What a caste discrimination ban means for Americans
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
That is absolutely terrible. I worry that such attitudes will take more than legislation like this to fix.
The Equal Rights Act was passed in 1972, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act in 1974 first legally mandated women be allowed to open independent bank and credit accounts. It took about a generation for women to be in the workforce at ratios approaching men (https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/FT_18...), and yet the ratios moved.
What is rarely ever pointed out is that as Brahmins reach higher and higher levels of management, they surround themselves with other Brahmins exclusively; they only hire or promote other Brahmins for higher management posts. Non-Brahmins AND non-Indians are pushed aside to make way.
If you think this caste issue doesn't affect you, it already does or it will in the future.
Trying to list all possible factors is a never-ending task. Caste? Gender? Income? Eye color? Medical history? Height? Favorite color? Any or all of those could be relevant in some circumstances, and not in others.
"Oh no we couldn't hire a woman as an advertising executive, we hold one of our conferences in a men only resort."
Like it or not we do seem to need a (known to be non-exhaustive) list of categories to point at and occasionally update and say “these are things about persons that you cannot use against them”.
In the context of modern discrimination law, these are called “protected classes”, and it seems wise to add caste to the list: https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protecte...
You could well argue that caste is implicit in either religion or race, but it’s a lot simpler to just enumerate it again and be clear at the cost of a little redundancy, especially when we know that these words are going to be sliced and diced as carefully as possible by adversarially-minded legal experts to their advantage.
No, that would be much more complicated, because it would make literally every decision in the subject domain presumptively invalid, because every decision discriminates on some grounds. And relevance is highly subjective, where its applicable as an exception to laws otherwise liniting discrimination on particular bases, the relevance analysis is the complicated part of applying the law, the identified categories which narrow where that even needs to be done are the simple part.
Note that for government discrimination, it kind of works that way, but different bases of discrimination have different relevance tests.
In this example, I'm reluctant to hand either the executive or the court as much leeway as "actual relevance" would hand them.
Trying to list all possible factors is a never-ending task, but these are issues society itself tends to be contentious on; given that people don't fully agree on the underlying philosophy of why we pass these laws, and the laws carry the threat of government force with them, it's probably wise to make them clear.
How do you define relevant? If statistically ethnicity was shown to strongly predict the chance of someone not paying their rent, would that count as "relevant"? Statistically race is predictive of many things, but in the west people have decided that racial discrimination is inherently bad because it punishes individuals for things they have no control over (their race), so the discrimination is not allowed even when justified in a statistical sense.
There is certain subset of HN users so, that seems to be very fine with discrimination.
If you were to ban all discrimination, then you couldn't choose who you hire for a job - after all, you couldn't discriminate against people without relevant experience, or skills, or abilities, could you?
Relevant discrimination is not only okay, it's essential! So the problem then becomes trying to define laws in such a way as to disallow the unfair discrimination while also allowing reasonable discrimination. People who are determined to be, eg, racist or homophobic will try and use the very edges of the anti-unfair-discrimination laws to get away with unfair discrimination that is obviously unfair but _technically legal_.
And that's how you end up with complex laws and lists of protected characteristics.
Edit: Come to think of it, aren't Indians totally fine with arranged marriages?
At the workplace, this is plain-vanilla religious discrimination: discriminating against someone based on how they practice their faith.
In that they are groups socially constructed inherited ascribed identities to which social status and significance are attached, yes, they are “like” races.
> If that’s the case isn’t this already technically illegal as racial discrimination?
There are arguments that the various forms of caste discrimination are or necessarily involve ancestry, racial, ethnic, nationality, and/or religious discrimination as defined in law prior to this, but it's an extra hurdle to make people separately prove that the particular discrimination fits into what is established as one or more of those categories, rather than having “perceived position in a system of social stratification on the basis of inherited status” explicitly included in the definition of “ancestry”, which removes the need for each individual subject to sucb discrimination to make the case that it is in one of the prohibited categories rather than something somewhat similar but not included.
It would be more historically correct here to say that the whole notion as found in the Americas of 'race' as a system of pervasive discrimination and unequal status was explicitly designed to be "like" caste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casta
Yes. A combination of prohibitions on inter-caste marriage and the propensity for the upper castes—the ruling classes—to interbreed with India’s rotating cast of West Eurasian conquerors has lead to genetic differentiation between its castes [1].
That said, clarifying this statutorily is cleaner than punting to the judiciary.
In legal terms: it's massively different because non-Brahmin isn't legally recognized as a protected minority race, so there are essentially no explicit guards or support in place.
Pretty much only the legal use of any of this is relevant for a legal blocker on discrimination, so it can get oddly pedantic at times. The goal is to stop widely-known and well-documented discrimination, but the terms are whatever will achieve that in a legal environment.
Is this a legal concept in the USA? I thought it just left it at “race” and everything legally was symmetric across all “races” (though perhaps not always in practice).
For this case, you'll need to get X to be legally recognized as a distinct race from Y (that has not happened in this case), and minority races have MUCH more protection than ones that are seen as a majority. It also tends to be sensitive to employment statistics broadly and in an area, and "Indian" is often not "under-represented" even if some sub-races are being massively oppressed.
It's more of a "yes, race is a protected characteristic. that doesn't mean it matches your definition of race" thing. You could probably successfully sue on it and get it effectively recognized via that precedent, but it'll be a substantial legal battle to get there and many cases do not establish legal precedent.
A more historically recent but analogous scenario is the social and racial structure of Latin America, wherein those with more white European ancestry tend to have higher social status compared to those with more indigenous ancestry. Most people have some of both, but in the logic of such systems, proportions of ancestry matter, and phenotypical visual appearance is used as a proxy to gauge this, whether in South Asia or Latin America.
Also, the connection between South Asia and Latin America's rationalization of their social systems is not coincidental. The term "caste" itself is derived from the Portuguese word "casta" used by traders in South Asia to describe the prevalent social structure they encountered. They (and the Spanish) quite deliberately imported this model to their colonies in the Americas.
They are among people who want to discriminate on the basis of race.
https://www.familyeducation.com/baby-names/name-meaning/shuk...
Indian (northern states) : Hindu (Brahman) name, from Sanskrit šukla ‘white’, ‘bright’, ‘pure’. A shukla Brahman was supposed to take up only shuklavritti ‘pure employment’, i.e. maintenance derived from serving or begging from Brahmans only.
You would appear to be correct.
It reminds me of the adage "When someone is accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression".
There was a case against Cisco systems for alleged caste-based discrimination, which also was often mentioned in such coverage in the past. It is noteworthy that the case was dropped. More details with legalese is here[1] and a piece by Hindu America Foundation (that opposes such bills) is here[2].
Not to say that caste is not an issue among Indians (in India), however using this survey as the ultimate truth and a source for creating laws does not seem wise.
[0] https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/06/09/social-realities-of...
[1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u0jxQY_cLti2XP3nEw0d9OBa...
[2] https://theprint.in/opinion/dismissal-of-cisco-case-proves-e...
Either it doesn't happen/doesn't happen enough for a law so this is most effectively virtue signalling without any negative outcomes.
Or it does happen and this can help take steps against it.
There is no situation that allowing discrimination by caste to continue is a benefit to anyone other than those that are at the top of the caste system. That is inherently against western social views and anthema to equality.
This. The US is not here for you to reproduce your oppressive hierarchy from the old country, no matter what hierarchy it was or what country it was from.
From the article;
Suhag Shukla, the executive director of advocacy group Hindu American Foundation, said that the bill would give California businesses a “license to discriminate against South Asians”. The group has lobbied against the bill, saying its passage would trigger a rise in Hinduphobia.
It is a very nuanced problem fanned by vested interests and hence passing a blanket bill without understanding the issues involved can actually do more harm than good. See https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/a-discriminatory-affair-ho...
There have been many articles submitted previously on this subject. You might want to study the reports done by Carnegie Endowment on Indian-Americans listed in my previous comment here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37333418
Yes and for a very good reason; i don't want to bias your understanding of the matter with my own take/words. Given the amount of misinformation/insinuations/malicious agendas/emotional manipulations involved over this subject it is imperative that people read up on both the objective (Carnegie endowment article) and subjective (both pro and con articles) before trying to discuss/understand the issues. Hence i have provided a very small number of relevant links which can easily be read in a few minutes for personal edification.
Fundamentally cultural incomparability is not racist. Your arguments for, and tolerance of caste discrimination, are not compatible with western ideals.
You may keep your views and culture and live how you like. I wish you and others no ill will. I will advocate for others around me to respect you while disagreeing with what you say or how you act in this case.
Caste Discrimination is wrong and is not welcome in the society were currently discussing legally. If you require that ability, or the toleration of that, then you are not welcome in said society.
Discrimination in any form (both explicit and implicit) is already illegal in the US and laws exist for its redressal. Workplaces can make it very explicit in their policies as needed. Hence any caste discrimination problem can be treated on a case-by-case basis rather than by a blanket bill which will paint a big target on the backs of a whole community for no fault of their own i.e. presumption of guilt will be instituted. This is even more important when you realize that there are malicious/vested interests involved which are at work to fracture and damage a hardworking and upstanding community who are in a upward trajectory in the US.
Note that Google did not allow Equality Labs (and others) to do their rabble-rousing in the company due to these very reasons i.e. they would deal with it on a case-by-case basis if it happened. Last i checked, the Cisco case has also been dismissed as not involving caste discrimination. All evidence points to caste discrimination NOT being "widespread and systemic" in the Indian-American community. Pushing through laws/bills based on sentiment/insinuations is the very definition of Wokeism/sjw gone wrong.
> The supposed future actions of a bigoted few is not an argument that stands against refusing to protect another group or stand up against a wrong.
"Caste" is quite different from Racism etc. Most educated Indians in the US (and in urban India) do not identify with caste at all and as pointed out above it is not the problem that it is being painted to be in the US by vested interests. One should not institute make-believe fairness which may make matters worse when there is not much evidence of unfairness in the first place.
I must again ask you to read and understand the points raised in my other comment here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37701727
> Your arguments for, and tolerance of caste discrimination, are not compatible with western ideals.
You either have a severe lack of English comprehension skills or are deliberately insinuating things which i have not said at all (you owe me an apology). I have never argued for nor advocated tolerance for caste discrimination but am pointing out the lack of evidence on the ground for the same in the US. Your above line is the very reason why Indian-Americans are fighting against these sort of bills i.e. ignorance coupled with wokeism making decisions with no clue of what the consequences might turn out to be.
Caste Discrimination is like any other form of discrimination. It's wrong.
Pretending being opposed to it is racist is hilarious. I've read your shallow arguments.
There is no case by case basis needed for any segment we see as a protected class now, and caste fits perfectly in there.
While there may not be a large amount of abuse I have personally witnessed caste discrimination and work in an environment where it happens regularly enough I see the value of these laws and regulations filling in where companies are too scared to step up and address it on their own as many are.
There was a lot of backlash against anti racism laws too. That doesn't justify it.
What? There are real consequences to stupid laws/regulations as has been shown again and again. You might want to checkout Consequences Matter: Thomas Sowell on “Social Justice Fallacies” - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn2gda_phAA
> Caste Discrimination is like any other form of discrimination. It's wrong.
This is NOT what is being argued (it is a given). The issue is whether it is prevalent enough in the US to warrant laws/regulations.
> Pretending being opposed to it is racist is hilarious. I've read your shallow arguments.
You attacked me explicitly and got called out on that so don't hide behind glib and flippant statements. As pointed out above, from your comments it is clear that you have not even understood the issue being discussed. I have given you links to all sorts of data and arguments while you have given me nothing in support of your arguments.
> I have personally witnessed caste discrimination and work in an environment where it happens regularly enough
Where is the evidence/proof (even the Cisco case has been dismissed)? Making such claims anonymously on a internet forum is the very definition of agenda-driven Hinduphobia. Anonymous accusations have zero credibility. If you really were concerned about the issue you would call out the companies/individuals involved under your own name. But seeing that you are not doing so leads one to the inescapable conclusion that you are being untruthful (to put it mildly) .
California governor Gavin Newsom vetoes Hinduphobic bill (SB-403) - https://swarajyamag.com/politics/big-win-for-us-hindu-commun...
Governor's veto message here (pdf) - https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/SB-403-Vet...
How?
I'm very interested to understand the "more harm than good" part, but the firstpost article you linked doesn't touch on them at all. The article seems to be focused on how the special interests groups are pushing their special interests.
There is a concern that Hindu and Indian employees will now be looked at with suspicion because employers simply won’t want to deal with frivolous lawsuits.
From the get-go, CoHNA made it clear that they abhor caste discrimination. Dalits and “lower” caste members of CoHNA were vocal that this law would institutionalize the very thing Equality Labs claimed to be fighting.
CoHNA made the strong case that although the language of the ordinance identifies caste among many religions and ethnicities, Hindus are most closely associated with caste. It very clearly paints a target on the backs of Hindu Americans and Indians and creates a presumption of guilt. There are no clear ways to identify caste or implement anti-caste discrimination laws in America.
Sara Nelson voted “No”. She asked whether the Seattle City Council had any data to support Equality Labs and Sawant’s claims of “widespread and systemic” caste discrimination. She also made the point that without ways to identify caste, there would be no way to implement it properly.
How exactly do you determine who is an “upper” caste and who is a “lower caste”? And if you can’t determine what caste someone belongs to, how do you litigate that case?
Even if you could identify someone’s caste, what would the city do if someone from a “lower caste” attempted to sue someone from another “lower caste”?
If someone chooses not to identify with a caste and someone accuses them of caste discrimination, will the city of Seattle force a caste upon them?
Thankfully, we can reference a rigorous study from the Carnegie Endowment which largely disagrees with Equality Labs’ findings.
Instead, they found that there is very little caste identification among Indian Americans, especially in those born in America and that there is even less discrimination actually experienced. It is very far from widespread and systemic.
This study acknowledges Equality Labs and criticizes the findings and methodology, most notably that Equality Labs simply removed responses where people did not identify with a caste at all.
Without guidelines on how it will be implemented, it has the opportunity for great misuse. Hindu children will now be looked at with suspicion in college admissions if they choose not to identify as caste because Equality Labs says that this is a mark of privilege and indicates “higher caste” or “oppressor caste”. Hindu and Indian employees will now be looked at with suspicion because employers simply won’t want to deal with frivolous lawsuits,
And finally, it paints the entire Hindu religion in the way Equality Labs would like – as irredeemable and worthy of dismantling as Soundararajan has stated in multiple interviews and tweets.
>There has been no ruling yet on whether any form of caste-based discrimination or harassment had in fact occurred.
The listed links to articles give the actual data which helps one to make an informed decision if one would but read them.
Shia/Sunni discriminating against each other is religious discrimination, which is banned in the US. Han Chinese discriminating against non-Han is racial discrimination, which is banned in the US. Indians discriminating against other Indians based on cast is not banned, if they share the same race and religion. The new law aims to remedy this gap.
Historically this sort of discrimination is incredibly sticky whenever it appears. People teach their kids and their kids teach their kids and so on. Then their neighbors, media, etc... reinforce the stereotypes with stories about said groups. It's incredibly difficult to stamp out because it is so self-reinforcing.
I see no reasonable way that a law saying caste-discrimination isn't ok will cause people to start discriminating by caste. I think that's utter nonsense and you're going to have to provide some kind of evidence for such an outlandish assertion.