Thread by @PsychRabble

Dear Aidan,
Please explain how this ad is NOT in violation of U.S. and Washington DC (where APA, the society sponsoring this journal, is housed) laws prohibiting discrimination based on race.
🧵 ending in END.

https://twitter.com/aidangcw/status/1709724009514856475

The ad, shown in full above, includes:
"In service of APA's commitment to EDI... APA Publishing's fellowship program seeks to elevate leadership opportunities for ECP's (early career psychologists) from communities that have been historically underrepresented..." It explains:

"Such individuals include, but are not limited to, psychologists who are Black, Indigenous, or other people of color and ethnicities..."

Here is text from 1964 US Civil Rights Law: "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer for an employer to -- (1) to fail or refuse to hire...any individual...because of such individual's race, color... or national origin."

Perhaps APA believes that calling this a "fellowship" gets around prohibitions against employment discrimination. I would hope that would fail in court, but I do not know. Nonetheless, APA is housed in Washington DC, and DC has a law for just this:

Here is the DC Law:

"It is the intent of the Council of the District of Columbia, in enacting this unit, to secure an end in the District of Columbia to discrimination for any reason other than that of individual merit,"
[continued]code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/…

"including, but not limited to, discrimination by reason of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression..."

SCOTUS decisions way older than the most recent one have repeatedly rejected regressive notions that innocent individuals in the present must pay a penalty to redress historical grievances.

From Bakke (1978), rejecting regressive notions of redressing grievances:
"There is no principled basis for deciding which groups would merit 'heightened judicial solicitude' and which would not."

More Bakke:
"There are serious problems of justice connected with the idea of preference itself. First, it may not always be clear that a so-called preference is, in fact, benign."

Bakke: "...there is a measure of inequity in forcing innocent persons...to bear the burdens of redressing grievances not of their making...constitutional limitations protecting individual rights may not be disregarded..."

So, Aidan, please tell us why you think this "fellowship" program does not violate U.S. and DC law protecting individual rights and requiring that hiring be based on merit.
END

@threadreaderapp unroll