Snowflakes in action: the actual reality of "snowflakes" in the world and the consequences

[Loren Pechtel]

There are two categories of fear here. There is the fear from some that teachers will teach students to be ashamed of their race. There is the fear from others that this law will have a chilling effect on education.

Interesting, the first fear takes priority in these type of laws while the second fear is hand-waved away as immaterial.

Having a chilling effect on education is the intent of the law, not a fear.

 

[ZiprHead]

MSN

Texas Democrats want Harris County GOP precinct chair Carla Richburg to be removed after she allegedly submitted resolutions to the county Republican party calling for bigoted actions like considering all Chinese nationals as "spies."

A Sunday, February 6, tweet from the Texas Democrats showed a document with Richburg's name at the bottom outlining multiple transphobic, anti-immigrant, and homophobic Republican party priorities submitted to the Harris County Republican Party (HCRP). Richburg is Precinct 602 Chair for the HCRP and identifies herself as such in the document.

In the document, Richburg allegedly calls for the removal of "sex education of any kind" and for the "manditory [sic]" death penalty for people found guilty of murder of police officers or "victoms [sic] of gang warfare."

Richburg allegedly wants all "Chinese nationals" to be considered spies and be forcibly removed from businesses, schools, universities, and the U.S. She also calls for their travel and work visas to be canceled.

Her last resolution says the state will "wage war against all invaders into the Texas borders by deadly force" with minimal warning.

Other actions Richburg calls for includes:

Prohibition of all medical mandates to fight pandemics.

A ban on all abortions.

Denial of transgender and other gender identities.

To remove "marriage" from same-sex marriages and only consider them as civil unions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Whether it was struck down before implementation doesn't change the fact that the it was racist.

Aid is often targeted towards those who have been disproportionately affected in a negative way.

The USDA has a long history of writing policy and designing programs that were racist—against persons of color.

Somehow those were not worth discussing. Nope.

People come to PD to argue. There's no one to argue against. Nobody here is in favor of the USDA programs that discriminated against nonwhite people.

I'm against it.​

Me too.​

Good discussion.

This. No disagreement = no discussion. It says nothing about the importance of the issue.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Suppose you have a group of students, 30 percent of which have been selected for special training, diet supplements to enhance performance, a lighter duty schedule to devote more time to performance, better housing accommodations and better medical care for several years. They become an elite team and compete very well against competitors who have likewise received enhanced training, nutrition, etc. to enhance performance.

Rules change and now everybody can compete, not just the 30% who had previously been selected and given enhanced opportunities to improve their performance and enhance their talents.

Will those 70% who now have access to the same training, nutrition, etc. suddenly be on equal footing in terms of ability to compete as the 30% who have had special treatment for several years?

Or will they need extra time, perhaps extra training, extra help to be able to compete on the same level?

I’m pretty sure that among the 70% in the out group, there will be some who have enough natural talent that they will quickly catch up and a few might even surpass those in the favored 30%.

Does that mean that the rest of the 70% do not need or deserve extra help to catch up?

Once again, the fallacy of groups. We don't have a time machine, there is nothing we can do about the past.

Where you are going very wrong is not recognizing that we are dealing with a new group. Treat the set of students entering school equally. That is the only fair solution. Providing extra help to certain people because they show characteristics similar to others who were previously treated badly does nothing to improve the lot of those who actually were treated badly, it just perpetuates the problem because the new group sees them getting unfair advantages.

We used to look down on blacks because society was racist. You're replacing that with looking skeptically at blacks because they're suspected of being diversity admits/diversity hires.

 

[Toni]

Suppose you have a group of students, 30 percent of which have been selected for special training, diet supplements to enhance performance, a lighter duty schedule to devote more time to performance, better housing accommodations and better medical care for several years. They become an elite team and compete very well against competitors who have likewise received enhanced training, nutrition, etc. to enhance performance.

Rules change and now everybody can compete, not just the 30% who had previously been selected and given enhanced opportunities to improve their performance and enhance their talents.

Will those 70% who now have access to the same training, nutrition, etc. suddenly be on equal footing in terms of ability to compete as the 30% who have had special treatment for several years?

Or will they need extra time, perhaps extra training, extra help to be able to compete on the same level?

I’m pretty sure that among the 70% in the out group, there will be some who have enough natural talent that they will quickly catch up and a few might even surpass those in the favored 30%.

Does that mean that the rest of the 70% do not need or deserve extra help to catch up?

Once again, the fallacy of groups. We don't have a time machine, there is nothing we can do about the past.

Where you are going very wrong is not recognizing that we are dealing with a new group. Treat the set of students entering school equally. That is the only fair solution. Providing extra help to certain people because they show characteristics similar to others who were previously treated badly does nothing to improve the lot of those who actually were treated badly, it just perpetuates the problem because the new group sees them getting unfair advantages.

We used to look down on blacks because society was racist. You're replacing that with looking skeptically at blacks because they're suspected of being diversity admits/diversity hires.

What you do not recognize is:
1. We are not talking about affirmative action in education or employment
2.TODAY this very second, people are treated badly, are denied opportunities and are unfairly punished because of the color of their skin, their accent, their perceived ancestry.

I’m not replacing anything. Persons of color are looked at as being diversity hires/recipients NOW and that’s not stopping anytime soon. In fact, on this forum, that’s exactly what YOU do all the time.

Maybe when our generation dies out, things will change.

 

[Toni]

Still no explanation of why no outcry about systemic racism that benefits white men.

Some of us are much more concerned with current racism than past racism.

How unsurprising.

Again, I’m thrilled that those who decried a program have, at last, acknowledged that the program doesn’t do what they claimed and bitched about. It would be great if they could offer some explanation for why they bitched about an issue that was resolved before it was ever discussed here.

Just because they were stopped doesn't make not wrong.

Is the keystone coup not an issue because it failed??

Racusm in this country is a continuous process. Just because we allow black and indigenous people to vote now ( where sufficient barriers are not put in place deliberately to prevent their voting) does not mean that racism is done. TODAY racism is happening! Right now black people, Asian people, Hispanic and indigenous people right this very second are being treated badly because of the color of their skin.

The fact that you or anyone looks at a person of color as the recipient of Affirmative Action and not as the beneficiary of their own hard work and talents tells me that racism is alive and well even in people who mean well and who honestly want things to just be fair.

 

[laughing dog]

Yeah, these snowflakes (at least it is in Duluth, where there is real snow) are at it again:

White swim official wrongly demands 12 yr old swimmer take off BLM swimsuit

The 12-year-old Duluth girl, who is Black, was devastated by the news of the death of Amir Locke, who was killed by police Feb. 2 in Minneapolis. The bathing suit statement, said her mother, Sarah Lyons, was her show of support and her way of working through her sadness.
"She was really proud of it," Lyons said.
But at the Duluth YMCA-sponsored meet in Superior, Wis., on Sunday, Leidy was told by an official that she must change out of the suit or be disqualified......
The Superior High School event was officiated by USA Swimming. The volunteer head official told the girl her suit violated a USA Swimming political language policy, said Sara Cole, president of the Duluth YMCA.

Leaders from the nonprofit were notified and "swiftly disputed" the official's interpretation of policy, overruling the decision and removing the official from her post. Leidy, who had already dressed to go home, was reinstated. She returned to the pool to compete in her remaining events.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In that case, it benefits Han Chinese people as well, since they can also file suits for any perceived violations of SB 148. And black people. And so on.

Now, you said earlier that black people and other non-white people do not get benefits because they never win such cases as a result of SB148. But then you tell me that neither do white people - the CRA does the job instead.

Going by the above, SB148 benefits all people equally.

No, because it is only of benefit to those with a past history of mistreating other races. If this were China I would agree it helps the Han Chinese, but this is the USA.

2. Are there historical events that can be used to make all whites arguably guilty/responsible for a national wrongdoing in the past?
Well, in a sense, yes, but it would be an improper use of the events. And you keep telling me it's not happening, it's a boogieman. And for that reason, there have been no rulings based on SB148 favoring white plaintiffs by 2052. They won due to the CRA. Great! But then, how do white people benefit? Clearly not by filing lawsuits that they lose in court. So, again, I do not see anything in your reply that tells me that SB148 benefits white people any more than everyone else (which would not be a problem if some white people are the only victims here, by the way, but you're saying there are no actual victims), or that it harms non-white people.

There are historical events that could make white people uncomfortable. While the teacher wouldn't be teaching that white people should be uncomfortable the truth could be interpreted that way--and trigger a SB148 lawsuit. The intent is clearly to suppress teaching about unpleasant parts of history.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Lawmakers have also limited the scope of anti-discrimination enforcement by establishing a minimum employee threshold for covered companies. For instance, only companies with 15 or more employees are covered by the EEOC’s racial discrimination laws.57 More than two-thirds of states, including those with the highest percentages of Black residents, also have minimum employee thresholds for employment discrimination laws to take effect.58 These thresholds jeopardize the economic well-being of people of color who work for smaller employers, such as domestic workers, service workers, and some agricultural workers.

There's a very good reason to exclude sufficiently small companies--they tend to be groups of people who already know each other and thus will likely not have a normal racial distribution.

While legislation alone cannot prevent bias, the persistent underfunding of enforcement agencies and exemptions for small companies result in limited accountability for employers that abuse and exploit their workers based on race. Ample evidence demonstrates that racial discrimination in employment and wages remains rampant more than 50 years after the passage of landmark civil rights legislation. In fact, studies show that hiring discrimination against Black people has not declined in decades.59 White applicants are far more likely to be offered interviews than Black and Latinx applicants, regardless of educational attainment, gender, or labor market conditions.60 Full names often attributed to white Americans are estimated to provide the equivalent advantage of eight years of experience.61 Surveys show that more than half of African Americans, 1 in 3 Native Americans, 1 in 4 Asian Americans, and more than 1 in 5 Latinos report experiencing racial discrimination in hiring, compensation, and promotion considerations.62

Employment discrimination perpetuates inequality in economic well-being, especially for Black people. Over the past 40 years, Black workers have consistently endured an unemployment rate approximately twice that of their white counterparts.63 Black households have also experienced 25 percent to 45 percent lower median incomes than their white counterparts, and these disparities persist regardless of educational attainment and household structure.64 In 2017 alone, the median income for Black and Latinx households was $40,258, compared with $68,145 for white households.65 In fact, in 99 percent of U.S. counties, Black boys will go on to make less in adulthood than their white neighbors with comparable backgrounds.66

Once again, disparate outcomes being presented as proof of discrimination.

Is this like the redlining where it turns out to be socioeconomic, not racial?

 

[Politesse]

My wife works for a white male owned business. His $150,000 covid relief loan was forgiven with almost no effort on his part.

Another guy on the NAACP board with me was a black guy. He became a multimillionaire because he was black. His construction business could bid 10% higher on million dollar jobs because his was the only black owned construction company bidding. He could pocket $100K on every million dollar job. Which he got as fast as he could bid. Because his was the only black owned construction firm licensed to put up multistory frames and pour concrete for highways in the golden years of Affirmative Action plans. From huge corporations to the government, black owned businesses could write their own ticket.
Tom

Wow.

So that settles it. The only racism in this country is against white men.

A system which has, somehow, resulted in a $200,000 a year wealth gap favoring white families. Man, discrimination is so hard to survive! As a white man, I can attest that winning my cushy academic appointment has come at the cost of having several non-white colleagues. Dozens, if you include the non-tenured faculty and the facilities crew.

Why, just this morning, I had have my PA cancel my massage therapist appointment this week, because last week the therapist looked at me very rudely when I made an innocent joke about "the illegals". Of course I didn't mean her, but everyone's so sensitive now. It's never been harder to be white and rich in this country! So tough. I am crying so hard into my morning mimosa here, I had to turn off my ZOOM camera during my other morning appointments.



Cue all of the above getting unironically quote mined as evidence of liberal racism in other threads. For the record, all of the above is sarcasm except for the true fact of the family wealth gap, and the damning statistics concerning the distribution of academic positions. White privilege has never been more subtle and blatant at the same time as it has been during the last decade. This country sickens me sometimes. Why are those who have the most, also the most paranooid about allowing anyone else to succeed even as they continue to reap the benefits of historic discrimination and blatant racial biases in just about every corner of public life?

 

[Politesse]

Lawmakers have also limited the scope of anti-discrimination enforcement by establishing a minimum employee threshold for covered companies. For instance, only companies with 15 or more employees are covered by the EEOC’s racial discrimination laws.57 More than two-thirds of states, including those with the highest percentages of Black residents, also have minimum employee thresholds for employment discrimination laws to take effect.58 These thresholds jeopardize the economic well-being of people of color who work for smaller employers, such as domestic workers, service workers, and some agricultural workers.

There's a very good reason to exclude sufficiently small companies--they tend to be groups of people who already know each other and thus will likely not have a normal racial distribution.

While legislation alone cannot prevent bias, the persistent underfunding of enforcement agencies and exemptions for small companies result in limited accountability for employers that abuse and exploit their workers based on race. Ample evidence demonstrates that racial discrimination in employment and wages remains rampant more than 50 years after the passage of landmark civil rights legislation. In fact, studies show that hiring discrimination against Black people has not declined in decades.59 White applicants are far more likely to be offered interviews than Black and Latinx applicants, regardless of educational attainment, gender, or labor market conditions.60 Full names often attributed to white Americans are estimated to provide the equivalent advantage of eight years of experience.61 Surveys show that more than half of African Americans, 1 in 3 Native Americans, 1 in 4 Asian Americans, and more than 1 in 5 Latinos report experiencing racial discrimination in hiring, compensation, and promotion considerations.62

Employment discrimination perpetuates inequality in economic well-being, especially for Black people. Over the past 40 years, Black workers have consistently endured an unemployment rate approximately twice that of their white counterparts.63 Black households have also experienced 25 percent to 45 percent lower median incomes than their white counterparts, and these disparities persist regardless of educational attainment and household structure.64 In 2017 alone, the median income for Black and Latinx households was $40,258, compared with $68,145 for white households.65 In fact, in 99 percent of U.S. counties, Black boys will go on to make less in adulthood than their white neighbors with comparable backgrounds.66

Once again, disparate outcomes being presented as proof of discrimination.

Is this like the redlining where it turns out to be socioeconomic, not racial?

Redlining - the practice of explicitly banning people of minority race from settling in a neighborhood - is "not racial"? I'm not sure I want to hear the explanation for this one, but go ahead and try if you think this makes any sense.

Of course racial discrimination causes gaps in socioeconomic status. If it didn't, we wouldn't be worried about it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Lawmakers have also limited the scope of anti-discrimination enforcement by establishing a minimum employee threshold for covered companies. For instance, only companies with 15 or more employees are covered by the EEOC’s racial discrimination laws.57 More than two-thirds of states, including those with the highest percentages of Black residents, also have minimum employee thresholds for employment discrimination laws to take effect.58 These thresholds jeopardize the economic well-being of people of color who work for smaller employers, such as domestic workers, service workers, and some agricultural workers.

There's a very good reason to exclude sufficiently small companies--they tend to be groups of people who already know each other and thus will likely not have a normal racial distribution.

While legislation alone cannot prevent bias, the persistent underfunding of enforcement agencies and exemptions for small companies result in limited accountability for employers that abuse and exploit their workers based on race. Ample evidence demonstrates that racial discrimination in employment and wages remains rampant more than 50 years after the passage of landmark civil rights legislation. In fact, studies show that hiring discrimination against Black people has not declined in decades.59 White applicants are far more likely to be offered interviews than Black and Latinx applicants, regardless of educational attainment, gender, or labor market conditions.60 Full names often attributed to white Americans are estimated to provide the equivalent advantage of eight years of experience.61 Surveys show that more than half of African Americans, 1 in 3 Native Americans, 1 in 4 Asian Americans, and more than 1 in 5 Latinos report experiencing racial discrimination in hiring, compensation, and promotion considerations.62

Employment discrimination perpetuates inequality in economic well-being, especially for Black people. Over the past 40 years, Black workers have consistently endured an unemployment rate approximately twice that of their white counterparts.63 Black households have also experienced 25 percent to 45 percent lower median incomes than their white counterparts, and these disparities persist regardless of educational attainment and household structure.64 In 2017 alone, the median income for Black and Latinx households was $40,258, compared with $68,145 for white households.65 In fact, in 99 percent of U.S. counties, Black boys will go on to make less in adulthood than their white neighbors with comparable backgrounds.66

Once again, disparate outcomes being presented as proof of discrimination.

Is this like the redlining where it turns out to be socioeconomic, not racial?

Redlining - the practice of explicitly banning people of minority race from settling in a neighborhood - is "not racial"? I'm not sure I want to hear the explanation for this one, but go ahead and try if you think this makes any sense.

Of course racial discrimination causes gaps in socioeconomic status. If it didn't, we wouldn't be worried about it.

To be fair, once Minneapolis got explicitly to redlined enough to the point where most of the black poor folks were corraled to North, that was when they installed that fucked up exit pattern on the highway and cemented the structure of it without explicitly racial language. At that point it was more "maintain with non-racial systems which keep the people there static."

If course it's still red-lined, just in such a very Minnesotan way.

 

[TomC]

Once again, disparate outcomes being presented as proof of discrimination.

Is this like the redlining where it turns out to be socioeconomic, not racial?

This is a hugely common fallacy employed by racists from both ends of the spectrum.
Confusing correlation with causation.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Once again, disparate outcomes being presented as proof of discrimination.

Is this like the redlining where it turns out to be socioeconomic, not racial?

This is a hugely common fallacy employed by racists from both ends of the spectrum.
Confusing correlation with causation.
Tom

And then some delight in Ignoring what conditions created the current "socioeconomic" balance, which then feeds racists and their correlation/causation issue "at each end of the spectrum".

It shifted from being explicit to being "Minnesotan" about it. Which is to say, they do stuff that will get the effect while making it very difficult to reveal their behavior as explicitly linked to that goal.

 

[laughing dog]

Lawmakers have also limited the scope of anti-discrimination enforcement by establishing a minimum employee threshold for covered companies. For instance, only companies with 15 or more employees are covered by the EEOC’s racial discrimination laws.57 More than two-thirds of states, including those with the highest percentages of Black residents, also have minimum employee thresholds for employment discrimination laws to take effect.58 These thresholds jeopardize the economic well-being of people of color who work for smaller employers, such as domestic workers, service workers, and some agricultural workers.

There's a very good reason to exclude sufficiently small companies--they tend to be groups of people who already know each other and thus will likely not have a normal racial distribution.

While legislation alone cannot prevent bias, the persistent underfunding of enforcement agencies and exemptions for small companies result in limited accountability for employers that abuse and exploit their workers based on race. Ample evidence demonstrates that racial discrimination in employment and wages remains rampant more than 50 years after the passage of landmark civil rights legislation. In fact, studies show that hiring discrimination against Black people has not declined in decades.59 White applicants are far more likely to be offered interviews than Black and Latinx applicants, regardless of educational attainment, gender, or labor market conditions.60 Full names often attributed to white Americans are estimated to provide the equivalent advantage of eight years of experience.61 Surveys show that more than half of African Americans, 1 in 3 Native Americans, 1 in 4 Asian Americans, and more than 1 in 5 Latinos report experiencing racial discrimination in hiring, compensation, and promotion considerations.62

Employment discrimination perpetuates inequality in economic well-being, especially for Black people. Over the past 40 years, Black workers have consistently endured an unemployment rate approximately twice that of their white counterparts.63 Black households have also experienced 25 percent to 45 percent lower median incomes than their white counterparts, and these disparities persist regardless of educational attainment and household structure.64 In 2017 alone, the median income for Black and Latinx households was $40,258, compared with $68,145 for white households.65 In fact, in 99 percent of U.S. counties, Black boys will go on to make less in adulthood than their white neighbors with comparable backgrounds.66

Once again, disparate outcomes being presented as proof of discrimination.

What an illogical claim. Disparate outcome is evidence of discrimination. Whether the evidence is sufficient or convincing is another matter.

 

[TomC]

If course it's still red-lined, just in such a very Minnesotan way.

I know what racial redlining is, and what you're describing isn't it.

Back in the day, 50s-70s approximately, realtors and banks agreed on a policy. They drew lines on a map. Realtors only showed homes to people and banks only gave mortgages to people of the approved race for the area. That's redlining.

What's happening now is very different. Areas with declining property values are hard to get mortgages in because it increases the risk to banks. This accelerates the decline in property values. But it's nothing to do with race. Black people and white people aren't being treated differently. Everyone in an area is being treated alike, it's the area itself that banks are avoiding. Often the area is as large as a zipcode.

But it's a socio-economic problem, not a racism problem. And frankly, it's a cultural problem. It doesn't matter how reliably you make payments or maintain your home. If your neighbors don't, your assets lose value along with theirs.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

If course it's still red-lined, just in such a very Minnesotan way.

I know what racial redlining is, and what you're describing isn't it.

Back in the day, 50s-70s approximately, realtors and banks agreed on a policy. They drew lines on a map. Realtors only showed homes to people and banks only gave mortgages to people of the approved race for the area. That's redlining.

What's happening now is very different. Areas with declining property values are hard to get mortgages in because it increases the risk to banks. This accelerates the decline in property values. But it's nothing to do with race. Black people and white people aren't being treated differently. Everyone in an area is being treated alike, it's the area itself that banks are avoiding. Often the area is as large as a zipcode.

But it's a socio-economic problem, not a racism problem. And frankly, it's a cultural problem. It doesn't matter how reliably you make payments or maintain your home. If your neighbors don't, your assets lose value along with theirs.
Tom

For any particular instance, it may be racism or it may be socio-economic, or it may be combination of both. Without knowing the specifics, can be difficult to ascertain.

 

[Jarhyn]

If course it's still red-lined, just in such a very Minnesotan way.

I know what racial redlining is, and what you're describing isn't it.

Back in the day, 50s-70s approximately, realtors and banks agreed on a policy. They drew lines on a map. Realtors only showed homes to people and banks only gave mortgages to people of the approved race for the area. That's redlining.

What's happening now is very different. Areas with declining property values are hard to get mortgages in because it increases the risk to banks. This accelerates the decline in property values. But it's nothing to do with race. Black people and white people aren't being treated differently. Everyone in an area is being treated alike, it's the area itself that banks are avoiding. Often the area is as large as a zipcode.

But it's a socio-economic problem, not a racism problem. And frankly, it's a cultural problem. It doesn't matter how reliably you make payments or maintain your home. If your neighbors don't, your assets lose value along with theirs.
Tom

For any particular instance, it may be racism or it may be socio-economic, or it may be combination of both. Without knowing the specifics, can be difficult to ascertain.

Of course, it's never mentioned the reason why none of the things that happened in any of the communities that didn't get initialized with redlining happened in the places where all the black people got redlined into, and trapped in, and had all the accesses to their neighborhoods built in such a way as to further drive down property values.

After the initial configuration was set up they didn't need to make it explicit that's what would continue. It just worked out that way, as anyone could have predicted.

It's a really convenient thing, a very Minnesotan thing, to set it up that way. Then when anyone objects to the imbalance you have a plethora of excuses that aren't your real reason.

 

[Toni]

Lawmakers have also limited the scope of anti-discrimination enforcement by establishing a minimum employee threshold for covered companies. For instance, only companies with 15 or more employees are covered by the EEOC’s racial discrimination laws.57 More than two-thirds of states, including those with the highest percentages of Black residents, also have minimum employee thresholds for employment discrimination laws to take effect.58 These thresholds jeopardize the economic well-being of people of color who work for smaller employers, such as domestic workers, service workers, and some agricultural workers.

There's a very good reason to exclude sufficiently small companies--they tend to be groups of people who already know each other and thus will likely not have a normal racial distribution.

While legislation alone cannot prevent bias, the persistent underfunding of enforcement agencies and exemptions for small companies result in limited accountability for employers that abuse and exploit their workers based on race. Ample evidence demonstrates that racial discrimination in employment and wages remains rampant more than 50 years after the passage of landmark civil rights legislation. In fact, studies show that hiring discrimination against Black people has not declined in decades.59 White applicants are far more likely to be offered interviews than Black and Latinx applicants, regardless of educational attainment, gender, or labor market conditions.60 Full names often attributed to white Americans are estimated to provide the equivalent advantage of eight years of experience.61 Surveys show that more than half of African Americans, 1 in 3 Native Americans, 1 in 4 Asian Americans, and more than 1 in 5 Latinos report experiencing racial discrimination in hiring, compensation, and promotion considerations.62

Employment discrimination perpetuates inequality in economic well-being, especially for Black people. Over the past 40 years, Black workers have consistently endured an unemployment rate approximately twice that of their white counterparts.63 Black households have also experienced 25 percent to 45 percent lower median incomes than their white counterparts, and these disparities persist regardless of educational attainment and household structure.64 In 2017 alone, the median income for Black and Latinx households was $40,258, compared with $68,145 for white households.65 In fact, in 99 percent of U.S. counties, Black boys will go on to make less in adulthood than their white neighbors with comparable backgrounds.66

Once again, disparate outcomes being presented as proof of discrimination.

Is this like the redlining where it turns out to be socioeconomic, not racial?

I'm sorry that you are having difficulty understanding the study.

As for redlining not being real? I think I've written here that some years ago, when we were looking to buy our first home in another city/state, we were being shown houses in a particular neighborhood because the relator assumed we were Jewish. That's one form of redlining. We weren't harmed by it. We didn't mind being perceived as Jewish and would have purchased a home in one of those neighborhoods if we could have afforded one (we were outbid). But once we cleared up that we were not looking for a Jewish neighborhood (something she assumed---we never suggested), other neighborhoods suddenly were opened up to us. And we found a nice house we could afford in a neighborhood with excellent schools and a relatively diverse population.

But I'm sure you will believe what you want to believe and disregard... data.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It has been long and well established that non-white people and non-males have been subjected to discrimination woven into the fabric of this nation’s laws, policies and customs. What is under discussion now is a program that is designed to direct aid to those businesses which can demonstrate economic loss due to COVID-19. Because of a long and we’ll established history of discrimination against non white, non-male people in distribution of small business loans, applications from persons of color and women are accepted during the first 3 weeks after which time applications are accepted from all.

An application is not a guarantee of funds.

But if you are all focused on making people demonstrate that they deserve to be considered ( which is what an application does), by all means, let’s require all white make applicants to offer proof that they have never received any benefit of their skin color or sex.

In other words, we are to take the core of CRT as a given.

Strangely enough, nobody has provided evidence of modern laws that bake in discrimination.