Women pray in Regina Mundi Catholic Church - Credit: Oli Scarff/Getty
Structural discrimination is the idea that public and private sector institutions can be considered discriminatory, irrespective of intention, if the negative effects of their actions fall disproportionately on a particular group of people.
For instance, austerity policies that seek to cut public sector payrolls have been condemned as structurally sexist because public sector jobs are disproportionately filled by women. Even if the government concerned doesn’t have a single misogynist in its ranks, the structural effect of its policies is nevertheless sexist.
That’s the theory – but it doesn’t go undisputed. For instance, if cutting those jobs discriminates against women, does that mean that when it was filling those jobs the state was discriminating against men? Moreover, is government to be constrained from following any path of action, however necessary, if the unintended side-effects are uneven?
Though the idea of structural discrimination is more associated with liberal than conservative viewpoints it can be applied in unexpected ways. For instance, in a piece for Bloomberg, Stephen L Carter uses it, in effect, as a lens through which to view liberal hostility toward religion – and Christianity in particular:
“When you mock Christians, you’re not mocking who you think you are.
“A 2015 Pew Research Center study of race and ethnicity among U.S. religions provides some basic facts. In the first place, if you’re mocking Christians, you’re mostly mocking women, because women are more likely than men to be Christians. The greatest disproportion is found among black Christians, of whom only 41 percent are male. So you’re mocking black women in particular.”
Black Americans aren’t just more likely to be Christians than their white compatriots, they’re more likely to be intensely Christian:
“Overall, people of color are more likely than whites to be Christians – and pretty devout Christians at that. Some 83 percent of all black Americans are absolutely certain that God exists. No other group comes close to this figure. Black Christians are far more likely than white Christians (84 percent to 64 percent) to describe religion as very important in their lives. Of all ethnic groups, black Christians are the most likely to attend services, pray frequently and read the Bible regularly… And they are, by large margins, the most likely to believe that the Bible is the literally inerrant word of God. In short, if you find Christian traditionalism creepy, it’s black people you’re talking about.”
Looking beyond America, Carter notes that “around the globe, the people most likely to be Christians are women of color.”
The days when ‘Christendom’ was synonymous with Europe and Europeans are long over. Indeed, where church communities are growing in the West, that is often due to immigration from the rest of the world.
Is any of this an argument for inflating legitimate concerns over structural discrimination into a secular version of the old blasphemy laws? Absolutely not, says Carter:
“I’m a free-speech guy, and I don’t believe any group should be placed beyond criticism or mockery. But if you plan to mock, it’s useful to know whom you’re actually mocking.”
A tad more awareness would be especially welcome from the mockers-in-chief among our privileged cultural elites. Of course, what they’d protest is that their target is the ideology and institutions of organised religion – with the gender and ethnic balance of the religious population being purely incidental.
Well, fair enough – just as long as they’re not applying the idea of structural discrimination only where it suits them.
Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.
peterfranklin_ 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeFang’s argument would be more persuasive if one could credibly believe that CFPB was and will be impartial in applying its rules. That is not the case. It was and remains fully a creation of the Democratic Party, and was part of the “weaponization of government” we witnessed over the last decade.
Anyway, the fundamental problem is much deeper, going back to legislation and rules that empower the federal government to oversee and direct how banks conduct business, not with the purpose of preventing fraud but to use banks as tools to attack disfavored entities without going to the trouble of developing and presenting criminal cases. It started with drugs, prostitutes, terrorists, and illegal guns, which most saw as worthy goals.
But, as we should all have learned long ago, such power, once granted to the government, is NEVER limited to the original purpose or scale. Any promises to the contrary are always hollow and ultimately disproven, and often surprisingly quickly.
This is false:
” … crypto — the sector that, more than almost any other, yearns for looser regulation.”
For the past decade the crypto industry has been bending over backwards asking for clear regulation, on every possible front. The absence of which gave carte blanche for tradfi propagandists and unwitting propaganda parrots—author Lee Fang apparently included—to whine about the crypto baddies and their made-up demands for less regulation—or their inability to follow rules that Literally could not be followed, by design.
The reality is 180 degrees the opposite of Feng’s portrait, as anyone who has done any actual research is aware. Fang’s article isn’t Unherd, but arch Herd.
“Corporations are people, my friend.” –Mitt Romney, 11-Aug-2011
The majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in Stromberg v. California accepted Brandeis’s ideas on free speech.
As free speech has become a battleground for everyday Americans
Which American had this on their Bingo card? Free speech is one of those things we are accustomed to taking for granted, like water coming from the tap when the handle is turned. But in Europe, free expression is under open attack and don’t think for a second people in the US are not salivating to do the same thing. They have been doing it, as this piece points out, and they will continue unless stopped.
Being surprised that the U.S. sanctions countries and individuals it disagrees with—only to now see it doing the same to its own citizens—reveals a staggering lack of critical thinking and a failure of the education system. What did people expect? That sanctions or debanking used abroad wouldn’t eventually be used at home? Just laughable!
Fang’s “worrying trend” has existed at least since the Lochner case in 1905. One American’s protection is another American’s involuntary restriction. When there’s a high degree of “pre-political” (ie, cultural) uniformity, or at least similarity, liberalism stands a chance of squaring the circle. But after say two centuries of increasingly fractious individualism, our options have become tyranny and revolution. Unless Andreesen makes us all into virtual – and virtuous – Romans.
The good news is that Elon Musk now has access to, and a copy of, the federal government’s data from the past couple of decades. Which includes dubious agency links to progressive NGOs and to companies that didn’t have the integrity to do the right thing when feeling pressure from these agencies and NGOs to destroy people based on progressive cult ideology.
So we’ll all find out soon enough about the companies that were being un-American by debanking, firing employees, etc, without due process and based on specious progressive ideology.
Democracy dies in darkness. And light, transparency and truth are the best disinfectants that build trust in society.
Elon is the right man at the post to get this all done.
It’s worth remembering that the early drafts of the Declaration of Independence spoke of “…life, liberty and the pursuit of property…” instead of “happiness”. Most of the delegates objected, in an early sign of populism even in the upper classes, and the wording was changed. Thank God.
But that avaricious attitude is still alive and well in the minds of some Americans. They’re usually referred to as ‘conservatives’. Until recently most corporations and business-people were staunch conservatives.
Our present Supreme Court line-up is not a good place to look for happiness.
Looking on from a distance, I had the impression that the Democrats were now the party of the rich (and the other side was the deplorables, bitter clingers, etc) and that becoming a Democrat politician was a fast track to becoming rich.
Lee “crypto sector yearns for looser regulation” is wrong and quantifiably so. Hundreds of start ups have wasted time, money and energy taliking with the SEC in an attempt to clarify their business propositions.
Chokepoint 2.0 has ruined many bright prospects and forced entrepreneurs overseas.
The industry craves sensible regulation
I think the author should go and check out the other recent Andreessen media appearances: Lex Fridman and Ross Douthat.
From them you get the feeling that the tech bros just can’t take the Dem regulation and interference and stupidity any more.
This author is another of that crew that believes that the more big words you use, the cleverer you sound. Unfortunately, ’tis a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. No points, soldier.
Again with the complaints about “big words” Sam? Might be time to download a dictionary app? Then the chip might feel a little lighter on that shoulder. Try it.
I don’t mind big words, Martin. They are sometimes necessary. But they are also used at times to obscure the author’s lack of intelligence or knowledge. Such as in this case ….
I get what you’re saying. You’re saying there’s a lot of abstract code-speak and jargon.
I cut him some slack because he’s trying to fit a ton of information into a small window of space. My assumption is that he respects his audience and doesn’t want to talk down to them.
I’m open to the idea that he’s right about plenty, he just needs a longer article to fill in the specifics.
it was fine, well written and clear
A critical mass of the American populace is now awake to the dirty use of power by the elite Left in and out of government. Democrats are totally in denial as to how exposed they are and how culpable they appear. The suspicions were growing prior to the election but now DOGE et al are flipping on the lights in the dark corners of government and Americans are seeing roaches scurrying for cover everywhere.
Democrats relentlessly demonized Trump for eight years in the media, impeached him in Congress, dragged him through the courts and convicted him. How did the people respond to this orchestrated character assassination? They elected him to the presidency. What about this stunning sequence of events is so difficult for Democrats to appreciate? Americans are so outraged by the Left’s feckless abuse of power that they simply don’t care what Democrats say about Trump. Still, the Left doubles down on Trump-bashing because they have nothing else to offer.
I can see where you’re going with this Lee but some anecdotal evidence of the specific speech or transactions you’re referencing would be helpful. I specifically recall the Canadian Truckers being debanked. Nigel Farage was famously debanked. I don’t know anything about Palestinian protesters being debanked.
The absurdity of the Canadian Truckers getting debanked was because of the double standard. The same government previously allowed economic sabotage from the Left only months prior and cheered it on. Farage was obviously singled out and is a more glaring example of targeted overreach. I would assume…and I’m not just saying this because the Palestinian protesters were on the Left that a more universal standard was applied to them. The same standard used against Trump supporters.
That to me is the issue, the rules can’t be arbitrary and applied to one set of views. If the rules at least attempt to be neutral there is less of a problem because the State has an interest in balancing free speech with the real threat of economic sabotage.
The crypto situation is over my head. There’s too much going on there to figure that out. I personally view Crypto as a ponzi scheme and the losers have only themselves to blame.
Citizens United is a bit different. If citizen speech is not suppressed than total spending on political campaigns is less of a problem. In fact, you could argue billionaire and corporate contributions actually hurt the Harris campaign in a Populist environment because the population in the 2024 election was able to point it out without being suppressed. When one Party is whining about Oligarchy despite having significantly more billionaire support than a rational informed public kind of cancels out the hypocrisy.