To Discriminate or Not:
That is the Question
By: R. Joseph Fargo - 6/1/2003

Gone are the days of slaves working all day in the fields of their masters for no more than room and board. Gone are the days when humans were bought and sold as commodities. Gone are the days when African Americans and Caucasian Americans were not allowed to share the same table in a restaurant, and gone are the days when a person is judged purely based on the color of his skin, gender, or sexual orientation.

While I would love for the previous statement to be 100% true, the fact is that the previous paragraph is only partially true. People of the United States have not yet reached a level in their existence where decisions are made and policies established without regard for race and/or gender.

There are still places in the United States where an African American is not treated the same as his or her Caucasian counterparts. While giant leaps have been made toward the equality of all people there are still areas where people are discriminated against.

Black police officers in Tulsa, Oklahoma filed a discrimination lawsuit against the Tulsa Police Department sighting “The 1994 lawsuit filed by the Black Officers Coalition says blacks face a segregated work environment, are discriminated against in hiring and promotions, get no help when calling for backup and face retaliation if they complain of discrimination.” http://www.broward.com/mld/montereyherald/news/nation/4658408.htm

In a testing scandal involving Bell South in Atlanta, discriminatory testing practices run rampant. “The BellSouth lawsuit, filed in April, alleges the company (NYSE: BLS) uses promotion tests that are unfair and discriminatory toward blacks, and that test questions are not relevant to the duties of the sought-after jobs.” http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2002/10/28/story3.html

And from the Chinese Embassy we have this “According to a survey report released by researchers at Rutgers university, discrimination against ethnic minorities was found in one third of business firms in the United States, and discrimination against women was reported in one fourth of 200,000 firms.” http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/46812.html

For the most part, when we hear the word discrimination, we think of the oppression that was perpetrated against African Americans. However, they are not the only group that has been discriminated against. The American Indian was the subject of discrimination in the US long before slaves were brought to the shores of the US. During the expansion years, Irish Americans and Chinese Americans were the focus of discrimination and forced labor building the railroads. During WWII, it was the Japanese Americans and the German Americans. Since Sept 11th, the Arab Americans have suffered at the hands of the small-minded bigot of the day, and the battle rages on.

On June 7th 2003 Rachel L. Swarns, New York Times columnist wrote: “More than 13,000 of the Arab and Muslim men who came forward earlier this year to register with immigration authorities — roughly 16 percent of the total — may now face deportation, government officials say.” After we gave amnesty to thousands of illegal aliens on two occasions in the past 15 years, why are Arab and Muslim illegal immigrants being treated differently than illegal immigrants from other ethnic backgrounds? Why aren’t immigration authorities rounding up all people in the country illegally? With only 7 of these 13,000 illegal immigrants being tied to a terrorist organization is this yet another form of discrimination being perpetrated on the American people in the name of National Security?

There are many reasons for discrimination. The most common being fear of the unknown. Fear based discrimination accounts for well-intentioned people acting out irrationally. Such is the case of a Muslim Youth Camp in Iowa where local residents are opposing the proposed youth camp primarily out of fear. “There is a widely held misconception that the Islamic religion is a peaceful, loving religion,” said Greg Evans of the Concerned Citizens of Johnson City, Iowa. “It’s really not.” http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88569,00.html

Today, however, even the once elite Caucasian American is now the subject of discrimination by the very people that they once discriminated against, as well as from within their ethnic group. In many cases, this discrimination is presented under the guise of righting the wrongs that were once prevalent in the US.

Reverend Al Sharpton summarized his ongoing fight against discrimination as “In the '60s we had to fight the remnants of the KKK. Today we have the challenge of the RRR (Rich Right-wing Republicans).” Rev. Al Sharpton, Candidate for President Charlotte Observer May 15, 2003

Here Reverend Sharpton is insinuating that all Rich Republicans are biased against African Americans. Is this not also a form of discrimination commonly known as reverse discrimination? The mere notion that simply because you are Rich and a Republican makes you somehow prejudice against minorities is absurd. This further implies that a Rich Republican African American is somehow prejudice against all poor African Americans based on their socioeconomic standing in the community. Frankly, I find this notion preposterous and discriminatory.

Yet the battle continues to rage on. Minority’s allegations of discrimination continue to poor into the courts with varying degrees of accuracy. And while it is true that discrimination is being fought daily by minorities, it is also true that some of the lawsuits filed by minorities are trumped up cases with no merit, filed solely for the purpose of extorting money from their employer or other unsuspecting victim.

In their attempt to right the wrongs of the past, the US Government has established programs that favor minorities over the majority as a way of evening the playing field. Calling their program Affirmative Action, the government has instituted its own form of discrimination. The thing that I have against Affirmative Action is that it assumes that members of a racial minority are somehow inferior and therefore need help to accomplish the same as their majority counterpart. While a noble gesture, Affirmative Action is misconceived in its current form. Rather than address the inequalities of the public school systems based on race, perhaps it would have been better to address Affirmative Action based on socioeconomic standing in the community.

Ergo, if you come from a rich neighborhood with good schools, then you must compete on an even keel for entrance into a university and other social programs. If you are from a poor neighborhood where the schools are substandard, you will receive extra help to be successful in your educational and employment endeavors. Once your personal financial situation improves to place you into a middle class social standing, all help stops and you are required to compete on an even keel with all others in your social group. This is a much more fair policy in that it is completely race neutral with a focus on the individuals social standing. Aid is provided when a person of a lower social standing competes with one of a more privileged social standing.

While this type of a system on the surface sounds like a good way to even the playing field, the fact is that unless it is also met with additional help to make these unfortunate individuals capable of the work ahead of them, we are actually doing them an injustice by setting them up to fail. According to John Leo, “Hiring under-qualified people to meet quotas duplicates what some elite universities have done: get the admission rates up, and hope people don't notice the higher dropout rates. It's a system that does minorities no favors.” http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo/jl20030518.shtml

John brings up a valid point: while quotas have been filled in the name of diversity, no additional help is given to the underprivileged placing them in an environment where they are under prepared to perform. Thus, the “sink or swim” mentality of these systems actually does an injustice to those it is designed to help by placing in them a feeling of inferiority and then allowing them to fail at their attempt to succeed. This further demoralizes the individual and reinforces their feelings of inadequacy. The individual, now completely demoralized, is worse off than before. He is now relegated to his previous socioeconomic standing, yet no longer has the drive to be successful.

Discrimination in the US is not only perpetrated based on race or gender. Today, schools discriminate against all Christians as they bar even the mention of Christianity in the schools. All the while, religious diversity is “taught,” as they instruct students about the religious beliefs of Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and many African religions. .

The movies and television programs mimic this type of one-sided behavior when writing and producing their public offerings which air on public broadcast stations and in theaters. If someone is to be made the brunt of a joke it will be first the white man, then the minority man, then the white woman, and finally the minority woman. This one-sided bias stems from fears of being sued by a minority group. As such, this is understandable, however, it is still discrimination.

Reverse discrimination is also rearing its ugly head in the workplace. On January 16, 2002 a jury in U.S. District Court in Atlanta awarded eight white female librarians $25 million in a reverse discrimination suit against Fulton County. “Court records revealed that minutes from meetings of the library board and board committee meetings and memos from staff showed an effort was made to reduce the number of white female staff at the central library downtown to replace them with black staffers.” http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2002/01/14/daily40.html

The plain and simple truth is that discrimination hurts everyone. It is wrong and should be fought in all its forms. Until we can rid ourselves of this racial, gender and religious bias, we will never be free as a people. We will instead be shackled by the bias that rips us apart from the inside out.

On the other hand, should we be forced to associate with those outside our social groupings, or should we be allowed to congregate with those with whom we feel comfortable? If I have a cookout, should I be forced to invite the people in the next town to promote diversity? The question of how far do you take diversity unification is a far-reaching one. For instance, should I be able to come to your house and force you to invite me to your party, even though you don’t like me, simply because I am different? More to the point, should a traditionally men’s only club be forced to allow women members? Or should a traditionally Black Motorcycle club be forced to allow white members?

A bill being submitted for consideration by the House of Representatives presents an illustration of this. According to Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun Times “A bill, sponsored by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) along with Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), would not allow a federal income tax deduction for business entertaining at any club that discriminates on the basis of sex, race or color” http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-golf11.html

The goal here is to force all male only clubs to allow women members or suffer financial harm from a reduced number of businessmen entertaining their male clients at these clubs. This type of strong-armed legislation is akin to blackmail. Do what I want or I will harm you in some way. (At least the common criminal is up front about his intentions to rob you of your livelihood.)

So the question remains, do we force others to accept us into their social groupings? Now, before you decide, consider this: you are a religious person and you believe strongly that adultery is wrong. Should you be forced to have adulterers sitting next to you on your favorite pew while listening to Sunday services? Moreover, now that you are forced to accept the adulterer, you are now forced to accept their lifestyle and your Sunday services may no longer teach against this type of activity. In essence they have just changed your belief system through force. This type of strong-arm tactics is akin to what the communists did to religion when they created the USSR. At that time, the Soviets would go into the schools and ask the kids to pray to their god for ice cream or candy. After a great deal of time had passed, they would announce that their god had failed to get them what they had asked for and therefore must not exist. Then they would ask the children to ask the communists for the same said ice cream, to which carts of ice cream were brought into the classroom and distributed to every child that requested it from the communists.

While this proposed law is not as blatant as were the communists, the result is the same. One group of people is attempting to force another group of people to believe the same as they do. This directly goes against our 1st amendment rights which provides all Americans “the right of the people to peaceably assemble,” in groups of their choosing.

There are a lot of things wrong with this “American Experiment”, as some have called it. Our justice system, the corruption in politics, discrimination that exists even today, etc. The question is do we want to make it worse by stripping ourselves of the freedoms that we now enjoy. Can we give up one freedom without setting the president to give up all our freedoms? The obvious answer is that we can no more give up the 13th and 14th amendments that made slavery and discrimination illegal than we can give up our 1st or 2nd amendment rights. They are all too precious to give up, as once gone they will be lost forever.

Discrimination will never go away without a concerted effort by everyone. It will not disappear by just the efforts of the government, or just the Caucasians, but requires everyone to work for the same goal. This is to say that the media must become color blind instead of looking for discrimination in places where it is not present. Songwriters will need to refrain from promoting one race over another or calling for the death of all members of another race. Movies and television programs must treat all people similarly. And political parties will have to come together in unity for the good of the people overall, and not just the special interest groups that currently control the government.

Then, and only then, will Martin Luther King Jr’s dream be realized, when men and women will be judged not on the color of their skin, their religious beliefs, or by the equipment in their pants, but by their character; by the things that make them a civilized human being: their humanity.