Racism in America (with data)

[Little Raven]

Higher education continues to struggle.

A business professor at USC is no longer teaching his communications course after Black students complained that a Chinese-language example he used during class sounded like a racial slur and harmed their mental health.

Marshall School of Business professor Greg Patton was giving a Zoom lesson in his "Communication for Management" class on Aug. 20. The course, a three-week intensive, is part of the core requirements for first-year master's of business administration students.

...

"Like in China the common word is 'that' — 'that, that, that, that,'" he said, according to video recordings of the class circulated on social media. "So in China it might be 'nèi ge' — 'nèi ge, nèi ge, nèi ge.' So there's different words that you'll hear in different countries, but they're vocal disfluencies."

Patton was referring to 那个，which in Mandarin is commonly pronounced nèi ge (NAY-guh) or nà ge (NAH-guh). He was using the former pronunciation.

To some students, the word sounded like the N-word in English. The next day a group of Black master's candidates in the class of 2022 wrote a letter to Marshall Dean Geoffrey Garrett.

"There are over 10,000 characters in the Chinese written language and to use this phrase ... is hurtful and unacceptable to our USC Marshall community," the letter said. "The negligence and disregard displayed by our professor was very clear."

[gilraen]

These "master's candidate" snowflakes better hope they never have to do business in Chinese-speaking circles. Or Korean, for that matter.

[LawBeefaroni]

These "master's candidate" snowflakes better hope they never have to do business in Chinese-speaking circles. Or Korean, for that matter.

Or English.

If you can't contextualize a foreign language you probably won't survive a career in "business."

[Holman]

It's hard to defend Reinoehl (who shot a right-wing "militiaman" in Portland), but it's impossible to defend this.

WaPo: Police shot Portland slaying suspect without warning or trying to arrest him first, witness says

There are few official details about what happened next. At least four members of the task force, which included officers from a variety of local agencies, fired dozens of times at Reinoehl; the U.S. Marshals Service later said he had a handgun, but it wasn’t clear whether he had ever fired it at police.

Dinguss said he never saw Reinoehl pull out a gun.

He said he watched as two unmarked police vehicles converged on Reinoehl as he walked to his car, holding his phone and chewing on a piece of candy. The officers never audibly identified themselves and didn’t try to arrest Reinoehl, Dinguss said.

Instead, he said they immediately began firing. When Reinoehl heard the gunfire, he ducked behind his car, which was pinned in by the law enforcement vehicles; he never tried to get inside, Dinguss said, and he never saw him reaching for a weapon. Dinguss said he watched police unleash rapid-fire rounds at Reinoehl, once pausing to shout “Stop!” before resuming their fire.

Dinguss added officers waited “multiple minutes” before rendering medical aid to Reinoehl, who died at the scene from several gunshot wounds.

Sounds like an execution.

[LawBeefaroni]

Sounds like an execution.

Sure does. Going to be interesting to see if they release any bodycam footage, if they even have any. Seriously fucked up and do not like where we are.


When I heard they fired over 40 shots I assumed they were shooting through cover. Looks like this confirms it.

[malchior]

I read an account where the locals shot at him and the Federales never fired which is another interesting detail. If this turned into an extended shooting event why did they not participate? Were they not there, not in position, or did they refrain because it didn't look legal? A lot of unanswered questions. I have little doubt we'll never know and the police will just lie about it. Why not? There are no consequences and many think the guy deserved it.

[Isgrimnur]

If it was good enough for Bonnie and Clyde...

[Little Raven]

I read an account where the locals shot at him and the Federales never fired which is another interesting detail.

Everything I've read says the same. This was strictly a local show.

I doubt the Feds refrained out of any concerns about legality, though. Most likely none of them were in the field of fire and felt no need to go charging in. The Feds were only there in a supporting role - it's not like Reinoehl shot one of theirs.

[malchior]

Trump is a fucking moron but still probably not great to imply he sanctions death squads... (edit: found a better tweet chain)

[Paingod]

It's a shame all of their body cameras malfunctioned that day. We'll never know the truth.

[malchior]

It's a shame all of their body cameras malfunctioned that day. We'll never know the truth.

It's bullshit anyway. The law enforcement narrative has twists and turns in it already. They are almost certainly lying. In any case, they happened to roll up when he was outside? They were almost certainly staking out the place. If there wasn't any video it is because they didn't want there to be video.

[Holman]

To state the obvious, these cops are aligned with the right-wing militias.

They took out Reinoehl the way they prefer to take out cop-killers (and even in those cases they often show more restraint).

[Smoove_B]

Confirming what we already know, but the end of the article adds validation to what I've anecdotally been observing silently over the last few months

“There’s a new Confederate flag already. It’s an American flag that’s blue and white, with a blue stripe across it,” Meeink says. “And that’s also Trump’s flag.”

For broader reference:

Frank Meeink, once one of the most prominent neo-Nazis in the U.S.—and the inspiration for the character Derek Vinyard, played by Edward Norton in the 1998 film American History X—thinks he knows why.

“I know that there are neo-Nazis who I used to run with who are now cops,” he tells The Daily Beast. “And that’s just in my crew. Imagine how many neo-Nazis and white nationalists have been becoming cops? Three of the people in my crew alone became cops.”

[LawBeefaroni]

Anecdotally, I had dinner with the 3rd shift at my local precinct a few weeks ago. Out of 20 or so officers that I met, about 4 were black, 5 were hispanic, one was Asian and the rest were white. Of the White cops, a few were Southside Italian, one was Russian ( I think, thick accent). There were 5 women and the Watch Commander was a woman.

Doesn't disprove the white supremacist infiltration thing but it's certainly not universal. I imagine it's more common in smaller departments, particularly more rural ones. Also, white supremacists don't have a monopoly on white racism. You don't need a membership card and swastika tattoos.


Oh, and Smoove, no face masks, no social distancing. I was the only one with a mask.

[malchior]

I agree. The neo-nazis aren't in the big city departments in great numbers though I'm sure some are in there now. The indicators are that they've however deeply infiltrated or are linked to officers via social contacts to many departments across the country. We've got a very serious problem here and Trump encourages it and Biden isn't even talking about it.

[Kurth]

On a run through a Jacksonville, FL suburb this morning, I had the exact same thought: They’ve just replaced the Confederate flag with the thin blue line flag. QED.

[Defiant]

The House passed a bill, largely on party lines, "aimed at restore individuals’ ability to take civil court actions against public schools and federally funded entities for discriminatory policies and practices"

Before it passed, however, Republicans put forward an amendment that adds anti-Semitism as a form of discrimination. That's the only change it made:

‘‘(c) ANTISEMITISM CONSIDERED DISCRIMINA2 TION.—In carrying out the responsibilities of the recipient
3 under this title, the employee or employees designated
4 under this section shall consider antisemitism to be dis5 crimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin
6 as prohibited by this title.’’.

Only 62 Democrats voted for it, 162 Democrats voted against it

[stessier]

I'm willing to admit that I might need more education on the matter, but it seems like this is already covered by and can be prosecuted under the existing laws protecting freedom of religion.

[Isgrimnur]

If the amendment was that important, why did the Republicans almost all vote against the amended bill?

[Defiant]

I'm willing to admit that I might need more education on the matter, but it seems like this is already covered by and can be prosecuted under the existing laws protecting freedom of religion.

Perhaps it is, I don't know - but if that is the case, is there any harm in having it covered here as well?

To me, this comes off poorly for the Democrats that voted against it.

[Defiant]

If the amendment was that important, why did the Republicans almost all vote against the amended bill?

Presumably Republicans don't support the bill - that's OK, I already have rock bottom views of the Republican party.

But you can oppose a bill while still seeking to amend a bill to make it less bad. For example, you could oppose a 10 trillion dollar tax cut, but still put forward an amendment to make sure that the poor and middle class get their fair share, rather than it all going to the 1%.

[Isgrimnur]

Motion to recommit

A motion to recommit is the last chance for Members of Congress (MoCs) to stop or amend a bill before it gets a final vote on the floor of the House. The minority party has the right to offer this motion as the final step before a vote on passage, which in practice means that the majority party may not know what’s in the motion until minutes before they have to vote on it.

The motion enables legislators to either send a bill back to the committee of jurisdiction (if it is a “straight” motion), or amend the bill without sending it back to committee (if it is a motion to recommit “with instructions”). It is rare for these motions to pass, since they are typically offered by the minority party to try to stop the majority from achieving final passage.

But Republicans have quickly figured out how to weaponize this procedural maneuver against Democrats. Their strategy? Pick an issue they think will divide Democrats, throw it into a last-minute MTR, and peel off just enough Dems to successfully water down an otherwise progressive bill with something problematic.
...
Democrats should oppose all MTRs because they are offered in bad faith to derail the underlying bill. These MTRs are brought to the floor solely to help Republican candidates run attack ads in future elections, and Democrats who vote for a Republican MTR are only granting them cover for their efforts. They just want to be able to run an ad that says, "Your Democratic MoC voted for/against X," even though the underlying bill had nothing to do with whatever the ad is about. Instead of falling into the Republicans’ trap, Democrats should vote together to reject bad faith MTRs, to deny Republicans an ongoing tool to interfere with passage of our progressive priorities.

[Defiant]

Does adding antisemitism to what is considered discrimination water down the bill?

[Isgrimnur]

Amendment:

In carrying out the responsibilities of the recipient under this title, the employee or employees designated under this section shall consider antisemitism to be discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin as prohibited by this title.’’

Which is being a Semite? A race, color, or national origin? And is anti-semitism defined anywhere in the amended law? Or is it a "know it when I see it" definition?

[LawBeefaroni]

Motion to recommit

A motion to recommit is the last chance for Members of Congress (MoCs) to stop or amend a bill before it gets a final vote on the floor of the House. The minority party has the right to offer this motion as the final step before a vote on passage, which in practice means that the majority party may not know what’s in the motion until minutes before they have to vote on it.

The motion enables legislators to either send a bill back to the committee of jurisdiction (if it is a “straight” motion), or amend the bill without sending it back to committee (if it is a motion to recommit “with instructions”). It is rare for these motions to pass, since they are typically offered by the minority party to try to stop the majority from achieving final passage.

But Republicans have quickly figured out how to weaponize this procedural maneuver against Democrats. Their strategy? Pick an issue they think will divide Democrats, throw it into a last-minute MTR, and peel off just enough Dems to successfully water down an otherwise progressive bill with something problematic.
...
Democrats should oppose all MTRs because they are offered in bad faith to derail the underlying bill. These MTRs are brought to the floor solely to help Republican candidates run attack ads in future elections, and Democrats who vote for a Republican MTR are only granting them cover for their efforts. They just want to be able to run an ad that says, "Your Democratic MoC voted for/against X," even though the underlying bill had nothing to do with whatever the ad is about. Instead of falling into the Republicans’ trap, Democrats should vote together to reject bad faith MTRs, to deny Republicans an ongoing tool to interfere with passage of our progressive priorities.

It's procedural theatrics.

[ImLawBoy]

Amendment:

In carrying out the responsibilities of the recipient under this title, the employee or employees designated under this section shall consider antisemitism to be discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin as prohibited by this title.’’

Which is being a Semite? A race, color, or national origin? And is anti-semitism defined anywhere in the amended law? Or is it a "know it when I see it" definition?

Just looking at what you posted, it doesn't matter. Antisemitism is being defined as discrimination based on race, color, or national origin - it really doesn't matter which one. Once you've determined there is discrimination based on antisemitism, you don't need to continue your analysis.

[Isgrimnur]

I still need the legal definition. And why is it not discrimination on the basis of religion?

[Defiant]

Which is being a Semite?

*facepalm*

[ImLawBoy]

I still need the legal definition. And why is it not discrimination on the basis of religion?

I see. You're looking for how you determine there was discrimination based on antisemitism rather than specifically wondering whether antisemitism falls under race, color, or national origin. I haven't read the bill (and I don't plan to), but I can speculate with the best of 'em. I'm guessing it's not specifically defined anywhere (or it would be capitalized), so it's probably a "know it when I see it" thing. I'm guessing it doesn't fall under religion because people can be culturally Jewish without being religious. Likewise, one could argue that it's not based on race, color, or national origin, because what if you're dealing with a non-religious person with Jewish heritage who's ancestry is German or Polish? I can see a need to close a potential loophole there (and if I'm reading the follow up right here, the loophole was later closed with D support and no R support).

[Defiant]

And why is it not discrimination on the basis of religion?

IANAL, but unlike most religions, You can also be Jewish without being religious. Also being Jewish is also an ethnicity. Which could count as race or national origin, depending. Historically, Jews have often not been considered as white (but sometimes have been). And anti-semitism often takes the form of racial hatred, with Jews being a "lesser race".

[ImLawBoy]

And why is it not discrimination on the basis of religion?

IANAL, but unlike most religions, Being Jewish is also an ethnicity. Which could count as race or national origin, depending. Historically, Jews have often not been considered as white. And anti-semitism often takes the form of racial hatred, with Jews being a "lesser race".

I think it's ambiguous enough that I could see wanting that specifically called out.

[LawBeefaroni]

And why is it not discrimination on the basis of religion?

IANAL, but unlike most religions, You can also be Jewish without being religious. Also Being Jewish is also an ethnicity.Which could count as race or national origin, depending. Historically, Jews have often not been considered as white. And anti-semitism often takes the form of racial hatred, with Jews being a "lesser race".

My FIL was born Jewish into a non-practicing family and was even baptized during the Nazi occupation in attempt to avoid persecution. He was still persecuted by the Nazis and ended up with the Partisan resistance. Then after the war he fled the Communists, who didn't like Jews either.

He lit a menorah for the first time in his life last year, at the insistance of a granddaughter who was trying to get on touch with her heritage.

He's definitely Jewish but definitely not religious. Save for his deep faith in science.

[stessier]

I don't know - it sure seems like it would fall under Race for me. If it doesn't because they are classified as white, then I don't know how you define the born outside of Israel, non-religious Jew as Jewish. Like, how does a prosecutor say you are being antisemitic to that hypothetical without saying it's because of their race?

[ImLawBoy]

I don't know - it sure seems like it would fall under Race for me. If it doesn't because they are classified as white, then I don't know how you define the born outside of Israel, non-religious Jew as Jewish. Like, how does a prosecutor say you are being antisemitic to that hypothetical without saying it's because of their race?

But do you ever see "Jewish" as a race option on forms you fill out for government purposes? I don't know the answer for sure, but I don't recall seeing it. Still, just by the virtue that we can't be 100% sure, the safe thing to do is call it out specifically.

[stessier]

I don't know - it sure seems like it would fall under Race for me. If it doesn't because they are classified as white, then I don't know how you define the born outside of Israel, non-religious Jew as Jewish. Like, how does a prosecutor say you are being antisemitic to that hypothetical without saying it's because of their race?

But do you ever see "Jewish" as a race option on forms you fill out for government purposes? I don't know the answer for sure, but I don't recall seeing it. Still, just by the virtue that we can't be 100% sure, the safe thing to do is call it out specifically.

My fear is that by calling this out specifically, it limits a broad interpretation for other, non-specific designated groups. "Hey, you never said this specifically, and you had the chance, so no discrimination!"

I agree that I don't think I've ever seen it Jewish on government forms though.

[ImLawBoy]

I don't know - it sure seems like it would fall under Race for me. If it doesn't because they are classified as white, then I don't know how you define the born outside of Israel, non-religious Jew as Jewish. Like, how does a prosecutor say you are being antisemitic to that hypothetical without saying it's because of their race?

But do you ever see "Jewish" as a race option on forms you fill out for government purposes? I don't know the answer for sure, but I don't recall seeing it. Still, just by the virtue that we can't be 100% sure, the safe thing to do is call it out specifically.

My fear is that by calling this out specifically, it limits a broad interpretation for other, non-specific designated groups. "Hey, you never said this specifically, and you had the chance, so no discrimination!"

I agree that I don't think I've ever seen it Jewish on government forms though.

The goal with a law like this is to avoid ambiguity, though. If you leave it broad enough that you can shoehorn other, non-specific designated groups in, you run the risk of having the law struck down as unconstitutionally vague.

[Isgrimnur]

HR 2574



Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.)

No mention of antisemitism in the text.

Until...

Executive Order 13899 of December 11, 2019



New Statesman: Full text: IHRA’s working definition of anti-Semitism

Contemporary examples of anti-Semitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
...
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Business Insider: 'Textbook anti-Semitism': American Jews condemn Trump for repeatedly telling them that Israel is 'your country'

During an annual White House conference call to honor the upcoming High Holidays on Wednesday, Trump told American Jewish leaders, "we really appreciate you, we love your country also and thank you very much."
...
The president's apparent suggestion that Americans are Israelis is similar to previous remarks Trump has made and sparked outrage over, including when he told an audience of Jewish Americans that Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu is "your prime minister" and called Jews who are Democrats "disloyal."

CNS News

The White House has already signaled the president would veto [HR 2574] if it arrived on his desk.

[LawBeefaroni]

Oh, Michigan, you.

Heavily-armed protestors, some waving Confederate flags and Trump campaign banners, stood on the lawn outside the capitol building in Lansing brandishing AR-15 firearms and wearing body armour.

Among those in attendance were members of the Proud Boys—a far-right, all-male organization with a history of violence against political opponents—and the Michigan Liberty Militia, a paramilitary group.

[stessier]

I don't know - it sure seems like it would fall under Race for me. If it doesn't because they are classified as white, then I don't know how you define the born outside of Israel, non-religious Jew as Jewish. Like, how does a prosecutor say you are being antisemitic to that hypothetical without saying it's because of their race?

But do you ever see "Jewish" as a race option on forms you fill out for government purposes? I don't know the answer for sure, but I don't recall seeing it. Still, just by the virtue that we can't be 100% sure, the safe thing to do is call it out specifically.

My fear is that by calling this out specifically, it limits a broad interpretation for other, non-specific designated groups. "Hey, you never said this specifically, and you had the chance, so no discrimination!"

I agree that I don't think I've ever seen it Jewish on government forms though.

The goal with a law like this is to avoid ambiguity, though. If you leave it broad enough that you can shoehorn other, non-specific designated groups in, you run the risk of having the law struck down as unconstitutionally vague.

Is that what this is doing? To me it's just throwing anti-Semitism in the race/creed/origin test for discrimination from what I can see. That's a 50 year old test that has been broadened just this year by SCOTUS, not narrowed. And I would argue that test alone would cover any anti-Semitic discrimination as violating part of the standard list.

[ImLawBoy]

I don't know - it sure seems like it would fall under Race for me. If it doesn't because they are classified as white, then I don't know how you define the born outside of Israel, non-religious Jew as Jewish. Like, how does a prosecutor say you are being antisemitic to that hypothetical without saying it's because of their race?

But do you ever see "Jewish" as a race option on forms you fill out for government purposes? I don't know the answer for sure, but I don't recall seeing it. Still, just by the virtue that we can't be 100% sure, the safe thing to do is call it out specifically.

My fear is that by calling this out specifically, it limits a broad interpretation for other, non-specific designated groups. "Hey, you never said this specifically, and you had the chance, so no discrimination!"

I agree that I don't think I've ever seen it Jewish on government forms though.

The goal with a law like this is to avoid ambiguity, though. If you leave it broad enough that you can shoehorn other, non-specific designated groups in, you run the risk of having the law struck down as unconstitutionally vague.

Is that what this is doing? To me it's just throwing anti-Semitism in the race/creed/origin test for discrimination from what I can see. That's a 50 year old test that has been broadened just this year by SCOTUS, not narrowed. And I would argue that test alone would cover any anti-Semitic discrimination as violating part of the standard list.

You've got a couple of things going on here. One is whether or not this was a stunt by the Rs to make it look like the Ds don't care about antisemitism. Obviously, it was. Despite the Ds apparently putting it in the final bill without R support via other means, it appears to have worked (at least to some extent).

The other thing going on is more theoretical in nature about why you might need to put antisemitism specifically into a bill, regardless of what the current SCOTUS interpretation of the question is. I maintain that there is no harm in adding it from that perspective (and there are even good reasons to do so), if for no other reason than it makes it absolutely clear what the intent is so that it won't even be challenged on that basis in the courts.