2008 Woodie Awards
Equal discrimination for all
Forrest Stout
Issue date: 2/1/06 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Upon reading last week's Bengal, I was glad to see Michael Benner's letter to the editor addressing prejudices and my MLK Jr. Day opinion. In my opinion, I tried to primarily focus on discrimination against African Americans, considering the recent holiday. When I strayed to other discriminations, I picked the most glaring recent examples, homophobia, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, etc., but I did not have the space to address the more subtle forms of discrimination in our country. So Michael was right. My opinion was a bit one-sided, albeit intentionally, and I appreciate his response.
With more thorough examination of discrimination, we see it everywhere with every group a target at some point. Yes, I'll say that American Caucasian men are discriminated against. Now, I'll imagine there is a knee-jerk reaction here. Do some of you initially think of me as a racist for saying such a thing? I'll admit when I hear someone complain about this sort of discrimination, I often briefly suspect that person of being prejudice. At the same time, a person can complain about discrimination against African Americans, homosexuals, etc., and that alone does not make me as suspicious of the speaker. What I think we have here is a good intentioned but dangerous knee-jerk reaction to how we view discrimination.
In the history of this country, we have seen extreme discrimination by our government leaders, primarily Caucasian Christian males, against women, African Americans, immigrants, homosexuals, etc. It's easy to subconsciously associate discrimination with these incidences and pick out certain groups as the consistent victims and offenders in discrimination. So, when someone suggests that native Caucasian males are being discriminated against, that might not settle well at first because subconsciously we view that group as the offenders, not the victims.
Look at the premise behind Affirmative Action quotas. The basic idea is to force employers to hire a certain percentage from groups that have been discriminated against in the past. This is using discrimination to prevent discrimination. Why do this? The explanation that many Affirmative Action proponents suggest is employer discrimination. However, if an employer is discriminating, don't we already have a solution for that with class action lawsuits, etc.? To address this discrimination, why not simply strengthen the ability of discrimination victims to take employers to court, more passionately prosecute such employers, etc.? This way, only the employers with the problem are dealt with, while the moral and honest employers are still allowed to simply hire the best applicants, regardless of quotas. Affirmative Action as a tool to prevent discrimination is like putting someone on probation for a crime they have not committed, but you think they might.
With more thorough examination of discrimination, we see it everywhere with every group a target at some point. Yes, I'll say that American Caucasian men are discriminated against. Now, I'll imagine there is a knee-jerk reaction here. Do some of you initially think of me as a racist for saying such a thing? I'll admit when I hear someone complain about this sort of discrimination, I often briefly suspect that person of being prejudice. At the same time, a person can complain about discrimination against African Americans, homosexuals, etc., and that alone does not make me as suspicious of the speaker. What I think we have here is a good intentioned but dangerous knee-jerk reaction to how we view discrimination.
In the history of this country, we have seen extreme discrimination by our government leaders, primarily Caucasian Christian males, against women, African Americans, immigrants, homosexuals, etc. It's easy to subconsciously associate discrimination with these incidences and pick out certain groups as the consistent victims and offenders in discrimination. So, when someone suggests that native Caucasian males are being discriminated against, that might not settle well at first because subconsciously we view that group as the offenders, not the victims.
Look at the premise behind Affirmative Action quotas. The basic idea is to force employers to hire a certain percentage from groups that have been discriminated against in the past. This is using discrimination to prevent discrimination. Why do this? The explanation that many Affirmative Action proponents suggest is employer discrimination. However, if an employer is discriminating, don't we already have a solution for that with class action lawsuits, etc.? To address this discrimination, why not simply strengthen the ability of discrimination victims to take employers to court, more passionately prosecute such employers, etc.? This way, only the employers with the problem are dealt with, while the moral and honest employers are still allowed to simply hire the best applicants, regardless of quotas. Affirmative Action as a tool to prevent discrimination is like putting someone on probation for a crime they have not committed, but you think they might.