The so-called "positive" ones are feel-good fiction. They are not actionable.
This sort of thing is a natural progression of labeling every little benefit or service or obligation or arrangement a "right". No.
A "right" is something that others' actions may not infringe - something that if they do, you can defend yourself and/or the state will defend you from. It is actionable.
Contrasted to that, a "right to water" or "right to health" or "right to happiness" or "right to have data edited/erased" is a putative obligation upon others to do something for you. That's not a "right".
The moral high ground is a killzone, should hostilities break out.
(What does your first sentence have to do with the second?)
"Job seekers with black sounding names get interviewed less."
If a hiring company makes decisions based on unsound heuristics, others that do not make that mistake will outcompete them. The problem is self-correcting in the long run, if it's allowed to be.
So now we're completely away from the "race / competence non-correlation", and onto the "judge each person on his/her own merits" bromide. I'm 100% with you there. I also like motherhood and apple pie.
Can you rephrase that coherently please? What is an HR person to do about a candidate that had a "difference in opportunities in life for training" from another candidate, and therefore varies in competence?
... and don't you go and question their courage in transgender transracial transidentity.
Non sequitur. The TFA/quote says nothing about "best ones" or "merit" in that context.
"It is an issue because race doesn't correlate with competence."
The regulators have been involved all along. Measuring that by the volume of _new_ regulations is OTOH quite wrong. We don't pass new laws on murder every time someone gets killed.
... and cats & dogs living together. Devastating, I tell you.
"If the student defaults, the institution isn't on the hook."
Well sure, the institution has delivered what it agreed to. The loan was not from the institution but from a bank - or the feds, with their own perverse incentives.
"we should probably cut back on the for-profit college companies"
What, by outlawing them? No, even those people involved should be free to pursue their happiness.
How is any of this on topic: namely Harper's own actions?
"Include some actual evidence,"
Are you insinuating that the captured IRC etc. traffic on display there is faked?
"The only people making these claims are