California Abandons Racial Equality, but Bans Discrimination on Hair Type. Oh Man.

[Aexodus]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/...r-the-law/amp/

Here are some unexpected developments: In Mississippi, Republicans have decided to excise the Confederate flag; in California, Democrats have decided to legalize racial discrimination.

Who had that on their 2020 bingo card?

So California introduced an amendment I assume to their state constitution against racial discrimination. They have just repealed this law that gave equal protections to all races.

In 1996, California voters by a substantial margin enacted a constitutional amendment reading: “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group, on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” The Democrat-run state legislature has just voted to repeal that amendment.

I feel that National Review is correct when it links this to racial clientelism. As I understand it, the California legislature has repealed this amendment that banned racial discrimination by the state in public employment, education or contracting. There is of course sex, nationality, colour etc as well there.

Racial clientelism to me, is where something, for example a political party, panders to an exclusive section of the population. So surprise surprise, politician does something to get votes.

It is most likely to attract votes from the state’s minority black and latino population, at the calculated expense I suspect of the state’s white, asian, and probably Jewish population too. In doing so, they have sold out any principles they may have had against racial discrimination and inequality.

I say this because as the article implies, University admissions could be a big issue here. Now that discrimination is legal, education institutions can now presumably discriminate against Asians, whites and Jews, in favour of under represented blacks and latinos (don’t get me started on why hispanics are actually just iberian whites). This is unjust, and will exacerbate racial tensions in the state and in the country as the government plays favourites with it’s chosen ethnic groups.

I don’t feel the need to outline why racial discrimination especially in education is wrong, yet, but I will if someone actually argues against that position.

The article outlines that affirmative action for University admission is a form of patronage, which I guess can be considered to be true. Again, it’s this idea of the state favouring, or being the patron of some groups and not others in exchange for electoral support they think they will get out of it.

The recent events surrounding racism issues have no doubt contributed to this, but repealing racial equality is a huge over correction.

Lastly, at the start of July they banned discrimination based on ‘natural hair’. Obviously, this is about pandering for African American votes. I actually think that could be a good idea, after all it’s perfectly plausible that a racist would enforce a strict hair code if they wanted an excuse not to hire blacks.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...html?_amp=true

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday signed a bill into law that legally protects people in workplaces and K-12 public schools from discrimination based on their natural hair. The new law, which takes effect Jan. 1, prohibits the enforcement of grooming policies that disproportionately affect people of color, particularly black people. This includes bans on certain styles, such as Afros, braids, twists, cornrows and dreadlocks — or locs for short.

By the way, cornrows and braids are obviously not natural hair, so I don’t support those parts of the bill. But afros and nappy hair - be my guest.

My concern is that they do not actually care about equality, and just want money and power. It’s a virtuous deed for an evil cause.

I personally lament this development. Post below what you think about the Californian senate’s decision.

[Vanoi]

Overblown issue. California repealing this law doesn't allow them to legally discriminate. Civil Rights Act still remains in effect.

[HannibalExMachina]

why do you even bother with the national review, you should know by now that the only goal of their "journalism" is to disseminate propaganda.

so, some context here:

https://www.latimes.com/california/s...epeal-election

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...tion-aca5-vote


in short, this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_C...Proposition_16

will repeal this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_C...roposition_209


now, the 1996 amendment wasnt about equality. ill use racial equality as an example, but this goes for other minorities as well.

it was the usual "colorblind" nonsense so beloved by conservatives (including "centrists"), that pretends not to consider race at all.

this is a beloved principle, as by not adressing the very implications of racial inequality (cant talk about race if its not a consideration), it fails to adress them. if racism is illegal, how could there possibly be racism.

the new proposition will also allow california to comply with federal standards, such as those for affirmative action. a dirty word for conservatives, as it implies there is still racism, and thus, action is required to at least somewhat level the playing field.


im curious though, your lead with the NR, while your second source highlights hairstyles, which, btw, is in fact something racist idiots will discriminate for.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/b...iscrimination/

you seem to think this is somewhat quaint, i cant help but feel a certain intent here.

about the money and power, are we still on about the evil coastal elites? oc its about that, these are politicans in a capitalist system. what do you think the 1996 ammendment was about?

[Aexodus]

Is affirmative action discrimination on the basis of race, or is it not?

[Lord Thesaurian]

I don’t feel the need to outline why racial discrimination especially in education is wrong, yet, but I will if someone actually argues against that position.

The article outlines that affirmative action for University admission is a form of patronage, which I guess can be considered to be true. Again, it’s this idea of the state favouring, or being the patron of some groups and not others in exchange for electoral support they think they will get out of it.

The recent events surrounding racism issues have no doubt contributed to this, but repealing racial equality is a huge over correction.

Those who want to discriminate on the basis of race have cited that as their primary reason for wanting to get rid of a law that bans discrimination based on race. It’s one of those issues one either agrees with or not.

[Vanoi]

Is affirmative action discrimination on the basis of race, or is it not?

Legally? No. At least most aspects of it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affi..._United_States

I'd just reference Supreme Court cases but there has been quite a few cases regarding affirmative action. The link references those Supreme Court cases.

[Aexodus]

If it isn’t discrimination then why does the California senate want to repeal a law against discrimination?

[Hazzard]

It's discrimination in the layman's sense of the term, even if it legally isn't. If I were to say I didn't find black people attractive, I am discriminating against black when I flirt with whites. But that's not legally actionable.

[Vanoi]

If it isn’t discrimination then why does the California senate want to repeal a law against discrimination?

You're a bit confused here. Those cases delt with the Constitutionality of affirmative action. You could still make laws that ban affirmative action. With California's anti-discrimination law it effectively did just that. So they are repealing the law so affirmative action is no longer banned.

[Aexodus]

The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group, on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

Why does this stop affirmative action?

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Legally? No. At least most aspects of it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affi..._United_States

I'd just reference Supreme Court cases but there has been quite a few cases regarding affirmative action. The link references those Supreme Court cases.

So in other words, it's legalised discrimination based on race. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, see the legality of slavery in the USA for nearly a century.

[Vanoi]

So in other words, it's legalised discrimination based on race. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, see the legality of slavery in the USA for nearly a century.

Discrimination is considered to be the unjust or prejudicial treatment of people or things which affirmative action doesn't do.

Why does this stop affirmative action?

Guess they interpreted the law to do so.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Discrimination is considered to be the unjust or prejudicial treatment of people or things which affirmative action doesn't do.

Why is it not unjust? Are people of certain races dumber than others?

[HannibalExMachina]

Why does this stop affirmative action?

because affirmative action requires you to differentiate. it is, actually, a form of discrimination: positive discrimination

https://humanrights.gov.au/quick-guide/12078

now, if there is no way to discriminate, by pretending there is, say, no negative racial discrimination, there is no way to enact positive discrimination, which is needed to counteract negative discrimination.

the goal is to reach equality, not of outcome, but of opportunity.

[Vanoi]

Why is it not unjust? Are people of certain races dumber than others?

Whats unjust about it? Who's being mistreated?

[nhytgbvfeco2]

it is, actually, a form of discrimination: positive discrimination

I'm sure that Jim Crow supporters made similar arguments.

Whats unjust about it? Who's being mistreated?

Strange argument. If the government decided to hand out 1000$ a month to every white person, who is being mistreated?
As for who: Everyone that doesn't benefit from it, including those that benefit but not as much as others, namely: Asians, Jews, whites and Hispanics.

[Vanoi]

Strange argument. If the government decided to hand out 1000$ a month to every white person, who is being mistreated?

Using that logic i could claim Social Security discriminates
against the non-disabled and young people because disabled and older people get money from Social Security.

Just because you aren't benefiting doesn't make it a form of discrimination.

As for who: Everyone that doesn't benefit from it, including those that benefit but not as much as others, namely: Asians, Jews, whites and Hispanics.

Purpose of the law is to help those discriminated heavily in the past to get a fair opportunity to succeed. Hispanics are covered by Affirmative Action. With the exception of Asians none of the other groups faced similar trouble as other minorities have in the past regarding discrimination.

[HannibalExMachina]

the conservative paradox: not having a problem and thus, it doesnt exist, but still being a victim because of said problem.

racism doesnt exist (anymore), but people are racist against me!

[Himster]

Is affirmative action discrimination on the basis of race, or is it not?

By any reasonable definition it is unquestionably discrimination. But its intent is to achieve a particular end: greater equality. In the minds of many it is a temporary measure within which the ends justify the means. While ends justifying means is obviously morally bankrupt, the state has enough guns, drones, entrenched parties in the body politic and the power to enforce its whims. Might makes "right" and that is the end of the discussion.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Using that logic i could claim Social Security discriminates
against the non-disabled and young people because disabled and older people get money from Social Security.

Sure, you could, but it's not racial discrimination is it now? It's a policy to help people with a physical/mental disability. Are you saying that being Black/Hispanic is a disability?

Just because you aren't benefiting doesn't make it a form of discrimination.

So my example of the government giving money to white people would not be discriminatory? Interesting.

Purpose of the law is to help those discriminated heavily in the past to get a fair opportunity to succeed. Hispanics are covered by Affirmative Action. With the exception of Asians none of the other groups faced similar trouble as other minorities have in the past regarding discrimination.

If tomorrow a rich Chilean decided to move to the US and apply to a university he'd get in with a lower requirement despite never facing any discrimination or real hardship, but if a poor migrant from Bangladesh applied on the same day and had the same SAT score he wouldn't get in. Would it not make more sense to base this on socio-economic status than the colour of one's skin? Are those the only groups ever discriminated against? What of the Irish, for example?

the conservative paradox: not having a problem and thus, it doesnt exist, but still being a victim because of said problem.

racism doesnt exist (anymore), but people are racist against me!

Where have I denied the existence of racism? Nice strawman.