Discrimination

[Whatssnew]

First and most important, the definition of discrimination:

treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit

Discrimination | Define Discrimination at Dictionary.com

I suggest that political correctness in America today is incredibly discriminatory to the point that it is openly accepted, and promoted.

For example, a college is being sued for sexual discrimination against a women. It was evident that they did not discriminate against this women, however they openly admit to discriminating in favor of women. In short, they admitted to programs created for the expressed purpose of getting more women on the payroll. (I was a juror in this case.)

I suggest that the reason for this hypocritical mentality is a desire to believe that one gender is equal to the other, one race is equal to another, and one religious or moral code is equal to another. Therefore according to this mentality, any inequality can only be a result of discrimination, and to right this wrong a government should promote discrimination against (or not in favor of) those who were not originally discriminated against so as we will all be equal in how much we have been wronged.

I suggest, no human is equal to another, and two wrongs do not make a right.

[Jack]

I suggest that the reason for this hypocritical mentality is a desire to believe that one gender is equal to the other, one race is equal to another...I suggest, no human is equal to another...

I understand the notion of equality in schools, society and the job place as equality of opportunity. There should be no barrier erected solely on the basis of race, gender, age, etc. that bars someone from the opportunity to achieve as much as they are capable of achieving.

[JimmyNic]

The movement on the Left that has created political correctness is motivated by a genuine desire to improve the fortunes of the lower echelons, a laudable intention, and has given rise to many liberal improvements. Sadly it has yet to recognise its own limitations, and has made a culture of demonising those who espouse any opposing views, plenty of which have value. Although many denounce the political correct culture this is not reflected by the political establishment

It's become very unfashionable for anyone to hold opinions that seem to grant favour upon the fortunate, even if the alternative solutions provided do not benefit (and in some cases even damage) the prospects of those lower in the social order. An example being the measures put in place by various British governments to ensure no Grammar (selective) schools were opened and instead more comprehensive schools were built whose intake was based on geography. The result of this was an expansion of the private sector and lower social mobility.

The key mistake is to confuse equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. There are some who wish that every field in society have a representative selection of sexes, races and creeds, to the extent that they will discriminate against otherwise deserving candidates on the basis of their skin colour, sex or religious beliefs.

(From a British perspective, if that wasn't obvious.)

[Yarn]

I suggest that the reason for this hypocritical mentality is a desire to believe that one gender is equal to the other, one race is equal to another, and one religious or moral code is equal to another. Therefore according to this mentality, any inequality can only be a result of discrimination, and to right this wrong a government should promote discrimination against (or not in favor of) those who were not originally discriminated against so as we will all be equal in how much we have been wronged.

I suggest, no human is equal to another, and two wrongs do not make a right.

The argument that some discrimination should be used as a tool to cancel out other discrimination is not one that is contingent upon the idea that all inequality is the result of discrimination. Only some need be.

Is fighting fire with fire moral? For most people that would depend on what we are tallking about. Per instance, violence is used to prevent violence. If it weren't for the police, violence would skyrocket as society would devolve into an anarchic mess. Whether there is any merit to claiming things like affirmative action are equivalent to the police would be an interesting discussion.

Regardless, I wouldn't want to drive over an unsturdy bridge or receive surgey from an incompetent doctor merely because a better candidate was rejected because he was a white male. On the other hand, perhaps favoring minorities would increase our pool of professionals because it would hurt whites less than it would help minorities, as whites have more options because they have more resources.

There are many things you could consider here.

Some forms of discrimination are hardly despicable or controversial. Per instance, scholarships should mostly go to those whom are too poor to pay tuition without financial support. Why? Because that way more people go to school, enrichening both themselves and society in the process by raising their productivity.

[JimmyNic]

Is fighting fire with fire moral? For most people that would depend on what we are tallking about. Per instance, violence is used to prevent violence. If it weren't for the police, violence would skyrocket as society would devolve into an anarchic mess. Whether there is any merit to claiming things like affirmative action are equivalent to the police would be an interesting discussion.

My sister, who is a teacher, said to me today that she felt male teachers share a connection to the pupils in her school (an all boys grammar) that she can never have, since the boys look up to men in a way they will not look up to women. She said because of this she felt in single sex schools being of the same sex as the pupils was an advantage in teaching. And I suspect she is correct.

Now that I think on it, none of my heroes are women. There are certainly women whom I think admirable and worthy of respect, but they are not people I attempt to emulate or consider role models. Of course in many industries there are still more notable men than women, but I wonder if any women on this forum feel the opposite? I don't know.

More on topic, I'm of a pragmatic bent. I'm not saying the ends always justify the means, but I would certainly argue that some means can be justified by the ends. I do not feel that deviating from the meritocratic method of selecting employees that companies use is in anybody's interests. I feel we must work harder at creating equal opportunities for people, but we should not expect equality of outcome, at least not immediately. In this case a quick fix does more harm than good.

Some forms of discrimination are hardly despicable or controversial. Per instance, scholarships should mostly go to those whom are too poor to pay tuition without financial support. Why? Because that way more people go to school, enrichening both themselves and society in the process by raising their productivity.

By school do you mean university? Either way, schools/universities have X number of places to give away, and preferring one candidate over another based on their family's lack of income seems unfair to me. You may recruit a greater number of poor people to your ranks, but you also punish families in a middling income bracket for earning "just enough". This won't do.

[el ايمان]

I have yet to meet an incompetent doctor who became successful because of affirmative action.

[Darklordabc]

On the other hand, perhaps favoring minorities would increase our pool of professionals because it would hurt whites less than it would help minorities, as whites have more options because they have more resources.

It would definitely increase our pool, but it would decrease the average talent of the professional they were being let into. Is that a worthwhile trade-off?

I have yet to meet an incompetent doctor who became successful because of affirmative action.

But if your going to measure some other traits, that aren't related to the Job being offered, you are necessarily going to water down the overall competency of that professional. For example, a builder should only be measured by his skills in building, and other skills related to that, not his hair color, as that is a variable not connected to the ability to build. Affirmative action is allowing unimportant variables into the selection process, and hence its always going to do some harm to the average skill level.

[grandpa]

Would definitely increase our pool, but it would decrease the
average talent of the professional they were being let into.
Is the a worthwhile trade-off?

That partly depends in the season. On a really hot summer's day, who really wants to be out burning crosses? No thanks! Personally, I wouldn't like that extra thermal stress. At that time of year I exchange my white robe for swimming trunks.

Grandpa h.

[JimmyNic]

That partly depends in the season. On a really hot summer's day, who really wants to be out burning crosses? No thanks! Personally, I wouldn't like that extra thermal stress. At that time of year I exchange my white robe for swimming trunks.

Grandpa h.

Seems you've resorted to ad hominems. Always a sign of a worthy argument.

[Yarn]

My sister, who is a teacher, said to me today that she felt male teachers share a connection to the pupils in her school (an all boys grammar) that she can never have, since the boys look up to men in a way they will not look up to women. She said because of this she felt in single sex schools being of the same sex as the pupils was an advantage in teaching. And I suspect she is correct.

Now that I think on it, none of my heroes are women.

Boys. usually look up to more men than they do women, but some of the people I hold a lot of respect, for instance in a spiritual sort of way Helen Caldicott, are women, so there are exceptions to your generalization.

By school do you mean university? Either way, schools/universities have X number of places to give away, and preferring one candidate over another based on their family's lack of income seems unfair to me. You may recruit a greater number of poor people to your ranks, but you also punish families in a middling income bracket for earning "just enough". This won't do.

Scholarships are money. The idea is that you should give them preferentially to those whom could not otherwise afford to go to school. This is a separate question from admissions.

[JimmyNic]

Boys. usually look up to more men than they do women, but some of the people I hold a lot of respect, for instance in a spiritual sort of way Helen Caldicott, are women, so there are exceptions to your generalization.

I've no doubt there are exceptions, but I do suspect that in some fashion boys are inclined to treat men as role models more readily than women.

Scholarships are money. The idea is that you should give them preferentially to those whom could not otherwise afford to go to school. This is a separate question from admissions.

I quite agree, they are money. Yet it is also true you are punishing people who can just afford to go but whose lives would benefit from a scholarship.

[Yarn]

I quite agree, they are money. Yet it is also true you are punishing people who can just afford to go but whose lives would benefit from a scholarship.

Personally I think it is more important that more people go to college than it is that those for whom it is expensive but affordable be able to afford it at less expense, however, but I see your point.

Scholarships are also merit based, so I said poor people should be treated preferentially in their distribution, but that isn't the same as sayin it should be impossible for wealthier people to get scholarships.