> Lim’s book, called Amplified, was published by Third State Books, a company started by Tan’s wife, Stephanie Lim, to provide a voice for Asian-American authors.
How is this even legal? Surely the article means it’s a company focused on stories relating to Asian Americans, regardless of the race of the author.
The person you're replying to is making the argument "Would you object to a book publisher that only signed writers who were white" or "Should a coffee shop be allowed to only hire white barristas". Which is a sound logical argument if you ignore the entire history of racism in the United States.
That’s a common misconception. Nobody serious has ever doubted that the Civil Rights Act creates a colorblind system. Any contrary treatment has always been justified as exceptions. Even Lawrence v. Bakke in 1973 struck down the racial preferences at issue in that case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_C....
I think people got this misconception that affirmative action was legal because universities practiced it. But the EEOC guidance for example has been consistent since the Carter administration. “Under Title VII, there is no separate legal concept of ‘reverse discrimination.’ Discrimination against any individual on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin violates Title VII.”
The only exception was that employers who had practiced segregation could take measures to undo the effects of that in their workplace. That’s what “affirmative action” meant. It was not sanctioned as way to address perceived disparities in society at large.
Title VII doesn’t apply to independent contractors. If you want to argue that authors should count as their publisher’s employees, go sue TSB in some complicit jurisdiction.
Gotcha. That was the gist of my question. Like I said, I’m not an expert on this. I can’t keep the roman numerals straight. It’s interesting there’s not something that applies to contractors. I expect that’s also how OpenTable and whatnot get around these promoting “minority owned businesses.”
How is this even legal? Surely the article means it’s a company focused on stories relating to Asian Americans, regardless of the race of the author.