Nicely done, Deion! The funny thing is how little the letter of the law matters to the cultural interpretation of "protected classes", and the reality of how these matters are prosecuted and administered. Very frequently, for instance, whites and men are victims of real discrimination, illegal under any fair reading of current law, but almost never are they PROTECTED, by the law or by anything else.
A very interesting read, Deion. I do wonder, though, if you are a bit defeatist about the color-blind nature of our civil rights law. I do think that there is a contingent in America that sees it as only existing for the sake of those who have been historically oppressed or disadvantaged. President Biden certainly sees it that way, as evidenced by his attempt to offer COVID relief benefits only to businesses more than fifty percent owned by women or (certain kinds of) ethnic minorities. But if I'm not mistaken, the courts in most cases sided with the plaintiffs protesting this discrimination. White males were able to win lawsuits on the basis of civil rights law, despite not having been historically oppressed (at least qua being white and male), because they were being wronged in the here and now--and this despite Biden's actions being entirely in line with the "ruling class" theory that some Americans are more deserving of protection than others. I think civil rights law can be misused, and that it becomes more problematic the futher it is extended past its immediate aim of correcting invidious racial discrimination, but I don't think the situation is as bad as you do.
Nicely done, Deion! The funny thing is how little the letter of the law matters to the cultural interpretation of "protected classes", and the reality of how these matters are prosecuted and administered. Very frequently, for instance, whites and men are victims of real discrimination, illegal under any fair reading of current law, but almost never are they PROTECTED, by the law or by anything else.
A very interesting read, Deion. I do wonder, though, if you are a bit defeatist about the color-blind nature of our civil rights law. I do think that there is a contingent in America that sees it as only existing for the sake of those who have been historically oppressed or disadvantaged. President Biden certainly sees it that way, as evidenced by his attempt to offer COVID relief benefits only to businesses more than fifty percent owned by women or (certain kinds of) ethnic minorities. But if I'm not mistaken, the courts in most cases sided with the plaintiffs protesting this discrimination. White males were able to win lawsuits on the basis of civil rights law, despite not having been historically oppressed (at least qua being white and male), because they were being wronged in the here and now--and this despite Biden's actions being entirely in line with the "ruling class" theory that some Americans are more deserving of protection than others. I think civil rights law can be misused, and that it becomes more problematic the futher it is extended past its immediate aim of correcting invidious racial discrimination, but I don't think the situation is as bad as you do.