the means with which a court of law, usually in the exercise of civil law jurisdiction, enforces a right, imposes a penalty, or makes another court order to impose its will in order to compensate for the harm of a wrongful act inflicted "
Legal remedies have been a part of jurisprudence for a long time.
It is when people refuse to follow the law or honor contracts.
And you know what, nobody wants to have to use legal remedies or as you call it corrective discrimination. That's the fallacy and that was discussed in that flour thread.
In that thread we discussed that people of color do not prefer a head start they would rather earn things fairly. Everybody agreed to that in that thread.
But the overwhelming and deeply suspicious sentiment is that people of color or minorities prefer and want to compete on an uneven playing field that they want advantages..
The exact same people that said they don't on that thread have turned around and said the exact opposite, that they do want advantages
And there doesn't seem to be any cognizance of this dissonance.
Gawd dang you
@DaveL you owe me a garbage to the curb run!
I'm not going to apologize for this being long because you presented statements that can only be countered with very detailed rebuttals. We're talking about federal law state law accounting precedence amendments executive orders intent perceptions varying laws. This is not a simple thing otherwise there wouldn't be a lawsuit.
[automerge]1705590169[/automerge]
"The state-funded Science and Technology Entry Program (STEP)"
Duh. I would really save myself a lot of time if I looked at things.
It's state- funded it's not mandated to follow the Civil Rights Act.
nypost.com
