I think that my big disagreement with Connerly is over whether most of discrimination by the government is in the form of statutes and policies, or in the form of structural impediments to equality -- and of illegal (and often unconsious) racism. A non-government example: Abercrombie & Fitch's alleged discrimination against those who don't fit A&F's picture of who looks all-American. A&F's official policy is that there are no racial preferences, but in practice A&F's hiring appears to be blatantly racist -- attractive white kids are actively recruited, while nonwhites are tuned away, channeled intoo back-room jobs, or just fired. If A&F were the California state government, Connerly's initiative wouldn't at all affect A&F's official policy, but it would be far more difficult to detect and document how it's actually carried out.

Consider this: I am a white male. I was born in 1971.

In my 31 1/2 years on the planet, I have been discriminated against based on my race, legally, dozens, perhaps hundreds of times.

No black American of similar age can say that.

Bob: You make an interesting point. But, really, such things are pretty minor and clearly outside the purview of government. If A&F wants to target a white, preppie market, then it's not illogical for them to hire that type of model. A store that was targeting trendy urban teens probably wouldn't hire Wilford Brimley, either.

Spoons: I'm guessing not. Which is entirely different than saying that blacks your age haven't experienced the type of discrimination Bob points to. Clearly, different assumptions are made about, say, 20-year-olds dressed sloppily if one is white and another is black and they're walking around a department store.

---