Question before federal courts: How white is white?

A hundred years ago US courts wrestled with “white” as a racial definition. A result was the infamous “one-drop” rule meant that any African ancestry meant that the person was “colored”. Now a Washington-state business man is using similar logic to claim access to federal and state programs to promote minority businesses:

Taylor is suing Washington state and the federal government because he was denied a minority-business certification under a program created more than two decades ago to help level the playing field for minority business owners seeking contracts in the transportation industry. . . His case is pending with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2010 Taylor began identifying himself as multiracial after a DNA ancestry test estimated he was 90 percent Caucasian, 6 percent indigenous American and 4 percent sub-Saharan African. . . Some who qualified for the program acknowledged they had never been disenfranchised. A Yakima man who qualified for both the state and federal programs said he is about 6 percent African American, looks Caucasian and has never encountered discrimination. Since 2014, the program has helped him win millions of dollars in contracts.

Should government agencies and courts be involved in defining how white is white?

The constitution says that people have a right to equal protection regardless of race, then why should the definition of race even be a question?

Racial preferences, restrictions and the stupid 'one drop rule" should all be struck down immediately and permanently.

In the alternative the gov’t should be bound to the standard it set long ago for the rest of us.

How would stopping “racial preference” programs help minority’s get to equal parity to their white counterparts? What do you suggest?

Perhaps a graph along these lines rather that a simple white/minority classification?
image

The graph came from the editorial board of the New York Times. It shows a continuous curve rather than simple white/non-white dichotomy found in most government programs. How enlightened!

Natural selection. We have individual rights, not race or group rights under our constitution.

The outcome is up to the individual.

Equal rights not equal outcomes for all. The kind of social/economic engineering you appear to be asking for is anathema to freedom and equal rights.

1 Like

Instead of preference programs based on race, which is an artificial construct anyway, use socioeconomic measures.

1 Like

Eliminate them all period.

What reality do you live in? And cons talk about a lib “utopia” lol

Which exist already today.

I don’t see anything wrong with giving someone in poverty a leg up. Anyone can end up needing a hand at some point in their lives.

Helping people out of poverty helps us all.

1 Like

The best poverty program is a job.

All we do by addicting people to handouts generation after generation is increase the demand for more and bigger handouts.

Such programs should be limited to those who cannot provide for themselves at all and should be concentrated on moving them out of poverty, not keeping them there.

Agreed
10 char

And there are programs that give low income individuals jobs or at least access to job interviews. Are you suggesting getting rid of those?

You are all over the place… first you advocate getting rid of all preferential programs… then you say you support them in limited cases.

You don’t seem to understand the concept of “preferential”.

There is no presence here, we’re talking about only providing a safety net for those completely unable to provide for themselves.

Nobody is given a leg up based on who they are or where they come from here.

There will always be the need for some form of safety net for those who are mentally, physically, or otherwise completely destitute and unable to provide for themselves.

That’s not a preference it’s the bare minimum.

Good point. For example, why not use the questions in the “privilege” video rather than judging people based on their complexion or DNA tests?

Here is an example of someone of southern Indian background passing as African American in order to get into medical school:

Just like Trump if you argue both sides or multi sides at once them can get other fools like themselves to belive they are smart because they where right.

No one should get special treatment for being a minority. I have to compete for hwy contracts against minority firms that are worth 10 times what I am. I’m just the little company trying to make a living and companies worth millions are getting awarded contracts for being DBE firms when they have millions of dollars worth of assets and can get all sorts of financing because they are guarantied work. I can bid thousands of dollars less for the same work and they get the job.
It should be changed to net worth not what color you are! How do we expect our young men and woman to get into the business and take over if they can’t even get a foot in the door because they are the wrong color or gender.
One business that I have to compete against the owner is only 1/16 a minority and he has figured out that all he has to do is keep all assets in the corp. name and he can be a DBE firm forever because they don’t look at the corps assets and net worth only his.

1 Like

Oh, that’s very funny. I immediately got the joke.

I agree with everything that everyone said here, as long as we keep affirmative action and all other programs designed to help historically disadvantaged minority groups.