Maarek posted:

I think it's useful in the sense that "people will judge me for choosing my career over being a stay-at-home-parent" is so far out of my life experience that it sounds like one of those made up problems that the protagonists of a romantic comedy suffer from. I know this is a real thing, but it might as well be happening on the moon to me.

Maarek posted:

I think it's useful in the sense that "people will judge me for choosing my career over being a stay-at-home-parent" is so far out of my life experience that it sounds like one of those made up problems that the protagonists of a romantic comedy suffer from. I know this is a real thing, but it might as well be happening on the moon to me.

ActusRhesus posted:

I don't know anyone who was discriminated against. Therefore it never happens.

Maarek posted:

If I wasn't perfectly clear what I am saying is that maybe what I posted had less to do with the fact that I'm a man and have patriarchal views about women and more to do with the fact that I was raised and live around people who never had to wonder if homeschooling Dakota would interfere with their career at the Dollar Store. It's very uncool that people do that to career women but it's a little outside of my wheel house when it comes to personal experience.

ActusRhesus posted:

Women working at the dollar store also experience guilt and stress from a society that tells them they should be home.

VitalSigns posted:

So what I am getting from this conversation is the child stipend should be universal so a man or woman who wants to stay home has that option available, but isn't penalized for choosing a career either. Is that about right?

Chadderbox posted:

Anyone who works at a dollar store feels guilt and stress regardless of whether they have children or not.

Mr. Nice! posted:

I'm sure glad for the past couple of pages in the SCOTUS thread. It sure has been riveting discussion of the SCOTUS and court news.

VitalSigns posted:

So what I am getting from this conversation is the child stipend should be universal so a man or woman who wants to stay home has that option available, but isn't penalized for choosing a career either. Is that about right?

Discendo Vox posted:

I would like a federal wage to compensate me for my posting efforts. I will accept payment in the form of Cheetos, Steam trading cards and, ideally, a home copy of SPSS, which would be really handy at this point in my diss.

Lawtalk:

I tend to favor the intent standard for racial discrimination, and agree with many of the other current, conservative policies on things like affirmative action, not because I think they are just, but because the rhetoric available to opponents of policies of this sort would gain too much of a following from affirmative action programs, and from the implementation of programs designed to directly discriminate on the basis of race.

My solution (which I've mentioned before) would be economic/geographic bussing, which could both be racially neutral in intent and design, and produce general socioeconomic benefits along both racial and other lines. This would evade the discrimination problem and treat the underlying causes of some forms of racially variant outcomes, without giving the right wing something to weaponize.

In gender gap contexts, I'd favor a similar approach targeting precursors of the social norms that reinforce gender disparities- a cause-treating rather than symptom-treating approach.

Discendo Vox posted:

Lawtalk:

I tend to favor the intent standard for racial discrimination, and agree with many of the other current, conservative policies on things like affirmative action, not because I think they are just, but because the rhetoric available to opponents of policies of this sort would gain too much of a following from affirmative action programs, and from the implementation of programs designed to directly discriminate on the basis of race

VitalSigns posted:

This appears to operate from an odd premise conservatives actually care about equal treatment regardless of race and oppose affirmative action only on those grounds but would accept facially neutral policies to mitigate the effects of discrimination...

But in reality, conservatives oppose AA because they are racist, and will use the same rhetoric against any policy no matter how neutrally worded to frame it as persecution of white Christians (see: the ENDA which has been successfully defeated year after year with a propaganda blitz of "my religious beliefs are under attack!", or how marriage equality is demonized as "special rights" for homosexuals).

We cannot word laws neutrally enough to appease them because their actual goal is the perpetuation of oppression, so why even bother. We'd just be pulling an Obama: throwing out good policy because it's too easy to demonize and moving to the middle, only for the right wing to hop further right and drat the moderate policies as race-baiting Christian-hating islamomarxobamafascism.

The Warszawa posted:

Trying to end-run around shoddy constitutional analysis with facially neutral policy with purportedly equivalent impact is a Bad Plan.

The Warszawa posted:

I'm saying that if we're talking about rhetorical ammunition and strategy regarding opposition, conceding "the cure is as bad as the illness" when it comes to racial discrimination is pretty bad.

The Warszawa posted:

The reason I describe it as facially neutral is that if you give localities enough freedom to configure the policies to the situation on the ground, you pretty much have to give them enough freedom to end up with Just-Happen-To-Be-Racially-Segregated schools that nonetheless conform to your policy, but if I recall the time you proposed this in the chat thread (and I may not) the racial integration benefits are incidental to your policy.

The Warszawa posted:

How economically oriented busing in public schools takes the place of race-conscious admissions is not really clear, either - even race-conscious busing didn't pretend to replace that.

ActusRhesus posted:

It is entirely possible for a person to have a different political outlook without being the second coming of hitler.

Discendo Vox posted:

"the cure" being what? "as bad" being what? If AA policies give more power to folks promoting policies and narratives that increase racist perspectives and racially variant outcomes, it's not a cure in the first place.

quote:

It's very hard to still wind up with racially segregated schools under such a policy, unless the locality policies want to wind up running face-first into the intent standard. That's the fun part-smaller samples equals unambiguous predicted outcomes.

quote:

By admissions are you referring to college admissions? This would hit the root cause of the social and economic factors that produce a large amount of the college admissions gap. It would also wind up targeting the racism itself, during the early socialization process.

quote:

Many of the students who opted to transfer landed in places like the well-heeled Francis Howell School district, just west of the Missouri River and about 30 miles from Normandy. In the wake of the court’s ruling in June, parents in the Francis Howell district packed school board meetings and town halls to denounce the decision. They said they feared that students from troubled neighborhoods would bring drugs and violence. They worried about the potential for overcrowded classrooms and lowered academic averages. A few suggested that metal detectors be erected and that drug sniffing dogs and armed guards be deployed to keep Normandy students under control.

ActusRhesus posted:

It is entirely possible for a person to have a different political outlook without being the second coming of hitler.

The Warszawa posted:

The rhetoric of equating race-conscious policies designed to eliminate or mitigate institutional racism with race-conscious policies designed to maintain or exacerbate it should be fought. The "engenders racist resentment" argument can and is applied to literally every policy with the goal or even the effect of benefiting minorities, why should the sociopolitical equivalent of "haters gonna hate" send us cowering to indirect alternatives? What do you think caused the backlash to racial integration policies - that the policy explicitly said "race", or that black kids showed up to white schools?

The Warszawa posted:

How is it hard? Walk me through how your proposal works when a state has twice as many poor white people as it does poor black people. What's to stop a school district from saying "okay, we'll get our poor kids from the poor white neighborhood instead of the poor black neighborhood" or, neutrally, "well, we'll get the kids from the nearest neighborhoods that meet our socioeconomic targets" and then housing segregation does the rest? If you're going to try to thwart selective pools by creating overdistricts, what's to stop suburban bailouts/district partitioning to create different pools?

The Warszawa posted:

I get that I'm more of a naysayer than you on this, but if you think that widespread implementation of this sort of program isn't going to end up subject to a parallel Milliken I think you're dreaming.

The Warszawa posted:

Hold up, how will economic integration target racism through early socialization to any greater extent than race-conscious busing did? How is economic integration going to impact racism beyond what racial integration did, since (unless you consider race, which you've said is Not Going To Happen) it's not like all the bused kids are going to be minorities so you don't even have the same extent of exposure.

The Warszawa posted:

I mean I hope that you'd be right about this being all you need to close the achievement gap, but I'm not sure that school assignment is going to replace the host of underlying conditions that affect this (and hopefully schools will provide the administrative support necessary to bused students instead of what I suspect will be a sink-or-swim approach).

The Warszawa posted:

By the way, these policies as implemented are capable of wreaking havoc all on their own - all the law has to do is say who foots the bill. And the intent wasn't to gently caress them, either - it was to incentivize schools to improve. But don't worry, these policies aren't subject to the same rhetorical vulnerabilities--

Oh.

Discendo Vox posted:

Because the degree of effectiveness in the "engenders racist sentiment" argument varies depending on its context. A genuinely neutral policy that has an integrative effect makes the argument less persuasive and effective. If you assume that the racism exists and that the response to integration will be universally similar regardless of avenue, there would be no point in trying at all.

That's why the standards specify geographic as well as economic indicators- full blend. That aside, you seem to be seeing economic integration and the reversal of similarly regressive school district funding schema as a bug rather than a feature.

quote:

Importantly, any policy that actually has these effects places the burden on low-level administrators to resegregate with fewer resources and a smaller set of options. It's much harder to nominally maintain racial neutrality in that setting, to say nothing of the potential coverage such a response would elicit. More on that below.

quote:

A similar program passed constitutional scrutiny and was in operation for years before recently being shut down for supposedly unrelated budget concerns. Conservatives weren't able to make reverse racism arguments stick.

quote:

Because the race-conscious bussing is unconstitutional. Also, general benefits, bug not feature, socioeconomic integration in addition, as above.

quote:

It doesn't solve the problem, but it solves a hell of a lot more than targeting a small, college-going part of the population with quasi-invisble multiculturalism- especially when you're doing it with populations that have already gone through segregated and differently funded school systems.

quote:

This is the exact opposite of what you seem to think it is: reread the article. The focus of the reporting isn't on the problems with the policy- it's on how hosed up the parents are in their response to the policy! As I said, it's not a bug, it's a feature! The whole idea is to place those opposed to meaningfully equal and integrated schools in a setting where they have to advocate intentional resegregation, then put them in front of a camera.

quote:

More generally, this policy is based on the fact that differentials in school funding are structural sources, causes and perpetuators of racism and racial segregation, along with general inequity beyond racial lines. Placing this sort of pressure on such a system, and publicizing the response, is something that ought to be done even if we were in a racially integrated society. This is both a genuine rationale for the policy, and has the side effect of naturally effecting the racial element that is re-expressed in that system.

The Warszawa posted:

Socioeconomic integration is fantastic insofar as the goal is to integrate on socioeconomic lines. You're putting this forward as a substitute for race-conscious integration, which is the efficacy I'm looking for here. I don't doubt that socioeconomic integration policies will achieve socioeconomic integration and that that will yield benefits along socioeconomic lines.

The Warszawa posted:

I disagree - I believe that the integrative effect engendered the backlash, and that socioeconomic integration will engender less backlash only insofar as its integrative effect is less than a race-conscious policy. I don't know where you're getting that I see economic integration as a bug when what I am saying is that it's buggy as a substitute for race-conscious policies if the goal is racial integration. If you're saying that socioeconomic integration without regard to race will produce the same benefits to the racial achievement gap as racial integration - in other words, socioeconomically integrated schools will yield benefits on racial lines whether the integrated schools are fully racially integrated or 100% white, black, or Latino - then we're having a different discussion. I guess you could believe that the socioeconomic benefits are such that they justify the slippage on racial lines, but that's also a different thing (more of a different valuation).
I get that you think there are true persuadables and I don't necessarily disagree, but I think they're more likely to draw their conclusions from real or perceived effects than real or perceived intents.

The Warszawa posted:

No, it places that burden on administrators to resegregate after the policy has been fully implemented, when what I'm talking about is those administrators acting during the process of initial implementation, since the start-up issues are part of any policy consideration. That said, there was a DV with a leisure suit and a handlebar mustache arguing that Swann put the burden on resegregationists, too.

The Warszawa posted:

Where? I'd like to read the case. I know I'm a crit/legal realist and you're a formalist, but surely you can see how the situation might change depending on which court hears it and when. That notwithstanding, the thing still got killed.

The Warszawa posted:

If you want to argue it as a good general policy, yeah, I agree, but you put it forward as a substitute for race-conscious policies and that is the standard to which it is held.
Also "race-conscious busing is unconstitutional" goddamn son, if we had to accept current law as the limit nothing would ever get done. (Overturn Adarand, overturn Adarand!) The correct answer is "race-conscious busing is not narrowly tailored to serve the particular compelling government interest for which it was offered." It's just about finding the right interest.
Yes, that's why I was taken aback by you posing socioeconomic integration as a substitute for racial integration and not arguing that race-conscious university admissions was a substitute for pre-university integration.
Please elaborate on "quasi-invisible multiculturalism" - I'm not sure I get what you're going for, there.

The Warszawa posted:

So your argument isn't that it engenders less backlash, but that the backlash is less credible and that the true persuadables will see the light because of how poo poo the opponents are?
I suppose I need to ask: what in the world makes anti-racial integration backlash credible in your eyes? If the distinction you're making is that they successfully dismantled race-conscious integration, well, refer to your groovy doppleganger.

The Warszawa posted:

Race-conscious and socioeconomic integration, dissolve district specific funding schemes and fund schools without regard to local tax revenues, ideally out of a national fund but good luck with that.

However, funding arrangements do not in and of themselves cause racial segregation - that particular issue is more rooted in residential segregation and untangling that through policy is basically impossible.

The Warszawa posted:

*Masturbates Furiously*

Discendo Vox posted:

*Masturbates Furiouser-ly*

ActusRhesus posted:

*Masturbates the Most Furious*

Discendo Vox posted:

First off, thanks for arguing this with me- it's nice to not just get told that I'm concern trolling for a freaking change. This is rapidly becoming a textwall, and I'm hopping back and forth between arguments. I apologize for any errors or omissions- let me know. We should probably consolidate this, or maybe even incorporate it into a new thread ("tonight only: RBG versus John Stewart, Latin-loving virulent homophobe")

So the basic idea here is that, causally, this hits sources of racial separation in two ways. First, it increases the degree to which students of different races are getting equal resources in early education, which should heavily mitigate the achievement gap, including admissions at universities. Second, it socializes students in an integrated setting, which should have a significant effect on racial perceptions more broadly. That, for me, is the major goal, because although that process is hard to measure in the short term, those students grow up together, socialize, intermarry, and vote. Their perception of race is going to be fundamentally different than those whose only exposure to kids of other races is going to the other part of town, or seeing them in the market tier or kind of job sector they don't expect to work in.

(all of these benefits also apply nonracially, which is the whole feature-bug thing. There's a longer-term goal, too, which I'll get to at the end.)

This is mostly addressed in the first post- I'm going for a double-header of socialization-based racism reduction and the socioeconomic integration benefits that also reduce racial disparity, both as long-term generational improvements in racial equality and cohesion directly, and as setup to other policy and legislative pushes later on- more on that at the end. I'm absolutely not saying the benefits of race-blind socioeconomic integration would produce the same benefits as racial integration. The key is that the policy is race-blind, not race-neutral. The 100% racially segregated school scenario removes one of my two benefits- the one I see as at least arguably more important (it also makes my skin crawl). Again, I think the benefits of racial integration are comparatively diminished because I believe direct racial integration gives opponents (or people who are opponents out of political self-interest) the tools to reaffirm racism itself, and, with the political power it gives them, reverse the racial integration policy (if it could be implemented in the first place).

quote:

I don't follow "real or perceived effects vs. real or perceived intents" part; I suspect that's somewhere we're talking past each other, and thus important. Could you unpack or rephrase that?

quote:

Who? Griswold? Do I get to be Griswold? Skimming the transcript, it doesn't look like Wagonner tried to make that argument at the SC. I haven't read the case in a long time, and my casebooks are still back home. I don't remember this coming up, at least not seriously...
Arguing the success or failure of initial implementation of a policy is, in my opinion, sort of a lost cause. Of course if the people doing the implementation sabotage it, it won't work- that's true of all policies! The way around that is development and modelling in a controlled setting where you don't have to worry about hostile administrators-there are plenty of granola-crunching states and municipalities that could go for this. Then you create a standard building process, shop it through governors, and nail people to the wall when they deviate in a way that's clearly intended to sabotage the process.

quote:

I think I was thinking of the Wake county program, whose dismantlement is ongoing, fiercely protested, and likely to be reversed. After ten years, most of the families in the system liked it too. The only complaints the administrator involved (who was forced to resign after starting dismantlement) could raise were administrative costs and long bus rides. (The setting is also perfect for trialling this sort of thing, demographically, largely due to the major influx of money and educated liberals thanks to the RTP).

quote:

I'm more of a distinguish than an overturn guy, not just as a formalist, but because it permits you more options in political and narrative framing. Instead of talking about race at all (leave that to the lay public and the NAACP), the entire set of policies can be framed accurately as promoting equal socioeconomic opportunities. I also just plain think it's more likely to happen, especially if we get an R victory in the next presidential election. Lawyers, including the justices, are kinda terrible at statistics. It's hard to make the impact arguments stick, especially with cases nominally and publicly framed around individual desert and cost narratives.

quote:

"quasi-invisible multiculturalism" refers to the tenuous, prior status quo of race as unquantified factor in college admissions. It was still materially on race enough to let the far right use it as a talking point (though with less success), but that sort of policy is too small-scale in impact, and too late in the student's life, to make a significant impact in socialization or status beyond the rare individual case.

quote:

I'm starting to feel like a certain character in a certain story by Stephen Vincent Benét. Anti-racial integration backlash isn't credible in my eyes, but I think it's much more credible in the eyes of the general public. Opponents of racial integration can paint stories about individual-level injustice in terms of things like getting denied a seat at college much more easily- and conveniently it fits the structure of a court case better as well.

quote:

Aside from absolute legislative redistribution via federal funding, yes, that is the long-term goal. Busing programs of this sort are great precisely because they throw the absurdity of localized school funding into sharp relief, in a setting that invites public discourse, and directly ties it to its long-term effects on children. On funding arrangements causing segregation, I disagree, and I think this might be a core source of our disagreement- I think black students routinely getting the worst possible resources throughout their educations is a major determinant of what jobs, incomes, degrees and outcomes they have later in life- and as a direct result the stereotypes of what jobs black people have, what level of education they have(or just plain how smart they are), and, as a correlate, their association with things like crime.

blarzgh posted:

blarzgh posted:

Discendo Vox posted:

A genuinely neutral program is less vulnerable, in that republican "racism in reverse" lines of argumentation are less likely to be persuasive to third parties. Undecided or persuadable parties do exist, and a large part of effective policy is making something that will both in itself and in response from opposing parties, be appealing to them.

Sonia Sotomayor posted:

In my colleagues’ view, examining the racial impact of legislation only perpetuates racial discrimination. This refusal to accept the stark reality that race matters is regrettable. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination. As members of the judiciary tasked with intervening to carry out the guarantee of equal protection, we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society. It is this view that works harm, by perpetuating the facile notion that what makes race matter is acknowledging the simple truth that race does matter.

VitalSigns posted:

Surely if our goal is to win over undecided or persuadable third parties, the way to persuade them is to make the case that race-conscious policies are the best way to counteract the effects of systemic racial bias, not to agree with the bigots that trying to consciously rectify a playing field tilted against minorities is "reverse racism" and "anti-white" and support their slow but sure incremental strategy of perpetuating inequality by blinding the legal system to it.

You're operating under the very questionable premise that these "racism in reverse" arguments come from a sincere desire for a colorblind society rather than as a strategy to blind the legal system to systemic inequalities and let ingrained racism continue the oppression now that explicit Jim Crow is no longer an option.

In other words

ActusRhesus posted:

Hey leave me out of this, I checked out of this conversation a long time ago.

Discendo Vox posted:

In no place here am I saying that I agree with the reverse racism and anti-white arguments. I am saying that politically and persuasively, debating "reverse racism" and "anti-white" as arguments using terms and precedent already established and proliferated by the other side is an excellent way to feed them supporters. You very rarely persuade people to change their minds about something by telling them what is right and having a frank conversation about it- that's an excellent way to make them hate your guts and wind up with a talk show host custom avatar.

Discendo Vox posted:

You persuade people by putting them in a situation where they experience or see the truth made explicit before them- in a way that makes it feel like it was their choice, and that they were always on the right side.

Discendo Vox posted:

You very rarely persuade people to change their minds about something by telling them what is right and having a frank conversation about it- that's an excellent way to make them hate your guts and wind up with a talk show host custom avatar.

VitalSigns posted:

Checking the link, it seems the custom title stemmed from an argument that gay people should persuade the straight community to allow us equal rights by agreeing with them that gay culture is bad, abandoning all the subcultures that shock the sensibilities of Reverend Mrs Lovejoy, and acting like Normal Respectable Folks, but gay.

When in actuality tolerance is achieved when Normal Respectable Folks find out that their brother or cousin or lawyer can be gay and into leather daddy culture without it turning him into a child-raping drug-peddler and then think "huh, people can have different sexual preferences from mine without being black holes of pure evil...interesting..."

VitalSigns posted:

Well, from the viewpoint of the undecided persuadable people we're talking about, it seems that personally agreeing with reverse-racism arguments versus declining to challenge them and only proposing policies that assume those arguments is a distinction without a difference.

Did marriage equality succeed by proponents accepting the framing that marriage is a special, Christian-only, not-to-be-touched institution and basing policy on that, or by challenging that view?

On the other hand, the entire history of the civil rights movement.

VitalSigns posted:

You're talking about Direct Action and Civil Disobedience, which was criticized at the time by wafflers as being too confrontational and prone to provoke backlash, right?

VitalSigns posted:

How do we change public perceptions of the scope of the issue if we pre-concede that there's nothing objectionable about a racially segregated school system (under neutrally-worded laws of course) and fixing that is the objectionable racist thing, instead of making the argument that racial segregation is harmful regardless of whether the law explicitly says "no blacks in my nice neighborhood"?

VitalSigns posted:

E: And I guess you'll say "because we can require economic" but as The Warszawa pointed out, in the absence of any analysis regarding discriminatory effect, the bigots will always succeed in hiding conscious segregation behind neutral-sounding policies, because their opposition is not rooted in a desire for a colorblind society, but in a desire for a segregated society.

VitalSigns posted:

Also, conservatives are not stupid, they understand the goal of economic integration just as well, and there are plenty of dog whistles available to combat it like complaints about length of bus rides, and fearmongering about liberals letting gangs and drugs into our schools.