Best discrimination law books according to redditors

Here is a rather lengthy article in The Atlantic covering this and many other "mismatch" points. The Atlantic is covering high points from the Mismatch book. I've got a source which focuses on this specific point in one of these folders, shuffling papers, somewhere.

Edit: Here it is, it's a PDF. Page 7 specifically shows the statistics from Prop 209. Despite minority apllication, acceptance, and enrollment drops; graduation rates significantly increased. Actual numbers graduating also increased by a small amount.

Okay, just for shits and giggles.

In the United States:

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/13/us/marital-rape-drive-for-tougher-laws-is-pressed.html (that's right, as recently as 1982 a rape conviction was overturned on the basis that a dude by definition couldn't rape his wife!)

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32701 - North Carolina exempted husbands from being prosecuted for rape of their wives in 1997!

http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/pdf/US_History_of_Marital_Rape.pdf (cites its own sources at the end)

http://marriage.about.com/cs/maritalrape/f/maritalrape10.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-02-07-spousalrape-arizona_x.htm - raping your wife is illegal, but way LESS illegal than if you weren't married to her! cool!

In the UK:

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1991/12.html - they didn't settle this shit until 1991!

In other specific countries:

http://www.oas.org/dil/Sexual_Offences_and_Domestic_Violence_Act_Bahamas.pdf

http://equalitynow.org/english/campaigns/beijing15/report_en.html

http://www.amazon.com/Violence-Womens-Rights-South-Asia/dp/0761997962/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343963433&sr=1-1 and http://newsblaze.com/story/20081014080156zzzz.nb/topstory.html

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/vaw_legislation_2008/expertpapers/EGMGPLVAW%20Paper%20(Karen%20Stefiszyn).pdf

http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=383&key=24&parent=23&report=86

http://www.arrow.org.my/publications/ICPD+15Country&ThematicCaseStudies/ThematicCaseStudies/Sexuality&Rights.pdf

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/wha/136102.htm

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/vaw_legislation_2008/expertpapers/EGMGPLVAW%20Paper%20(Karen%20Stefiszyn).pdf

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA15/001/2009/en/34c4959d-8833-4c3e-8b3b-34dfe99c9593/asa150012009en.html

http://www.trust.org/trustlaw/news/allegedly-false-rape-reports-make-authorities-skeptical-discourage-victims-in-cameroon

http://www.mdg5watch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=93&Itemid=155#_edn21

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2010.300070

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/laws_that_discriminate_against_women.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/Law-Service-Legitimacy-Catherine-Warrick/dp/0754675874/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343963609&sr=1-1

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,CEDAW,CONCOBSERVATIONS,GEO,,453778142,0.html

http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/01/24/chance-congress-help-haitian-women

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/topic,4565c22547,4565c25f569,4b7cee7c26,0.html

http://www.amazon.com/International-Approaches-Rape-Geetanjali-Gangoli/dp/1847426204/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343963667&sr=1-1

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/laws_that_discriminate_against_women.pdf

http://www.musawah.org/musawah-thematic-report-article-16-kuwait-and-oman

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/wom1743.doc.htm

http://stanford.edu/group/womenscourage/cgi-bin/blogs/sextraffickingandprostitution/2010/05/13/liberias-struggle-against-sexual-violence-in-the-wake-of-conflict/

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=12055

www.ucm.es/info/estpsi/master/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/mujeres-en-la-ue-estadisticas.pdf

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/vaw_legislation_2008/expertpapers/EGMGPLVAW%20Paper%20(Karen%20Stefiszyn).pdf

http://www.map-srhr.org/chapters/ch-3-overview-of-sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-rights-in-africa/mali#instruments-and-policies

http://stopvaw.org/sites/3f6d15f4-c12d-4515-8544-26b7a3a5a41e/uploads/Sexualabusefacteng.pdf

http://www.burmalibrary.org/docs5/CEDAW-C-MMR-CO-3.pdf

http://www.musawah.org/musawah-thematic-report-article-16-kuwait-and-oman

http://www.amazon.com/Human-Rights-Watch-World-Report/dp/1583227407/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343963790&sr=1-1

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/nea/136079.htm

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;ident=c834c73a-3531-48b0-8040-4450d41d1351;page=0;query=Status%3Ainforce%20CapAct%3A224%20Depth%3A0;rec=0;resUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fstatutes.agc.gov.sg%2Faol%2Fsearch%2Fsummary%2Fresults.w3p%3Bquery%3DStatus%253Ainforce%2520CapAct%253A224%2520Depth%253A0#pr375-he-.

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?page=search&docid=4c84c0fb2&skip=0&query=syria%20marital%20rape

http://www.wccc.tbu.to/news/gaps-in-tongan-rape-law-need-to-be-addressed/

http://www.observer.ug/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8645%3Athe-phenomenon-of-marital-rape&catid=73%3Ahighlights&Itemid=70

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8375291.stm and http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,HRW,,ZMB,494b62e917,0.html

Broadly:

http://www.popcouncil.org/pdfs/popsyn/PopulationSynthesis1.pdf

http://www.religiousconsultation.org/Special_Features/Amnesty_International_violence_vs_women.htm

http://unicef.org/publications/pub_pon97_en.pdf

And on and on and on and on.

i believe in libertarianism on a case by case basis, not as a dogmatic principle that must be followed.

For example, our foreign policy [should clearly be restrained] (http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Second-Edition-Consequences-American/dp/0805075593)

[Affirmative action harms blacks] (http://www.amazon.com/Mismatch-Affirmative-Students-%C2%92s-Universities/dp/0465029965/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1407799886&sr=1-1&keywords=mismatch)

Drug legalization would clearly not result in a society filled with addicts

Farm subsidies are useless and increase income inequality

Taxi licensing harms the poor

[Untolled highways make our country dependent on oil and harm those who cannot afford cars] (http://www.amazon.com/Asphalt-Nation-Automobile-Took-America/dp/0520216202/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1407799997&sr=1-1&keywords=asphalt+nation)

[Student loans inflate college tuition] (http://www.amazon.com/Going-Broke-Degree-College-Costs/dp/0844741973)

And so on and so forth. Each government program should be attacked on its merits.

I was attracted to libertarianism because it challenged the assumption that every problem can be solved at the moment if we put enough effort. Poverty and greed are elements of the human condition that will always be present, not things that can be solved by legislation.


Most problems is this country nowadays (sprawl, high rents, unemployment, mass incarceration, student loan debt, income inequality) are either wholly caused or exacerbated by government.

For those looking for additional information, Richard Rothstein's Color of Law is perhaps the best known book covering this. For an academic book that's readable to non-academics and focuses on how local politics generate racial and class segregation, Jessica Troustine's Segregation by Design is also good.

The term is older than that, and comes from academics of Critical Race Theory. See, e.g., Privilege Revealed, a book from 1996.

White privilege isn't about feeling guilty, and shouldn't be used to belittle anyone's experience of suffering. That's where many SJWs screw up, but it isn't an indictment of the concept itself.

As others have said, tertiary education is already over-subsidized and that has lead to a price inflation. Individuals make more reasonable and well reasoned decisions when it comes to educational choices when they have to face the costs of those choices. The labor market earnings premium for high-education in the US is high enough to establish a lending market.

The US already have the most progressive taxation system in the world. Those high-income households pay for most of the government funding and at a higher proportion than in other developed countries. If the fiscal system isn't more progressive overall is because most of the funding is then spent in subsidizing the middle class, especially old people. Your proposal would just add to that, except it'd benefit the grandchildren. Not everybody goes to university; and those who go tend to come from better-off families and they'll reap immense individual benefits - hence they should pay for it.

The worst part of your proposal is the cap though. Have you heard about what's happening in Venezuela with the toilet paper shortage? That's what would happen with high-level superior education in the US if you institute a price control system. The US universities are the envy of the world (unlike, by the way, the almost fully subsidized and "free" primary and secondary schools), no good reason to put an end to that.

I don't agree with a standardized admissions system. Universities are diverse -in size, selectivity, pedagogic methods and mission- and they know better than anyone what are the better predictors of academic success for their own students.

Still, my comment isn't totally negative: I fully agree with ending affirmative action. Not because of fairness concerns, but simply because it isn't working and it hurts minorities more than it helps. In a perfect world, this book -Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It - would be a bestseller.

> Tell me whether you agree, the changes you'd make to the plan, or how these are the naive, unrealistic ideas of a young OWS poo-flinger.

Not sure if they're naive, but they're dangerous and counterproductive to your stated goals.

Where the government resources should be applied is to make sure that poverty doesn't stop people from going to university. Income-contingent loans and scholarships. And, essentially, strengthening pre-university education. That's the real drama: many schools in poorer areas completely fail to bring their students to university entrance standard. Those who get there via affirmative action, end up dropping out to less demanding majors (and less rewarding in the professional market, inhibiting their upwards social mobility) or entirely out of college. If you're worried with social mobility, keep in mind that the US problem is the mostly the upward social mobility from the lowest quintile. Your plan would do nothing to help that youth, especially when standardized tests have such a high correlation with family background and high-school education. If you truly want to help the poor, subsidizing those who currently aren't even in conditions of going to university is better than subsidizing the tuition fees of those of better-off backgrounds who already do.

Oakland police

Turning violence into ecstasy

http://www.amazon.com/Blue-vs-Black-John-Burris/dp/0312203926

I intended to reply to you much earlier, but I knew to have any chance of convincing you would take a lot more work than I wanted to do. Anyway, I recently came across some hateful feminist rhetoric that made me think of you, and I decided to come back and respond.

Basically, it's all harmony: men being kind to women, and doing everything possible to make women happy, and women being kind to men, and doing everything possible to make men happy.

We are never going to agree, so I don't want to invest too much time having the sort of fruitless academic debate of which I'd speculated had overrun the Feminist movement.

Suffice to say, you demonstrate the same sort of world view and debate tactics that I was addressing in my original post.

First, the link you sent me.

Chart#1. I've lived in San Francisco, and hence, I didn't even need to check the sources to debunk the 100% figure. Even if my wife were the only women to have never been harassed, her experiences alone confirm that it was less than 100% of women, but I reviewed the the sources anyway. If you direct your attention to the foot notes, you find 17 footnotes:

Footnote 1) A book with 2 stars on Amazon who's methodology isn't exposed.
Footnote 2) A Canadian study which can be found online The wording of the question >"sometimes women receive unwanted attention. In this case I mean anything that does not include touching such as catcalls, whistling, leering, or blowing kisses. Have you ever received unwanted attention from a male stranger" 60% said yes Now, that's 60% simply for unwanted attention at some point in their lives.
Footnote 3) A link to a page describing a study where the methodology is not exposed, and the link to the study is dead.
Footnote 4) A book which seems to be largely about racism where women were asked whether they'd ever been the target of "offensive or sexually-suggestive remarks". I can't review the methodology without buying the book.
Footnote 5) dead link.
Footnote 6) A journal page#7. Not random sample, but interviews within a specific neighborhood known to have issues.
Footnote 7) A link about train molestation in Japan. I can't find the actual data, but's it's certainly not about the united states or catcalling.
Footnote 8) dead link.
Footnote 9) A study from Pakistan. It seems legit, and they have some serious problems there to be sure.
Footnote 10) unscientific online questionnaire.
Footnote 11) Article about Egypt with no link to methodology.
Footnote 12) dead link.
Footnote 13) dead link.
Footnote 14) Unscientific survey of Koreans: 42.5% said they'd experienced harassment on the train.
Footnote 15) Study in Israel, looks legit. "83% finding regarding women attesting to having been sexually harassed."
Footnote 16) Study in England, looks legit. "14% of all women have experienced unwanted sexual attention. "
Footnote 17) No link to data, and I don't read eqyption.

Conclusion: There was not a single scientific study from the United States that I could verify online. The closest scientific study I could verify was Canadian one with a lifetime any-type unwanted-attention statistic of 60%. That sounds about right to me. About 60% of have, at some point in their lives, received some unwanted male attention. That's a far cry from the situation you were describing.

Chart#2. It's data is based on an informal online anonymous survey, and is therefore not remotely scientific.

So, even in the source you listed, there was no viable proof for when you said >constant, violating, impossible-to-deal-with-effectively reality for at least 90% of women in the world, and, if even "stopstreetharassment.org" doesn't have any scientific data on the subject, there either isn't any, or it doesn't fit the narrative. In other words, you believe a mythology. The evidence from the site found suggests that, outside of a couple of isolated pockets, street harassment isn't nearly as pervasive as you suggest.

Also, you went ahead and jumped from "catcalling" to "street harassment" which includes leering (i.e. looking) at women. It's the same deal with the "rape culture". Rather than debate an actual thing and maybe devise some sort of universally acceptable agenda, we've jumped from a general criticism of debate to "rape culture" to "catcalling" to "street harassment." All of this seems to be a way to draw attention away from any actual issues, and instead talk about how generally bad men are.

In terms of gender identity, any generalization is sacrilege, but in terms of "cis" oppression, things are made to be so general that you've literally linked "leering" with "rape", and a man looking at an attractive girl is seen as a sort of oppression.

Basically, you believe stuff which isn't true.
>a constant, violating, impossible-to-deal-with-effectively reality for at least 90% of women in the world.

This is a grotesque exaggeration, and totally untrue: exactly the sort of aggravated mythology I was talking about.

You need to excuse yourself from the debate because you're not making anything better for woman. Quite to the contrary, you're picking fights on behalf of women, and you're losing them while generating hate and resentment in the process.

1. It is true.
   
   > The disparity in the measured levels of academic accomplishment across racial lines was very high at these schools; median SAT scores for African-Americans at these campuses were, for example, more than two hundred points lower than median SAT scores for whites and Asians.
   
   http://www.seaphe.org/pdf/uclaadmissions.pdf
   
   >There's a reason his peers found these findings too specious to include in even the most unread of the UC system's law reviews
   
   What is that reason?
   
   
   
2. The author of the paper is the author of this book. Plenty of evidence inside. Please write to him about your criticism.
   
   http://www.amazon.com/Mismatch-Affirmative-Students-Intended-Universities/dp/0465029965

I wasn't claiming it was. Although I'm skeptical about whether any of the stated background is true.

My interest is in exactly what I asked: to try to determine if he would have been accepted into Harvard without racial discrimination in his favor. Because being admitted to Harvard is conventionally seen as a major academic and intellectual achievement, but college admissions in general tend to be very highly skewed racially under the current system. Mismatch is an excellent book on the topic.

For anybody who wants to educate themselves on the matter, I highly recommend reading Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It

Most of the studies are just reviews of the colleges own admissions and performance data.

This book goes into in a lot of detail

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465029965?tag=natioaffai-20

You also don't even need to do a study.

Here's an article about it

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-sad-irony-of-affirmative-action

Here's an excerpt from that article so you don't have to read the whole book.

>For example, according to data released by the University of Texas in connection with Fisher, the mean SAT scores (out of 2400) and mean high-school grade-point averages (on a 4.0 scale) varied widely by race for the entering class of 2009. For Asians, the numbers were 1991 and 3.07; whites were at 1914 and 3.04; Hispanics at 1794 and 2.83; and African-Americans at 1524 and 2.57. The SAT scores for the Asian students placed them in the 93rd percentile of 2009 SAT-takers nationwide; the African-American students, meanwhile, were at the 52nd percentile.

> This has the predictable effect of lowering the college or professional-school grades the average minority student earns. And the reason is simple: While some students will outperform their entering credentials, just as some students will underperform theirs, most students perform in the range that their entering credentials suggest.

The research of proving your race-based education practice wrong is already out. I gave you the link and here it is again.

https://www.amazon.com/Mismatch-Affirmative-Students-’s-Universities/dp/0465029965

You know I didn't read the book you mentioned, I won't blame you either if you don't read the book 'mismatch'.

But, but but, my field is not education, far far from it. I am just an Asian geek. Lol.

I'm obviously a Trump supporter. You can look at my post history and see that easily. I don't know what you think there is no evidence for, but your understanding of the facts on the ground is incorrect.

AA admits don't benefit from attending schools they are not qualified to attend:
https://www.amazon.com/Mismatch-Affirmative-Students-%C2%92s-Universities/dp/0465029965?
What prompted this study is the authors noticed that although the admission rate of URMs fell in California after Prop 209, the graduation rate after four years did not. The same number of black and Latino kids were actually completing their degrees--because that is what standardized tests tell you: how prepared you are for a college education.

Non-Jewish whites v. Whites? Here you go. In the Ivy League white enrollment is around 40-50%, despite the fact that white people are still 60% of the US population. But what you never see is the breakdown of Jewish and non-Jewish white. Jews make up on average a little less than half of the white demographic at those schools, despite being less than 2% of the US population. This of course makes sense when something like 80% of the presidents of the Ivy League and innumerable administrators, including admissions officers, are Jewish. You never see those numbers:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/

>Affirmative action is only found in countries with a history of wide spread systemic racism. You can't be a PoC in a society with a history of systemic racism and not be a victim of that racism, that is what systemic means, it permeates every aspect of society.

Wow, that's a pretty strong statement. What if you're an African Princess on a student visa? What if you're Malia Obama?

>Do you accept that, theoretically, if a black person existed in a profoundly racist society then you cannot treat the black and white student as being equal and affirmative action programs are not racist but are instead merely attempting to tackle the effects of that systemic racism?

No. Did you forgo reading the OP with the definition of racism? Or are you intentionally using an alternative definition of racism without stating the difference?

>Given how ridiculously broad that claim is I would suspect that isn't what which ever study you are thinking of actually showed. Can you present the study.

Here. Why would it work? If I take a student in an academic math class and put him in AP, is he going to learn more?

You think universities actually care about any of the things you listed in your argument? If they did, they'd address the phenomenon of Mismatch (Basically, affirmative action admits can't compete with anyone else, so they drop out). Affirmative action is just a fearful reaction to race riots.

Affirmative action in colleges biases the incoming class so that black students, on average, have lower qualifications (gpa & test scores) compared to the caucasian and asian populations. In turn, this lower preparedness results in worse outcomes at these schools, putting black students, on average, towards the bottom of their classes. Rather than "helping them" by admitting them into schools they aren't qualified for, and graduating towards the bottom of the class, they would be better off with an admissions process that wasn't explicitly racially biased, where they might go to a slightly "lower-tier" school, but have a greater chance to end up at the top of their class. It is more beneficial to excel at your school than to be at the very "best" school.

(Source on the above: Mismatch )

Not to mention the bullshit of Affirmative Action in government hiring programs, where scoring is done on a very precise basis without much room for human discretion, where the bonuses for being black, or being female, are enough to swamp, I don't know, actual qualifications. But yeah, I'm sure the fact that my dad has been openly discriminated against on the basis of race and gender during his entire career in government civil has nothing to do with the fact that he has never gotten a management position despite a Ph.D., years of experience, prior experience running his own company, etc., etc.

So yeah, I do think removing racism would make systems less racist. Shocker, I know.

And yeah, so shockingly privileged and racist for me to have any opinions on anything, I know. I should just go back to self-flagellation and admitting how I bear original sin for my skin color, etc. But the idea that all we need is to admit less-qualified blacks, and magically racism will go away is shockingly retarded. "Oh, I know how to fix racism! Moooore racism!"

Edit: Same thing with regards to gender. In fields which have fewer women, the solution isn't to lower standards and to act like we just need more female bodies. Without changing the initial sources of the differences, just throwing more people in of a given body type is not beneficial and in fact is detrimental to equality, common sense, and the well-being of the field.

My sister is in physics. Her gpa and test scores make it clear she needed no form of special privilege in order to make it in her field. She gets disgusted and annoyed at how, in turn, they want to make her a poster child because of her gender, rather than her work. And she gets annoyed at the underqualified women who shouldn't be in the damn field, but, well, we need more women! But, you know, if we just let men be a higher proportion, then people might think women can't handle it! So better admit some more underqualified women so that we can reinforce those stereotypes with their failure, right?

Edit2: And first downvote, of, I'm sure, many to come. /shockedface Feel free to actually, you know, comment, but I'm sure that'd be beneath y'all, me being such a shitlord and all.

Edit3: Aw, no further downvoting or commenting. I guess I'm too late to the party.

Don't feel jealous, Actually feel bad for her. She will land up at the bottom on her cohort, will be forced to major in gender studies or some such dumb major and work as a barrista at Star bucks. This is a massive mismatch because that GPA means nothing if she went to a urban or ghetto school. She is going to struggle if she is foolish enough to go there to help UCB look good on it's diversity numbers. She's going to be roadkill so that UCB administrators can feel good about themselves

Read about the UC system in this book

https://www.amazon.com/Mismatch-Affirmative-Students-%C2%92s-Universities/dp/0465029965

Here are the books listed as being part of the course. Maybe you should read them instead of pulling umptions out of your ass?

• Possessive Investment In Whiteness
  
• Critical Race Theory: An Introduction
  
• The Everyday Language of White Racism
  
• Alchemy of Race and Rights: Diary of a Law Professor
  
  Or are you scared of being brainwashed?
  
  Maybe those books, and any discussion about them should be banned or ridiculed to the margins (without even having read them-- to keep "our" thoughts pure, you know) to prevent toxic ideas from spreading?