Oh really? "Non-whites shouldn't serve these guys" isn't discriminating based on race?
edit: and "we aren't racists! Our customers are! We just cater to their racist behavior!" isn't a valid defense and I don't understand why that isn't obvious
What's with all the people in here acting like 75k is some kind of fortune? Are you all poor? Its all very
Remember, we are talking USD here not Kangaroo Coins. :P
Median personal income in the US for full time employees over the age of 25 is $39,336. So he is suing for almost 2 years worth of pay...... well...... probably more than 2 years worth for him.
Wow. 2 years worth of pay? Dude will never have to work again! What a greedy fuck!
Lets say there is a rude customer who for some reason doesnt like employee A, and we all know they will treat employee A badly.
So, as manager, I catch up to employee A and I say "hey, I know that guy is going to be a dick to you, im gunna send employee B over there to deal with them instead."
Chances are employee A will be relieved that they dont have to be insulted and berated by the mean customer. As a manager, I dont think I did anything wrong. I simply took employee A out of a hostile enviroment.
Now, does it really matter why the mean customer didnt like employee A? Does it make what I did any less ok? I mean what if employee A had a lip ring and it was a crotchety old customer who hates kids these days? Would anyone think employee A had a right to sue?
What if its a male customer who gets a bit too flirty with female employees so I send a dude to help him out?
Just seems to me that the customers were wrong, and were going to treat the non-white employees badly, so they did the smart thing and kept their people out of the line of fire.
The employer wasnt discriminating based on race, they were discriminating based on how this customer would treat this employee. Granted, that customers decision to do so was based on race, but that doesnt really factor into the managements decision. They simply made the call based on how the customer would respond.
You can't separate the two. How did the hotel make the distinction on which employees would be treated like shit?
BY RACE!
The hotel actively and willingly made the decision to comply with a guest's request to engage in a discriminatory and illegal activity. Engaging in mental gymnastics in order to rephrase the situation so it doesn't sound quite as bad doesn't change that fact.
Neither are gays or young people. Does that make it okay?
Actually, gays are. And I'm pretty sure you can't discriminate based on age either.
No, actually, gays aren't a protected class universally, and you can only "not discriminate" against those over 40.
Well shit then. I guess we better just throw out the protected class for everybody!
What exactly is your point?
That just because someone "isn't a protected minority" doesn't make it okay to discriminate against them.
Federal anti-discrimination statutes have as much to do with politics as "what's right" and you really shouldn't be pointing at those as the be-all and end-all of what is and is not discrimination.
So what exactly do you want us to tell you? No, it's not ok for you to discriminate against your employees on issues wholly unrelated to the performance of their duties "for their own good." In some cases it may still be legal, but in all cases that I can think of it is not ok.
So what exactly do you want us to tell you? No, it's not ok for you to discriminate against your employees on issues wholly unrelated to the performance of their duties "for their own good." In some cases it may still be legal, but in all cases that I can think of it is not ok.
If you're talking to me, my point was you can't say "It's okay because that's not a protected class" in response to the challenge that was made. Because if you replace "lip ring" with "young" or "gay" then the outcome is the same, but the argument is goosey from a "don't discriminate" perspective, because that's clearly still discrimination, except it's legal.
You need to come up with a more persuasive argument that actually addresses the point. IT'S THE LAW doesn't cut it.
Well, actually, if we're discussing the legality of someone's actions "IT'S THE LAW" does cut it.
Maybe you could clarify what it is that you want to know or what argument you think is inconsistent, as well as what if anything it has to do with the case at hand.
Legally, there's nothing wrong with a customer saying "I don't want the kid with the lip ring serving me."
Morally.... well, morally it's still not as bad as singling out the black guy, but it's still not okay.
Plus, the vast majortiy of resturants don't allow lip ring kid to wear his lip ring while working, because there is a good chance it will offend someone.
I was taking exception to Bionic Monkey's assertion that it's okay to discriminate against someone if they're not a protected class. Not really commenting on this case in particular.
"I know this may sound wrong, but I have to side with the hotel on this one. They're simply doing what they're supposed to and honor the old adage about the customer always being right."
Maybe it sounds wrong because it is wrong, douchebag.
Besides, the customer is damn well not always right.
The plaintiff was presumably still working, so its not like he lost wages, and besides being bigoted to hell, IDK if "no coloreds" is substantially different from "can you have Cindy(the blonde) wait on us?
Well, for one thing, race is a protected class, and hair color is not.
Is it wrong that as soon as I read this, my brain though of a man in a British-Man-Pretending-To-Be-A-Woman's voice "There you go bringing class into it again!" a la Monty Python?
Personally I think the use of the commerce clause is goosey like most uses of the commerce clause, but the result is sound from an "equal rights" perspective.
I was taking exception to Bionic Monkey's assertion that it's okay to discriminate against someone if they're not a protected class. Not really commenting on this case in particular.
In the eyes of the law that's how it is. It is that way because, at some point, we decided as a society that it was okay to discriminate against some people and not other people. The classes that get protected generally match up with things that people can't change. You can take out the lip ring, but you can't stop being black or female or gay. It sucks for the lip ring folks, but if we just made discrimination illegal in general without exceptions I think our culture would grind to a halt.
I was taking exception to Bionic Monkey's assertion that it's okay to discriminate against someone if they're not a protected class. Not really commenting on this case in particular.
In the eyes of the law that's how it is. It is that way because, at some point, we decided as a society that it was okay to discriminate against some people and not other people. The classes that get protected generally match up with things that people can't change. You can take out the lip ring, but you can't stop being black or female or gay. It sucks for the lip ring folks, but if we just made discrimination illegal in general without exceptions I think our culture would grind to a halt.
Except that it's okay to discriminate against certain classes of people- like homosexuals and the young, both things that can't be changed- which was my point to begin with.
Legally, there's nothing wrong with a customer saying "I don't want the kid with the lip ring serving me."
Morally.... well, morally it's still not as bad as singling out the black guy, but it's still not okay.
I see the problem. We just need to find something you find repulsive before you break. How about a well-mannered fellow with a swastika tattoo on his forehead? Would you be fair and give him a tip for good service?
Honestly I have a hard time imagining myself caring about the tattoo enough to change the way I tip. I may well ask him about it but it wouldn't necessarily change the nature of my tip, especially if he were as well-mannered as you suggest.
I was taking exception to Bionic Monkey's assertion that it's okay to discriminate against someone if they're not a protected class. Not really commenting on this case in particular.
In the eyes of the law that's how it is. It is that way because, at some point, we decided as a society that it was okay to discriminate against some people and not other people. The classes that get protected generally match up with things that people can't change. You can take out the lip ring, but you can't stop being black or female or gay. It sucks for the lip ring folks, but if we just made discrimination illegal in general without exceptions I think our culture would grind to a halt.
You would wind up with asshats like the Florida doctor wanting to know what political party you're registered with before he provides you with service.
Legally, there's nothing wrong with a customer saying "I don't want the kid with the lip ring serving me."
Morally.... well, morally it's still not as bad as singling out the black guy, but it's still not okay.
I see the problem. We just need to find something you find repulsive before you break. How about a well-mannered fellow with a swastika tattoo on his forehead? Would you be fair and give him a tip for good service?
There's a difference, IMO, between discriminating against someone based on inherent qualities versus voluntary qualities. A lip ring or tattoo is a voluntary choice and it's a matter of personal taste whether you find such quality to be distasteful. If enough people find such a personal choice disatasteful so that having a lip ring makes your life difficult, you can always remove the damn thing. A black guy who can't get jobs because of bigotry is kind of out of luck.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
The worst part about the whole "Black people are genetically less intelligent" theory is that it doesn't make any goddamn sense from the perspective of natural selection.
Human evolution hasn't been able to weed out things like poor eyesight, diabetes, male pattern baldness, the fact that we can't synthesize our own vitamin C, etc. So why in the world would it weed out mediocre intelligence? And when I say "mediocre intelligence," I don't mean "so stupid that it's amazing that they can even remember to breathe." I mean, "Has a slightly lower aptitude when it comes to the SATs."
Why the fuck would evolution care about your SAT score?
I was taking exception to Bionic Monkey's assertion that it's okay to discriminate against someone if they're not a protected class. Not really commenting on this case in particular.
In the eyes of the law that's how it is. It is that way because, at some point, we decided as a society that it was okay to discriminate against some people and not other people. The classes that get protected generally match up with things that people can't change. You can take out the lip ring, but you can't stop being black or female or gay. It sucks for the lip ring folks, but if we just made discrimination illegal in general without exceptions I think our culture would grind to a halt.
There's also the huge difference in terms of how blacks have been institutionally discriminated against in the US compared to people with lip rings. They're simply not equivalent in terms of needing legal protection.
There's also the fact that genetic diversity is no where near as simple as "white people have genes like this, but black people have genes like THIS". For example, as someone of largely central/eastern European descent, I could be more genetically similar to someone from Nigeria than Portugal. There have been studies that have shown up to an 80% overlap in expressed genetic materials between white and black people living in the United States, a significantly higher average than average Americans and average Europeans. Even all of that, though, is simplification.
In general it's stupid for a number of reasons to argue that any but the most isolated, homogeneous communities in the modern world are affected in noticeable intangible categories (like intelligence) by their genetic makeup alone.
I kind of feel bad for this chick who's going to be outed as definitely the biggest racist at Harvard Law when what she actually said means that rather we shouldn't "rule out the possibility" that she's the biggest racist at Harvard Law.
EDIT: damn, got the gender and the school wrong, thanks for the catch Fencingsax. Also, rethought it a bit, and I think what really sets off alarm bells in that email isn't really the refusal to rule out any particular possibility so much as the implicit support for (as one of her peers put it in a note that HuffPo published) "the false notion of biological race," wherein our cultural ideas about race actually reflect the biological reality, which is of course dangerous nonsense.
nescientist on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
She's the biggest racist at Harvard Law, you mean. Also, the more bigoted ones are probably smart enough to keep their mouths shut about it.
I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent. I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances. The fact is, some things are genetic. African Americans tend to have darker skin. Irish people are more likely to have red hair. (Now on to the more controversial:) Women tend to perform less well in math due at least in part to prenatal levels of testosterone, which also account for variations in mathematics performance within genders. This suggests to me that some part of intelligence is genetic, just like identical twins raised apart tend to have very similar IQs and just like I think my babies will be geniuses and beautiful individuals whether I raise them or give them to an orphanage in Nigeria. I don’t think it is that controversial of an opinion to say I think it is at least possible that African Americans are less intelligent on a genetic level, and I didn’t mean to shy away from that opinion at dinner.
Wait, you think that your kid would perform equally well in Nigeria?
Why do I suddenly suspect that she's a libertarian?
I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent. I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances. The fact is, some things are genetic. African Americans tend to have darker skin. Irish people are more likely to have red hair. (Now on to the more controversial:) Women tend to perform less well in math due at least in part to prenatal levels of testosterone, which also account for variations in mathematics performance within genders. This suggests to me that some part of intelligence is genetic, just like identical twins raised apart tend to have very similar IQs and just like I think my babies will be geniuses and beautiful individuals whether I raise them or give them to an orphanage in Nigeria. I don’t think it is that controversial of an opinion to say I think it is at least possible that African Americans are less intelligent on a genetic level, and I didn’t mean to shy away from that opinion at dinner.
Wait, you think that your kid would perform equally well in Nigeria?
Why do I suddenly suspect that she's a libertarian?
I don't think she would have used Nigeria if she were trying to argue the totally genetic-determinist position that her kids would be exactly as well off no matter where they were; even the most generous reading of that sentence, though, has her casually claiming to be both so beautiful and so smart that her very genes guarantee these qualities to her children. It's almost unbelievably arrogant, except she's a student at Harvard Law so it's entirely believable.
I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent. I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances. The fact is, some things are genetic. African Americans tend to have darker skin. Irish people are more likely to have red hair. (Now on to the more controversial:) Women tend to perform less well in math due at least in part to prenatal levels of testosterone, which also account for variations in mathematics performance within genders. This suggests to me that some part of intelligence is genetic, just like identical twins raised apart tend to have very similar IQs and just like I think my babies will be geniuses and beautiful individuals whether I raise them or give them to an orphanage in Nigeria. I don’t think it is that controversial of an opinion to say I think it is at least possible that African Americans are less intelligent on a genetic level, and I didn’t mean to shy away from that opinion at dinner.
Most excellent example. Unfortunately, not one that helps your point. Women do tend to perform worse on math tests, and plenty of research has shown that stereotype threat has a huge amount to do with it. More to the point, intervention studies have demonstrated that when efforts are taken to control for stereotype threat (by changing the environment, not touching the actual test) the gender difference on those math tests disappears.
Something tells me Black people have to go through experiences like 100x worse than the comments girls get about math.
Not to start a 'who has it worse' tangent, but there are numerous comments you could acceptably throw at a woman which would be social suicide if aimed at a particular race.
Not to start a 'who has it worse' tangent, but there are numerous comments you could acceptably throw at a woman which would be social suicide if aimed at a particular race.
we should ask larry summers what his take on all of this is :P
dlinfiniti on
AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Not to start a 'who has it worse' tangent, but there are numerous comments you could acceptably throw at a woman which would be social suicide if aimed at a particular race.
we should ask larry summers what his take on all of this is :P
Posts
edit: and "we aren't racists! Our customers are! We just cater to their racist behavior!" isn't a valid defense and I don't understand why that isn't obvious
Wow. 2 years worth of pay? Dude will never have to work again! What a greedy fuck!
Kids with lip rings aren't a protected minority.
You can't separate the two. How did the hotel make the distinction on which employees would be treated like shit?
BY RACE!
The hotel actively and willingly made the decision to comply with a guest's request to engage in a discriminatory and illegal activity. Engaging in mental gymnastics in order to rephrase the situation so it doesn't sound quite as bad doesn't change that fact.
Neither are gays or young people. Does that make it okay?
Actually, gays are. And I'm pretty sure you can't discriminate based on age either.
No, actually, gays aren't a protected class universally, and you can only "not discriminate" against those over 40.
Well shit then. I guess we better just throw out the protected class for everybody!
What exactly is your point?
That just because someone "isn't a protected minority" doesn't make it okay to discriminate against them.
Federal anti-discrimination statutes have as much to do with politics as "what's right" and you really shouldn't be pointing at those as the be-all and end-all of what is and is not discrimination.
Unless you're purely talking legally, that is.
If you're talking to me, my point was you can't say "It's okay because that's not a protected class" in response to the challenge that was made. Because if you replace "lip ring" with "young" or "gay" then the outcome is the same, but the argument is goosey from a "don't discriminate" perspective, because that's clearly still discrimination, except it's legal.
You need to come up with a more persuasive argument that actually addresses the point. IT'S THE LAW doesn't cut it.
Maybe you could clarify what it is that you want to know or what argument you think is inconsistent, as well as what if anything it has to do with the case at hand.
Morally.... well, morally it's still not as bad as singling out the black guy, but it's still not okay.
Plus, the vast majortiy of resturants don't allow lip ring kid to wear his lip ring while working, because there is a good chance it will offend someone.
Is it wrong that as soon as I read this, my brain though of a man in a British-Man-Pretending-To-Be-A-Woman's voice "There you go bringing class into it again!" a la Monty Python?
Seriously though, this is dumb on both sides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States
Personally I think the use of the commerce clause is goosey like most uses of the commerce clause, but the result is sound from an "equal rights" perspective.
In the eyes of the law that's how it is. It is that way because, at some point, we decided as a society that it was okay to discriminate against some people and not other people. The classes that get protected generally match up with things that people can't change. You can take out the lip ring, but you can't stop being black or female or gay. It sucks for the lip ring folks, but if we just made discrimination illegal in general without exceptions I think our culture would grind to a halt.
Except that it's okay to discriminate against certain classes of people- like homosexuals and the young, both things that can't be changed- which was my point to begin with.
Forget it though, it's moot anyway.
I see the problem. We just need to find something you find repulsive before you break. How about a well-mannered fellow with a swastika tattoo on his forehead? Would you be fair and give him a tip for good service?
You would wind up with asshats like the Florida doctor wanting to know what political party you're registered with before he provides you with service.
Rigorous Scholarship
Harvard Law Student: 'African Americans Are, On Average, Genetically Predisposed To Be Less Intelligent'
haha,
irony
Yeah, and people thought YALE produced the "intelligent white racist" of academia. The Right is gonna be all over this one to bash Harvard for sure..
Human evolution hasn't been able to weed out things like poor eyesight, diabetes, male pattern baldness, the fact that we can't synthesize our own vitamin C, etc. So why in the world would it weed out mediocre intelligence? And when I say "mediocre intelligence," I don't mean "so stupid that it's amazing that they can even remember to breathe." I mean, "Has a slightly lower aptitude when it comes to the SATs."
Why the fuck would evolution care about your SAT score?
There's also the huge difference in terms of how blacks have been institutionally discriminated against in the US compared to people with lip rings. They're simply not equivalent in terms of needing legal protection.
In general it's stupid for a number of reasons to argue that any but the most isolated, homogeneous communities in the modern world are affected in noticeable intangible categories (like intelligence) by their genetic makeup alone.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
EDIT: damn, got the gender and the school wrong, thanks for the catch Fencingsax. Also, rethought it a bit, and I think what really sets off alarm bells in that email isn't really the refusal to rule out any particular possibility so much as the implicit support for (as one of her peers put it in a note that HuffPo published) "the false notion of biological race," wherein our cultural ideas about race actually reflect the biological reality, which is of course dangerous nonsense.
Wait, you think that your kid would perform equally well in Nigeria?
Why do I suddenly suspect that she's a libertarian?
I don't think she would have used Nigeria if she were trying to argue the totally genetic-determinist position that her kids would be exactly as well off no matter where they were; even the most generous reading of that sentence, though, has her casually claiming to be both so beautiful and so smart that her very genes guarantee these qualities to her children. It's almost unbelievably arrogant, except she's a student at Harvard Law so it's entirely believable.
Most excellent example. Unfortunately, not one that helps your point. Women do tend to perform worse on math tests, and plenty of research has shown that stereotype threat has a huge amount to do with it. More to the point, intervention studies have demonstrated that when efforts are taken to control for stereotype threat (by changing the environment, not touching the actual test) the gender difference on those math tests disappears.
Something tells me Black people have to go through experiences like 100x worse than the comments girls get about math.
we should ask larry summers what his take on all of this is :P
I was going to say...