Do you suppose Ibram X Kendi's anti-racism constitutional amendment?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

To fix the original sin of racism, Americans should pass an anti-racist amendment to the U.S. Constitution that enshrines two guiding anti-racist principals: Racial inequity is evidence of racist policy and the different racial groups are equals. The amendment would make unconstitutional racial inequity over a certain threshold, as well as racist ideas by public officials (with “racist ideas” and “public official” clearly defined). It would establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for preclearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won’t yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This sounds like a joke or something a white supremacist would come up with to fearmonger.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

This sounds like a joke or something a white supremacist would come up with to fearmonger.

It was his submission to Politico's "How to fix inequality" prompt. I do wonder if he isn't being a bit ironic ("DOA" as an acronym?) but i always thought he was supposed to be entirely sincere.

[Neo-Malthusian Misanthrope]

This man's sheer dedication to grifting is admirable

[ingemann]

This man's sheer dedication to grifting is admirable

He doesn’t come across as a real grifter like Talcum X or Candace Oven, he comes more across as a very mediocre person, who was raised to a position far above his competence level, and who was unable to walk away like the much smarter and more talented Ta-Nehisi Coates, who while vastly more competent than Kendi understood that unless he got away, he would at some point end up the same place as Kendi have.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yikes, this would basically allow an unelected body to assume de facto total control of the US. It would effectively abolish democracy.

[dead0man]

I'm in the "I can't believe someone wrote this in a serious way/seems like something a racist would come up with" camp(s).  "preclearing ALL local and state laws"?  <shudders>

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Its passage would sever any legitimate duty of obedience of man to government, and necessitate armed revolution.

[lfromnj]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/sheetz-convenience-store-chain-discrimination-lawsuit-eeoc-rcna148567

I mean its really expanding the power but not the scope of what the Federal government tries anyway.

The Sheetz convenience store chain has been hit with a lawsuit by federal officials who allege the company discriminated against minority job applicants.

Sheetz Inc., which operates more than 700 stores in six states, discriminated against Black, Native American and multiracial job seekers by automatically weeding out applicants whom the company deemed to have failed a criminal background check, according to U.S. officials.

Federal officials said they do not allege Sheetz was motivated by racial animus, but take issue with the way the chain uses criminal background checks to screen job seekers. The company was sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion and national origin.

The agency found that Black job applicants were deemed to have failed the company’s criminal history screening and were denied employment at a rate of 14.5%, while multiracial job seekers were turned away 13.5% of the time and Native Americans were denied at a rate of 13%.

By contrast, fewer than 8% of white applicants were refused employment because of a failed criminal background check, the EEOC’s lawsuit said.

The amendment literally proposes the department investigate any private inequity results. In this case fewer black people are hired than white people so therefore it is inequity. Maybe there's a chance the current SCOTUS starts to reverse some of this stuff but they seem to be moving super slowly.

[quesaisje]

Dostoevksy wrote a short story about what happens when an unaccountable bureaucracy is tasked with rooting out original sin.

It's amazing that anyone ever took Kendi seriously when this has always been one of his key ideas.

[lfromnj]

Dostoevksy wrote a short story about what happens when an unaccountable bureaucracy is tasked with rooting out original sin.

It's amazing that anyone ever took Kendi seriously when this has always been one of his key ideas.

But it seems the federal government takes his ideas seriously and tries to enact them as seen above. What exactly makes what Kendi is proposing other than how in depth it goes different from disparate impact lawsuits? Yes right now we don't have preclearance of all laws but anyone can still sue once a disparate impact occurs.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Dostoevksy wrote a short story about what happens when an unaccountable bureaucracy is tasked with rooting out original sin.

It's amazing that anyone ever took Kendi seriously when this has always been one of his key ideas.

But it seems the federal government takes his ideas seriously and tries to enact them as seen above. What exactly makes what Kendi is proposing other than how in depth it goes different from disparate impact lawsuits? Yes right now we don't have preclearance of all laws but anyone can still sue once a disparate impact occurs.

Uh, the difference is that lawsuits go through... the legal process? That's literally checks and balances at work. Kendi's proposal is the opposite of that.

[lfromnj]

Dostoevksy wrote a short story about what happens when an unaccountable bureaucracy is tasked with rooting out original sin.

It's amazing that anyone ever took Kendi seriously when this has always been one of his key ideas.

But it seems the federal government takes his ideas seriously and tries to enact them as seen above. What exactly makes what Kendi is proposing other than how in depth it goes different from disparate impact lawsuits? Yes right now we don't have preclearance of all laws but anyone can still sue once a disparate impact occurs.

Uh, the difference is that lawsuits go through... the legal process? That's literally checks and balances at work. Kendi's proposal is the opposite of that.

But what exactly makes the Biden administration's goals different from Kendi's? Both want to use disparate impact to reduce "harms" to minority groups  Yes there is a legal process right now but at the same time just the EEOC lawsuit threats usually make companies back down in many scenarios due to fears of losing the lawsuit along with litigation costs. It's just weird that you say this sounds like anti woke fearmongering because its one crazy guy on the left doing it but in reality a huge portion of the left wants this.

[HillGoose]

i dont believe in race it was all made up by the man to divide the sheaple and implement FASCIST COMMUNISM

we are all ONE RACE, the HUMAN RACE

sadly ppl will not understand this until the first Kaiju makes land in San Francisco

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Dostoevksy wrote a short story about what happens when an unaccountable bureaucracy is tasked with rooting out original sin.

It's amazing that anyone ever took Kendi seriously when this has always been one of his key ideas.

But it seems the federal government takes his ideas seriously and tries to enact them as seen above. What exactly makes what Kendi is proposing other than how in depth it goes different from disparate impact lawsuits? Yes right now we don't have preclearance of all laws but anyone can still sue once a disparate impact occurs.

Uh, the difference is that lawsuits go through... the legal process? That's literally checks and balances at work. Kendi's proposal is the opposite of that.

Burden of proof is another key difference, it's on the government while in Kendi's proposal basically anyone before his Guardian Council is effectively guilty until proven innocent.

[lfromnj]

Dostoevksy wrote a short story about what happens when an unaccountable bureaucracy is tasked with rooting out original sin.

It's amazing that anyone ever took Kendi seriously when this has always been one of his key ideas.

But it seems the federal government takes his ideas seriously and tries to enact them as seen above. What exactly makes what Kendi is proposing other than how in depth it goes different from disparate impact lawsuits? Yes right now we don't have preclearance of all laws but anyone can still sue once a disparate impact occurs.

Uh, the difference is that lawsuits go through... the legal process? That's literally checks and balances at work. Kendi's proposal is the opposite of that.

Burden of proof is another key difference, it's on the government while in Kendi's proposal basically anyone before his Guardian Council is effectively guilty until proven innocent.

But the government isn't seeking to prove intent . All they are seeking to prove is that background checks hurt  minority groups more which they already have proof for based on those statistics.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Dostoevksy wrote a short story about what happens when an unaccountable bureaucracy is tasked with rooting out original sin.

It's amazing that anyone ever took Kendi seriously when this has always been one of his key ideas.

But it seems the federal government takes his ideas seriously and tries to enact them as seen above. What exactly makes what Kendi is proposing other than how in depth it goes different from disparate impact lawsuits? Yes right now we don't have preclearance of all laws but anyone can still sue once a disparate impact occurs.

Uh, the difference is that lawsuits go through... the legal process? That's literally checks and balances at work. Kendi's proposal is the opposite of that.

But what exactly makes the Biden administration's goals different from Kendi's? Both want to use disparate impact to reduce "harms" to minority groups  Yes there is a legal process right now but at the same time just the EEOC lawsuit threats usually make companies back down in many scenarios due to fears of losing the lawsuit along with litigation costs. It's just weird that you say this sounds like anti woke fearmongering because its one crazy guy on the left doing it but in reality a huge portion of the left wants this.

But the goals are fine. The problem with Kendi's proposal isn't the ends but the means. Obviously we should work to eliminate disparate outcomes across race - just not at the cost of abolishing rule of law.

[quesaisje]

But it seems the federal government takes his ideas seriously and tries to enact them as seen above. What exactly makes what Kendi is proposing other than how in depth it goes different from disparate impact lawsuits? Yes right now we don't have preclearance of all laws but anyone can still sue once a disparate impact occurs.

I think the missing piece is the government's ability to classify people by sensitive characteristics such as race or ethnicity. Data collection, including the standards behind it and how it can be used, is the step that everyone presumes, but that actually runs against popular sensibilities in its details.

There's already a strong, longstanding norm in the US that the government does not collect data on religion. Similarly, there's a strong set of restrictions on how data on disability status can be handled. Why wouldn't the same apply to race and other politically sensitive identity characteristics? There's a lot of room to limit this in the service of civil rights. This seems like a better path than throwing out civil rights law.

[lfromnj]

But it seems the federal government takes his ideas seriously and tries to enact them as seen above. What exactly makes what Kendi is proposing other than how in depth it goes different from disparate impact lawsuits? Yes right now we don't have preclearance of all laws but anyone can still sue once a disparate impact occurs.

I think the missing piece is the government's ability to classify people by sensitive characteristics such as race or ethnicity. Data collection, including the standards behind it and how it can be used, is the step that everyone presumes, but that actually runs against popular sensibilities in its details.

There's already a strong, longstanding norm in the US that the government does not collect data on religion. Similarly, there's a strong set of restrictions on how data on disability status can be handled. Why wouldn't the same apply to race and other politically sensitive identity characteristics? There's a lot of room to limit this in the service of civil rights. This seems like a better path than throwing out civil rights law.

Just to be clear my specific argument right now is more of opposing the disparate impact doctrine rather than all of civil rights law. I do have arguments that as well for private companies but it isn't really a major concern of mine nor do I think it can ever happen so it is pointless to argue for. Disparate impact can definitely be a cause for investigation but intent should be the actual "crime".

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

This is exactly why amending the constitution is so frustratingly hard.

[David Hume]

To fix the original sin of racism, Americans should pass an anti-racist amendment to the U.S. Constitution that enshrines two guiding anti-racist principals: Racial inequity is evidence of racist policy and the different racial groups are equals. The amendment would make unconstitutional racial inequity over a certain threshold, as well as racist ideas by public officials (with “racist ideas” and “public official” clearly defined). It would establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for preclearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won’t yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.

He is free to raise money to push deep blue states to pass similar ones for state constitutions. I would be shocked if he can get a single one done.

[Catholics vs. Convicts]

We got this guy's Anti-Racist Baby book from the library once, and it was just nonsensical writing. It was a children's book that not one child could understand. So I am out on the guy.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I've never read his book but from what I've heard his basic premise is child-like logic: Basically it is that because we live in a society with systemic racism, no action is neutral on racism, it's either an explicitly anti-racist action or it just upholds the status quo which is therefore racist. And thus every single action you take, including something as mundane as shopping for groceries, needs to be done under the lens of anti-racism and considering how to make it anti-racist, or otherwise it's furthering racism.

This also kind of falls apart when you consider that this crowd can't even seem to decide on if certain things are racist or anti-racist...for example a couple years ago when shows started up again right after Covid I read about some controversy in some other city because a local promoter was booking emo/hardcore/etc. shows at a black-owned bar in a predominately black part of the city...well that's a good thing patronizing a black-owned business right? But some (no doubt mostly white) people still threw a fit about "white bodies" invading a "black space" and how that makes black people feel threatened and that doesn't make up for the economic benefit. So what is it? And yes I have no doubt that was probably like 8 people who were just loud and their campaign went nowhere, (like the similar one here about boycotting shows that only had white cis people playing on the bill, that almost everyone just laughed at and went nowhere and was forgotten)...but those are also the sort of people that take any of this stuff seriously to begin with.

Anyway it's moot considering the odds of passing it and is just the sort of batsh!t proposal that can be laughed at and it's pretty clear why disparate impact lawsuits are not comparable to this to anyone who isn't being willfully obtuse. Trying to imply that this sort of thing is what liberals actually do want is the right-wing equivalent of Twitter liberals who unironically claim Republicans want to establish a literal Handmaid's Tale equivalent.