Discrimination
in Any Form is Wrong
I-200 would correct basic inequities in
laws
Editorial
By: Michael F. Pellegrini
Next November, voters in Washington State will
have an opportunity to balance the scales and put an end to discrimination
based on sex or race. The passage of Initiative 200 would ban race and
sex-based preferences in public education, employment and contracts.
The basic issue in question is whether it is
necessary or appropriate to give women and ethnic minority candidates an extra
edge in applying for education, jobs or state contracts.
At their inception in the sixties, race and sex
based preferences were implemented to help correct the effects of hundreds of
years of past discrimination. Swept in with the tide of the civil rights
movement, the measures were perceived as a pro-active way to immediately
address and correct the past injustices. In theory, by moving limited numbers
of minority and women candidates to the head of the line before better
qualified white males, we could in part correct the past inequities, and come
closer to achieving the proportionate balance of the sex and ethnic
representation which would have occurred absent past discrimination.
That the discrimination existed is not an issue.
No one can contest the horrible injustices ethnic minorities and to a lesser
extent women, have suffered in our society. It is hard to understand how the
United States could have ever allowed segregation, much less slavery - concepts
and practices which are despicable, maleficent, and abominations.
Discrimination in employment and education is
more insidious and therefore harder to correct. And at the time the Civil
Rights laws were enacted, this sort of discrimination was quite common.
But in the thirty-odd some years since these
laws were enacted, our country has fared much better. While race and sex-based
discrimination may not entirely be a thing of the past, it is certainly far
reduced. And it's safe to say that the prevailing attitude of the nation has
moved much closer to the sort of ideals held by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
With this in mind, it's hard to rationalize why
race and sex preferences should continue. Because these preferences are
discriminatory, do indeed hurt people, and are counter to the ideals championed
by Dr. King.
While there has been a lot of politically
correct neo-Orwellian doublespeak aimed at proving how such preferences do not
violate anyone's rights, clearly this is not the case.
One argument raised is that since employers
often make use of subjective factors in hiring decisions, and since the use of
these subjective factors is widely accepted, then giving a preference to a
candidate of a particular ethnic background is also acceptable - because this
is just another subjective criteria.
Thus, using this logic, if it is legitimate to
hire a lesser-qualified candidate the employer may like more, for whatever
subjective reason, then it is equally legitimate to hire a less qualified
female or minority candidate to increase the diversity in the workplace.
This is specious reasoning. Because no matter
what justification, no matter what rationales are tossed about, hiring a
candidate based on sex or race is discrimination. A rose is a rose is a rose
... And discrimination, of whatever stripe, is morally wrong.
Certainly, many factors such as an applicant's
grade point average and whether the person establishes a rapport with the
interviewer are criteria employers may lawfully use in determining who they
will hire. And there are no laws that say employers cannot set minimum
standards.
For example, there is no law which prohibits an
employer from hiring only persons who graduate with at least a 3.0 GPA. Nor is
there any law which says an employer has to hire the best-qualified candidate.
But there most definitely are laws that prohibit discrimination based on sex or
race. It's just that for the last thirty years, they haven't been enforced as
they apply to white males.
And that is the crux of the issue: thirty years
following the advent of the Civil Rights laws, white males are still the
whipping boy of the masses; under the doctrine of the politically correct,
white males are still very much viewed as the bad guy.
The opponents of I-200 argue that even though
race and sex‑based discrimination have been illegal for thirty years, the
effects are still being felt, to the undeserved advantage of white males. The
principle of affirmative action, they say, does not assume that all white males
are guilty of racism and sexism per se, but it postulates that white males
benefit, some even without fault, from the effects of racism. That being the
case, they surmise it is unfair to allow white males to continue to profit from
these unearned advantages.
The lingering effects of racism are not
something that can be quantified. It's all well and fine to speculate on what
the world would be like if such and such had not occurred, but that's all it
can be - speculation. The fact of the matter is that discrimination is illegal
and that conditions have improved enormously in the last thirty years. And
certainly, racists and sexists still exist, but thankfully they're far in the
minority.
The real question is how long white males are
going to be punished for the transgressions of their forefathers; how long
they'll be forced to carry this burden of guilt and shame, which was foisted
upon them simply because of the circumstances of their birth.
How long is enough?
To some extent, it may be true that white males
as a class have profited from the past racism, but it is unfair and morally
reprehensible to single out certain white males, virtually at random, and
punish them for actions and a heritage they had absolutely no part of and no
control over.
Because the white male who is passed over is in
fact punished by this overt and presently legal form of discrimination - in the
case of the job applicant, the person may lose thousands of dollars of pay; in
the case of the college applicant, his entire future career may be imperiled or
put on hold. Simply because he had the misfortune to be born a white male.
As we approach the millennium, we need to think
less about extraneous factors such as race, ethnicity and sex, and more about
how we are all really alike. And when we can discard these extraneous factors
from our decision-making, then perhaps we are closer to achieving a
color-blind, more mature society, where people are truly judged on the basis of
who they are, not by where they came from.
Therefore, the basic issue is whether or not
race or sex-based discrimination is legal, moral or proper. The only possible
answer, is that discrimination for whatever reason is wrong. I-200 should pass.
If it is illegal to discriminate because of sex or race, then that prohibition
should apply across the board, not only to minorities and women. Some people
should not be more equal than others.