l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 If Rachel Dolezal Has a ‘Right’ to Be Black, American Public Policy Will
Have to Play Catch-Up
by Charles C. W. Cooke June 17, 2015 12:09 PM
@charlescwcooke
Echoing sentiments that have been hinted at by MSNBC’s Melissa Harris Perry
and The View’s Whoopi Goldberg, a professor of law and sociology at the
USC Gould School of Law today argues that Rachel Dolezal has a “right to be
black.” Here’s her conclusion:
Dolezal’s case forces us to examine our society, which made her feel
that passing for a black woman was her best choice in her advocacy for
African American issues. She forces us to consider whether our biology or
our action is more important to identity, and should we act in ways that
honor our chosen identity in meaningful ways. We should not have to be
slaves to the biological definition of identity, and we should not use race
or gender identities as weapons to punish one another.
Fair enough. But I would be interested to see a follow-up piece in which the
author, Camille Gear Rich, grapples with what the likely practical
consequences of such a shift should be. “I will not indict [Dolezal] for
her choice to link herself to this community,” Rich writes, “and I would
consider her claim no greater if she identified a long lost African ancestor
.” Okay. But one has to ask where the limits are here. In a vacuum, it is
no skin off my nose how Dolezal chooses to behave in private. If she wishes
to tell people she’s black, that’s her prerogative. If she genuinely
believes that she is black, that’s her prerogative. Hell, if she wishes to
lie brazenly about her past, that’s her prerogative. But we do not live
entirely in a vacuum, under laws that draw no distinctions between people.
Rather, for better or for worse, we have set up a whole host of institutions
, programs, and conventions that were explicitly intended to help those have
been historically victimized by the state and by the majority. It is all
very well for Camille Rich to suggest in theory that Dolezal should be able
to “link herself to this community” regardless of her ancestry. But one
has to inquire what that would mean in practice. Slowly but surely,
transgender groups are convincing state governments to recognize the altered
state of those who have transitioned — to the extent that even birth
certificates are being amended post-hoc. Will the state be expected to treat
Rachel Dolezal in a similar manner?
If so, questions abound. Should those who behave like Dolezal be eligible
for affirmative action programs that have been established in order to help
right historical wrongs? If not, why not? Should those of her persuasion be
entitled to scholarships that are set up explicitly for minority students?
If not, why not? Were she to find herself as a plaintiff, should she be
regarded as part of a “suspect class” by the United States Supreme Court?
Should she be eligible for any reparations that might, in the future, be
coming? If not, why not? Dolezal claims to be Native American, too. Should
she be subject to the legal exceptions that have been carved out for that
group? If the answer to any of these questions is “No,” can it honestly be
said with a straight face — as Rich specifically does — that Dolezal’s
claim to her identity would be “no greater if she identified a long lost .
. . ancestor”?
In a country in which to tick one’s race off on a government form is often
to prompt practical and meaningful consequences, can we really have a system
in which one can elect to choose that race on the basis of one’s feelings?
I rather think not. It is absolutely fine for race to be treated as social
construct, so that if you think you’re black, you present yourself as black
, and you are treated as black, you’re black. It is not fine, however, to
completely ignore the implications of this shift. At the very least, it
would be nice to see those who are proposing the change acknowledge that, if
they get their way, our institutions are going to have to play catch-up —
and not always in a direction that they will enjoy. | T*********s
发帖数: 2987 | 2 re
"If so, questions abound. Should those who behave like Dolezal be eligible
for affirmative action programs that have been established in order to help
right historical wrongs? If not, why not? Should those of her persuasion be
entitled to scholarships that are set up explicitly for minority students?
If not, why not? Were she to find herself as a plaintiff, should she be
regarded as part of a “suspect class” by the United States Supreme Court?
Should she be eligible for any reparations that might, in the future, be
coming? If not, why not? Dolezal claims to be Native American, too. Should
she be subject to the legal exceptions that have been carved out for that
group? If the answer to any of these questions is “No,” can it honestly
be
said with a straight face — as Rich specifically does — that Dolezal’s
claim to her identity would be “no greater if she identified a long lost .
. . ancestor”?
" | T*********I
发帖数: 10729 | 3 她无权这么说。不能因为我认为我是美国人就可以非法移民。
针对种族倾斜的政策应该统统统统统统统统地扔到垃圾桶里。 | A*****a
发帖数: 52743 | 4 人是不是有权认为自己是狗，然后要求领养呢？
【在 T*********I 的大作中提到】
: 她无权这么说。不能因为我认为我是美国人就可以非法移民。
: 针对种族倾斜的政策应该统统统统统统统统地扔到垃圾桶里。
| b*****e
发帖数: 53215 | 5 you have a right to be a dog, then pay no tax, oh yeah!
【在 A*****a 的大作中提到】
: 人是不是有权认为自己是狗，然后要求领养呢？
| T*********I
发帖数: 10729 | 6 如果我们仍然认为美国是共和制，即：以法治国，那么人在认为自己是狗，同时要社会
承认自己的这种权利，就必须接受相应的法律上的implication。
比如，在美国的某些州，A的行为导致一只动物死亡，虽然可能有民事，但是没有刑事
责任的。
如果人可以有权认为自己是任何自己想象的物体。我不觉得大家能接受这个新的权利带
来的规则的改变。
因此我认为法律不会承认A是狗，尽管A认为自己是狗。
【在 A*****a 的大作中提到】
: 人是不是有权认为自己是狗，然后要求领养呢？
| b*****o
发帖数: 6080 | | U********S
发帖数: 1896 | | j*****v
发帖数: 7717 | 9 是，Rachel有权说自己或认定自己是黑人。但左婢真让大家接受她可以归为黑人就是无
耻+无知。
就像楼上那个说的，如果说自己是狗，结果被人杀了。左婢给说说杀"人"的人是按杀人
审理还是杀狗审理？
如果左婢说是杀人罪，那如何能承认认定自己是黑人的Rachel就是黑人？
【在 T*********I 的大作中提到】
: 如果我们仍然认为美国是共和制，即：以法治国，那么人在认为自己是狗，同时要社会
: 承认自己的这种权利，就必须接受相应的法律上的implication。
: 比如，在美国的某些州，A的行为导致一只动物死亡，虽然可能有民事，但是没有刑事
: 责任的。
: 如果人可以有权认为自己是任何自己想象的物体。我不觉得大家能接受这个新的权利带
: 来的规则的改变。
: 因此我认为法律不会承认A是狗，尽管A认为自己是狗。
| p**j
发帖数: 7063 | 10 左B们就是要这种两边都可以随意认定，他们可以随意解释，可以两边占便宜的权力。
【在 j*****v 的大作中提到】
: 是，Rachel有权说自己或认定自己是黑人。但左婢真让大家接受她可以归为黑人就是无
: 耻+无知。
: 就像楼上那个说的，如果说自己是狗，结果被人杀了。左婢给说说杀"人"的人是按杀人
: 审理还是杀狗审理？
: 如果左婢说是杀人罪，那如何能承认认定自己是黑人的Rachel就是黑人？
| l*******g
发帖数: 27064 | 11 没错，左逼搅屎棍就是这么搞乱社会价值观
祸乱国家的
【在 p**j 的大作中提到】
: 左B们就是要这种两边都可以随意认定，他们可以随意解释，可以两边占便宜的权力。
| k****m
发帖数: 4670 | 12 看到一个评论说，
我认为自己是一条狗，是不是可以不交税。。。。。。。
当时，我就笑傻了。。。。。。
【在 A*****a 的大作中提到】
: 人是不是有权认为自己是狗，然后要求领养呢？
|
|
