From: Zhang, Yangkun (Yangkun.Zhang@FMR.COM)
Date: Thu Nov 30 2000 - 14:42:50 PST
> If you hate them BECAUSE of thier race, that makes you a racist.
> If you hate them becuase of who they are as people, that makes you a
Tom, while I agree with you, our court would disagree with you when it comes
to jobs and employment. Since 1971, with the Supreme Court ruling in Griggs
v. Duke Power, even a the most high-minded employer could still be charged
with discrimination if his practices turned out to have a disparate impact
on women and minorities. It doesn't matter what the intent is, or whether
you even hate the person/group at all!
This does seem to be a common test of racism/sexism in the [liberal] legal
community and academia (at least if you buy the arguments of McKinnon et
all). So it can be argued that the WTO protestors are at the minimum being
discriminatory, at worst racist, as the effects of the anti-trade policies
advocated does have an unnecessary discriminatory effect (loss of jobs) on a
class (i.e., third-world workers) caused by practice or policies that
appears to be nondiscriminatory. I do realize that the said class has to be
a protected class (who gets to define what a "protected class" is, is fuzzy
to me--but then again, I'm a Libertarian), but these same workers, if in the
US, would be considered a protected class as they're racial minorities.
Of course, the law applies to the US, and not abroad. However, if we are to
have a standard for discrimination and racism for this country, shouldn't we
apply the same standard in international dealings? Or does such legal and
academic standards of disparate impact and treatment not apply since
liberals can't be racist?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 14:50:37 PST