a thread on the role of law and the federal government in cultural change caveat emptor I have no idea what I am talking about and you should not believe me
-
-
an older example of this is the drinking age in the united states theoretically speaking this is a matter reserved for the states, and in earlier years 18 was a common drinking age in practice, however, the federal government mandates a minimum age of 18 years how can this be?
Show this thread -
well, states can still set the drinking age to 18 or to whatever it likes and if they do this, the federal government will simply slash the money they send to states to pay for highways go ahead states! good luckhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act …
Show this thread -
this is common. the current federal system is partly an enormous redistribution mechanism youve seen the figures about how it takes money from relatively wealthy areas and redistributes it to poorer areas, but the net for any particular area doesnt matter for this thread
Show this thread -
rather, what matters is that it pulls money from everywhere and returns it everywhere if if, your well behaved otherwise it just takes the money of your citizens
Show this thread -
now, this sort of thing along with rampant abuse of the commerce clause over the last hundred years let's it get around the fact that per 10A states are supposed to have superior latitude in most cases but this doesnt let them get at individuals, bc of the incorporation doctrine
Show this thread -
so how do you wreck individuals? well there are Other Ways and i have my suspicions about how such a system operates, deliberately or not (i believe it was not intended in this case, but once the mechanism was identified--!)
Show this thread -
my hunch is that many such impositions operate through incentives working on private entities that do not _force_ them to do anything that, if done by governments would be unconstitutional; but effectively punish them if they do not do these things
Show this thread -
lets consider one such case, title ix in its aim, its pretty unobjectionable dont be a dick to ladies if your a school that cool and also pay attention to the mechanism: ". . . receiving Federal financial assistance."pic.twitter.com/4yABNouFzs
Show this thread -
So thats fine If you want to be a Discriminatory just give up your cash right? Thats what one college thought and the supreme court agreed but uh ohpic.twitter.com/IDhGqcCoH2
Show this thread -
Ok so basically if you want to have a school you need to comply with this Act because good luck running a uni without NIH/NHS grants and without students mortgaging their futures through the department of education Ok fine What are the details like? Surely is unobjectionable
Show this thread -
Well Ok Turns out regulators implemented a test that mandated equal participation for men and women in athletics Little cack-handed and invasive but not like Bad bad right Just killed off a bunch of less popular mens sportspic.twitter.com/Mt5qs8QoBJ
Show this thread -
But whats this? The government will always find a mechanism to make people do things if granted power to do so, by hook or crook i wonder what the bush 2 administration got up to!pic.twitter.com/Va8AiLrP05
Show this thread -
and of course the Obama administration had its own trick's to play in summary, a letter sent to universities from the Ed sec (1) stipulated that schools could be sued if they permitted a "hostile environment," and (2) set atrocious rules for university quasijudicial inquiriespic.twitter.com/yDuZyNVJgO
Show this thread -
I don't mean to comment on the validity of the object level policies. Rather, I want to point out that using concepts of a "hostile environment" or simple regulatory policy the Federal government was able to force universities to do things that the government itself cannot
Show this thread -
Some schools surely would have liked to comply with these regulations; others would not. Again, ignoring the base issues, I think one must agree that the government is using private actors to implement policies it could not itself (esp. w.r.t. anti-defendent judicial standards).
Show this thread -
Title IX and Its Consequences have been done to death in commentary, although lately forgotten. Nevertheless it has I think played a tremendous role in the culture and structure of American higher education since its passage. *Good or bad*: the effect, was had.
Show this thread -
Having considered this illustrative case (about which I knew in advance) im going to test a hypothesis about another branch of law and its role in the Cancel Crisis. I have no significant knowledge of this area so I will be reading a lot of wikipedia as I post
Show this thread -
I am doing this exercise because I want to publicly test this out of sample prediction which seems like a fun way of keeping myself honest. Let's gooooooooooooo
Show this thread -
Hypothesis: one of cancel culture's sine qua non, mechanistically, is anti-discrimination regulations in the workplace Test: wont be complete but look for implementation and case law around "hostile environments" and various Bad behaviors and see what's covered
Show this thread -
Here's the opening salvo. Most cases listed here relate to sexual harassment, which doesn't surprise me for boring reasons. Note the mechanism: creating a liability for the employer if they fail to prevent a thing Rule of thumb: companies do not want to get suedpic.twitter.com/5jLofhPrCN
Show this thread -
I do not know the history of HR departments but I would bet they came into being to comply with these laws. People have noted the shared culture of universities and HR. I think it might make sense to think of these as compliance offices. (Probably trite.)
Show this thread -
The wiki is tragically short (for such a concept!) but this is interesting to me: law on this matter varies by jurisdiction (I assume a baseline federal law and additions made by locals?) Having panel data here would be very interesting. Free econometrics paper idea (must cite)
Show this thread -
actually more generally if you write a paper and cite my tweet in the acknowledgements section you should absolutely let me know so I can lose my mind
Show this thread -
Further wiki walking my suspicion is that Title VII of the civil rights act (1964) is the national standard I speculated about earlier heres the rundownpic.twitter.com/B6YpCPHLtM
Show this thread -
there are narrow exceptions given for super specific cases that I imagine are things like casting a Soomerian actor to play Zuulpic.twitter.com/wBX0KYLdQ6
Show this thread -
Note that religious preferences are not acceptable! The first scene of the Mary Tyler Moore Show preserves this transition in amber. It must have been a bewildering time for everyone.
Show this thread -
Skipping around and getting a little bored Noted the disparate impact issue, which I'd forgotten about and which has led to this curious finding Also old people are less protected than other classes (if you curious where old people stood on the status hierarchy)pic.twitter.com/4Rsygmuv5G
Show this thread -
anyway my hunch is the following. (I'd need to read case law to be sure and I'm not doing that) 1. Being known to be bigoted in some sense makes someone a walking liability 2. What a Reasonable Person (relevant standard) would find to be workplace harassment has been expanding
Show this thread -
3. Large organizations fire people who develop a reputation as a bigot at the drop of a hat because of (1) if nothing else 4. (2) + (3) ===> you're done if you get the spotlight because firms dont know what the standard is and they don't want to be the test case
Show this thread -
Basically I am speculating that the government is generating the Cancel Crisis through extremely boring administrative law that most Americans know nothing about. I am skeptical of any improvement because it is from the Civil Rights Act and no way is anyone touching that
Show this thread - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.