Who says that the New York Times has lost its ability to be neutral? “A Covid-19 Relief Fund Was Only for Black Residents. Then Came the Lawsuits.”:
Oregon earmarked $62 million to explicitly benefit Black individuals and business owners. Now some of the money is in limbo after lawsuits alleging racial discrimination. …
But now millions of dollars in grants are on hold after one Mexican-American and two white business owners sued the state, arguing that the fund for Black residents discriminated against them.
The journalists can’t say whether or not a government fund reserved for people with a particular skin color actually is discrimination based on race, so they report on what was alleged or argued.
Also of interest in the article, the most persuasive argument for why this fund should be able to discriminate on the basis of race is that other government programs are already discriminating on the basis of race:
Supporters of the fund argued that the $62 million accounted for about 4.5 percent of what the state received, leaving plenty for residents who are not Black. They also noted that other Covid-19-related funds were tailored in a way that allowed them to almost exclusively benefit particular racial or ethnic groups — a $10 million fund created by the state that largely benefits undocumented Latino immigrants and one created by Portland officials to aid a district of largely Asian-owned businesses.
What’s the fund for the undocumented?
The Oregon Worker Relief Fund provides financial support directly to Oregonians who have lost their jobs yet are ineligible for Unemployment Insurance and federal stimulus relief due to their immigration status, and now face hunger, homelessness, and economic hardship.
This raises another issue… the state money is coming from a separate source compared to the federal money. Wouldn’t the 14th Amendment‘s Equal Protection clause require the state to make money equally available to the documented, undocumented, and non-immigrant?