Wednesday, October 25: From Conservative Compendium:
“Trying to achieve diversity, which in common usage actually means proportionality, is itself a form of quota regardless of whether the means to achieve that end utilizes quotas. Diversity, as typically used, is actually a misnomer. What is actually desired is uniformity. All jobs/institutions must have a uniform representation of all groups, making all such institutions virtual copies of each other. They would, amongst themselves, lack diversity…[W]e see that many falsely associate workplaces or other institutions with exactly proportional group representations as nondiscriminatory, when the opposite is actually true.”
Also see this Opinion Journal piece: “To avoid charges of ‘racism,’ we disciplined black and white students differently.”
——————————————————————————————————————-
When I was young and naive, I used to believe in a “colorblind society.” I envisioned a utopia-like world where everyone got along, despite differences in skin color, religion, height, weight, or other “irrelevant” factors.
Having lived in the real world for a few decades now, I realize how silly I was. Human beings can’t ignore differences if we tried. The best we can do is condition ourselves to not allow those differences to divide us too sharply. If we can do that, we’re doing quite well.
Some people misunderstand the conservative position on “colorblindness.” I should say my position on colorblindness, since I can’t speak for conservatives or black people. While humans will always make decisions based on what we perceive, the government should not. What conservatives and other anti-race preference opponents like myself believe is that government policy should be colorblind; that is, the government should not make policy, write laws, or base decisions on a citizen’s race, color, creed, or religion. We are to be judged and treated as individuals, not as members or representatives of a racial or ethnic group.
This idea of colorblind government policy extends all over: the legal system, the legislature, the execution of laws, etc.
According to the Fourteenth Amendment, federal, state, and local governments are prohibited from preferring one group over the other on the basis of race. Neither the amendment nor the rest of the Constitution denies differences; they embody the idea that “all men are created equal” and that government is expressly forbidden to allocate rights or burdens on the basis of race.
As noble an idea that is, it’s currently not practiced by the United States government.
Thomas Jefferson said, “The purpose of government is to allow for the preservation of life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Sound familiar? A government’s purpose is to maintain order, protect rights, and the rule of law so that people can pursue life, liberty, and happiness. A government’s purpose is not to give, promise, or guarantee these things. No government can. In a free and relatively orderly country like the U.S., we have the freedom to forge our own destinies — to enter into and excel in a profession, to create art, music, and literature, to procreate and form families, to contribute to society, to pass on our wealth and our legacies to posterity.
That’s a lot of power and potential. No matter what our limitations may be, our government affords us the freedom to succeed, fail, and try again. That’s why I’m in awe of this country’s founding principles.
I once thought human beings could ignore differences and just “get along.” I now understand that even if we can’t do that, our government is there to make sure our rights are protected without regard to those differences.
It looks like my naivety has come full circle. 
Related posts:
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 40 comments }
Good post.
I now understand that even if we can’t do that, our government is there to make sure our rights are protected without regard to those differences.
As a liberal, my frustration with many on the right (not you) is that every time the government tries to do something which ensures that “rights are protected without regard to those differences”, it often gets spun as “special rights” or “minority rights” or some such nonsense.
Even the Fourteenth Amendment (in its time) was once seen as “giving” rights to blacks and other racial minorities. It doesn’t. It preserves the rights which had (up until then) always been there, but which had been (up until then) wrongfully denied.
To the extent that “affirmative action” programs require quotas and the compelled hiring of certain groups of people, those are clearly wrong.
But I see nothing wrong with laws — as well as business policies or education policies — which seek to achieve diversity. Diversity does not mean preference of one group over another; in fact, it literally means the opposite.
Anyway, I too hope for a day when everyone is truly colorblind, or (even better), notices and cherishes the differences. But I don’t think that will happen in my lifetime.
>>I see nothing wrong with laws — as well as business policies or education policies — which seek to achieve diversity.
…
To the extent that “affirmative action†programs require quotas and the compelled hiring of certain groups of people, those are clearly wrong.>>
These statements seem contradictory to me. Any government action that seeks to achieve a particular racial end is necessarily discriminatory against the groups that don’t meet that racial profile.
What do you see as the benefit of diversity? How do you define it?
I am of the opinion that affrimative action and all forms of it will be abolished by law in my lifetime (I’m 33). I also believe this nation is regressing in terms of race relations. I’ve come to the conclusion that I must worry about myself and my family and stop worrying about everyone else.
Good post.
In the 1960s, I was adamantly FOR the Civil Rights Movement of the time, and the non-discrimination laws resulting from it. Now I am just as adamantly OPPOSED to affirmative action laws or other legislation implying special rights for certain racial groups. Back then I was perceived as a liberal. Now I’m perceived as a conservative. Funny thing: I still have the same opinions about race relations that I had 40 years ago.
The age of rapid transportation and communication has changed everything. We find ourselves in a global society where there are a myriad of differences in ethnicities, race, religion, etc., and almost overnight that global society has landed in our very own backyards. Some of us are scared. Some of us are bewildered. Some of us are angry. Some of us are thrilled with the adventure.
I think it is probably right that affirmative action as we currently know it will end in the not too distant future because who is the minority today will probably not be tomorrow. There will be much competition for preferred status. Race may not be a deciding factor at all for jobs or education in the future.
Today, we are largely a Christian nation based on Christian values. That’s one thing we still do have in common, but what will we be 50 years from now? Look at Europe. The effect of multiculturism and the influx of Muslims has changed everything but the grand old castles.
Yes, we do have our government to protect us as individuals, but who is that actually? It’s whoever interprets the constitution and whoever makes the laws. Who will that be tomorrow?
I guess only one thing is certain and that is change.
>>”But I see nothing wrong with laws — as well as business policies or education policies — which seek to achieve diversity. Diversity does not mean preference of one group over another; in fact, it literally means the opposite.”
I don’t think such laws are practical. Equal Opportunity is good enough. (I take that to mean that establishments are prohibited from denying people entry based simply on their color. If I’m wrong in my understanding, please tell me.)
What’s diversity anyway, and why is it a goal that needs to be achieved? A workplace or classroom is better served with diverse thoughts than appearances. If a room is filled with Indians, Aboriginese, Caucasians, Asians, and whoever else…so what? In itself, it achieves nothing but looking like a Benetton ad. That’s what race-based laws do: they make things look good but don’t actually *do* any good.
What color is my skin, folks?
My point being that the internet is a great equalizer, as we are, in effect, colorblind online.
Equal opportunity is important. Equal reseult is not.
If people apply for a job (or a series of jobs) and there are more qualified white applicants, you’re going to be more likely to have a department/company/whatever with more white people. Same for other races. Requiring an equal result under these conditions (or requiring diversity or whatever) is the equivalent of a quota.
There are more men than women in the hard sciences, for example. This is because women are less likely to want or be able to make the sacrifices necessary to do the job. (Same with CEO, etc. and other jobs that suck your life away). I quit science in grad school when it became apparently I (personally) wasn’t able to both get my PhD from them and be a good wife. I just didn’t have the time and energy. Some people can do it. I cannot. I chose my family.
Other jobs have similar preferences. For example, most veterinarians coming out of vet school are female. The classes are 90%+ women. Therefore, I expect going forward for there to be more female vets. Why? I have no idea why women choose it so much more. Maybe the men want the prestige of being doctors. Or women relate more to caring for pets. I have no idea. But if you required 50-50 men and women, all the guys would get a job and most of the women would not.
Basketball teams are usually more black than white. Should I protest? I doubt it.
Equal Opportunity is good enough. (I take that to mean that establishments are prohibited from denying people entry based simply on their color. If I’m wrong in my understanding, please tell me.)
I think that this is the stickler here. A lot of people are skeptical of the notion that laws against discrimination equate to equal opportunity. Let’s take a hypothetical example.
There are 10 positions available for a job and there is a pool of 100 applicants who are 100% equally qualified. Lets say that 50 of these applicants are black and 50 are white. If they are picked randomly, the law of averages would lean toward the positions being filled by 5 blacks and 5 whites. But if the positions are filled by 10 whites, the employer has still filled the positions with people who are no less qualified than any of the other applicants.
This very employer can easily claim that he or she chose those ten based on personal intuition, etc., while in reality having had a personal preference for white employees. But we can’t prove this. We can only speculate and such speculation has brought about the criticism that unequal outcomes don’t equate to unequal treatment. This employer didn’t promote less qualified whites over more qualified blacks, but did use race as a factor in his or her own mind since he or she, in this hypothetical example, had absolutely no pressure to hire any employees of any particular race.
I think Affirmative Action had it’s time and was necessary for awhile. There are a few ways to even the playing field. Affirmative Action was a way to burst the doors open now, while undergirding it was the opportunity for minorities to go to their school of choice, learn the profession they desired, and carve their niche.
After enough years of opportunity, minorities, Blacks, can have the strength to participate in the self-policing of a free society, outing those who support and/or advance policies which make it less free.
Affirmative Action has been alive far past it’s useful time and like taking just a little antibiotic, it’s presence is making the disease it was intended to kill, stronger and stronger.
Basketball teams are usually more black than white. Should I protest? I doubt it.
Well, I cited an article some time back whereas an NBA coach admitted that there was an unwritten rule to have at least 3 white ball players on the team.
La Shawn pointed out that human beings cannot ignore differences. Employers are human beings and much of the discussion seems to assume that employers will be totally colorblind when hiring and that any lack of colorblindness will easily be detectable. There is a bases behind our parents telling us that we had to be “twice a good” to succeed (which is not a bad thing).
But such inevitable unequal treatment can be positive in that it will promote more dependence on ourselves, so I think it is worth a try. But lets not be naive and put halos on white employers not employers of any race.
In keeping with Mark’s thoughts, I’d like to ask Shade how long Affirmative Action needs to remain in place before we’re absolutely sure that no employer will ever hire with the slightest fragment of racial bias.
You may want to refer that question to the person who said that Affirmative Action needs to remain until no employers have the slightest fragment of racial bias.
The libs want to set a date when we start getting out of Iraq. Would they also be willing to set a date when the sun sets on Affirmative Action?
After all, President Johnson and his cronies said it was a temporary program. Of course, temporary in government speak means “a whole lot like permanent.”
I was raised by a Southern father who taught me that skin color differences were irrelevant (I know - considering it was the 40s and 50s, he was a man way out of step with his times - and I’m grateful for that). If anything, I was somewhat envious of “people of color” because being a fair-skinned redhead - I NEVER (to myself anyway) looked healthy!
As an adult, I frequently found just as many issues with white people as with black. I mean, rotten human beings are rotten human beings - whatever the husk, right?
I do know that when it comes to diversity in the workplace, it is (a) worthwhile to recognize that different people take in information and process it in vastly divergent ways and (b) allowing for those differences in absorption and function can make the day move more smoothly and productively. I’m not saying “make excuses” but what I am saying is that we can’t all just bull along as though our way is the only way in situations where the teamwork is important. I also think that it is important - and rather enjoyable - when people of different backgrounds and different life experiences all bring their different points of view to the table and use their differences to affect meaningful progress. Doesn’t happen enough - especially it seems lately in our U.S. Congress (both houses).
But I see nothing wrong with laws as well as business policies or education policies which seek to achieve diversity.
I do. They interfere with individuals’ freedom to choose what they do, who they associate with, where they live, etc.
I hear a lot of (white, middle class) people say, “Milwaukee is SO SEGREGATED” in a tone that indicates they believe that this is a Bad Thing. I’ve started asking them when they plan on moving to a different (black, lower income) neighborhood. Well, of course, they never mean THEY should live THERE; they mean that the city government should have a plan for turfing some of the (black, lower income) folks out into other (white, middle-class) neighborhoods and build some condos in their place.
I’d rather let people decide for themselves where to go and what to do. It seems a lot less racist (classist?) than telling them they should do something I wouldn’t do because I “know what’s best for them”.
Sadly, a colorblind society will not exist for generations to come. Race hustling and the mother lode of all shakedowns - exploitation of white guilt - is simply too profitable both politically and financially. Just look how good its been for them in all our major urban cities like my own here in DC. There’s hundreds of billions of dollars at stake for these hustlers, black and white. And there are millions of white socialists who would fight tooth and nail to give up the narcissistic opportunity to assuage their guilt.
Great post, La Shawn! I have always thought the differences among groups of people is “what makes the world go round”, so to speak. I grew up in New York and always found it fascinating to see the differences between people, even though we were all Americans. Different does not mean unequal. It just means different. And that is O.K.! Maybe years ago quotas might have been a good thing, but when a Caucasian girl (Me) can look at a Black girl and think ‘that girl has got it together, I wish I were more like her’, then I think quotas have outlived their usefulness!
“There are 10 positions available for a job and there is a pool of 100 applicants who are 100% equally qualified. ”
In virtually all jobs, people are not equally qualified (homogenous).
For some jobs, say beat cop, I am sure Shade would be a better “match†for the job than I or most people.
But with an ordering of people for a job, from 1 to 100, IF you don’t hire someone because of their race, you have to take a LESS qualified person, which costs the employer money.
The economic models where it does pay to discriminate are ones where some customers prefer to have a say white waiter to a black waiter.
I used to be in a position where I was responsible for interviewing job candidates and making hiring recommendations for my department. Often times, I could not hire the *most* qualified job applicant because they cost too much (and sometimes that person we couldn’t afford was black). Another factor was someone’s willingness to put up with specific requirements of the job (must be able to travel, work OT, some weekends, being on-call). Saying you have all candidates for a job that are equally *qualified* to perform the job doesn’t mean they are all the right fitys did with someone I liked in an initial interview was let that person talk with my existing employees - it helped *everyone* decide if they liked the possible fit. Always, whether we liked someone or not had nothing to do with race/skin color. On-paper qualifications are only one factor I used in making hiring decisions, so the “should be half and half with a pool of equally qualified applicants” doesn’t hold up in the real world.
Achieving affirmative action through mandated race based quotas MAY end. However, grants, largely to urban areas, amount to hundreds of billions of dollars per year. These grants represent one of the most extraordinary efforts in the world to alleviate poverty and to extend oportunities to achieve the Ameican Dream.
Colorblind-ness….and the failure practice it amongst many individuals/entities.You’re talking about personal bias.
We know that private organizations, and the media have personal bias.
But, we don’t want it in Goverment, and yet it pervades.
Government is made up of people…who have personal bias in their private lives, and can’t leave it at home when they show up for work.
The question is why? Why the failure of the 14th amendment?
Incompetence?
Greed?
Being ‘colourblind’ is a worthy goal in my opinion.
I look forward to a period of human advancement when people are evaluated, appraised, appreciatd, or opposed by values such as:
Strength of character, honesty, treatment of others.
Attainment, achievment and other skills are secondary to the above, yet still important, and everyone should have a fair crack at education, not some more than others.
***********************************************
Place of birth, and colour of skin are very poor things to judge, yet are usually held high by supremacists, whose degenerate behaviour and attitude is some twisted kind of irony.
Regards,
John.
The more I read on this site the happier I get. This site has help me win several with my liberal family members. They always argue with sound bites and rhetoric. I’ve always fought to ensure that my performance was the only criteria that anyone needed to look at. As a country we don’t need to be colorblind. Our focus just needs to be on the best candidate for the task at hand.
Heliotrope asks:
The libs want to set a date when we start getting out of Iraq. Would they also be willing to set a date when the sun sets on Affirmative Action?
Well, I don’t agree with characterization of what libs want re Iraq, but, as a lib, I certainly agree with you that Affirmative Action programs were not intended to be permanent and should be taken off the table at some point.
The problem is determining when.
How about now? What will change in 5 years that will make that a better time?
Courage isn’t just “not being afraid”. We have a word for “not being afraid”. It’s called “foolhardy”.
Courage is being afraid, but acknowledging that fear, fighting it back, and doing what you’re afraid of anyway.
Similarly, being truly “colorblind” doesn’t mean ignoring differences. It means treating people like people even though the little monkey in the back of your head is shrieking “NOT MY TRIBE NOT MY TRIBE KILL KILL KILL”.
–GF
“Always, whether we liked someone or not had nothing to do with race/skin color. ”
But it may have something to do with culture – blacks are more likely to sit with fellow blacks just as white are more likely to sit with fellow whites.
Nothing wrong with pride in your culture, as long as it does not exclude or demean others but talk and act like you are not in mainstream America, and don’t be surprised if a few people hang out and hire people more in the mainstream.
>>blacks are more likely to sit with fellow blacks just as white are more likely to sit with fellow whites.>>
And women are more likely to sit with women and vice-versa. We tend to associate with those with whom we feel more comfortable. A very long time ago when we were in the military and traveling in Europe, we were always happy to see a black person - we knew he probably spoke English. Today it’s different(in Europe, that is) of course, but at that time, black meant someone in our comfort zone.
Whites and blacks both avoid sitting with me, because I’m such a grouchy curmudgeon. Does this mean I’m being discriminated against twice on the basis of who I am? Is there an affirmative action program for me?
As long as things like this go on to cheers and laughter, blantantly, there will always be affirmative action.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20030716.html
http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=58405&provider=top
I remember this happening at my highschool football game. My mostly white catholic school was playing the ‘urban’ school and fans of my school had no problem with yelling nigger and making monkey noises to the glee of the other fans.
“I’m such a grouchy curmudgeon. Does this mean I’m being discriminated against twice on the basis of who I am?”
Sounds analogous to the gay argument.
If your grouchy condition is genetic and you can’t help it, it may be unfair for people to discriminate against you.
But I gather that you are grouchy by choice, and you should calculate that people would treat you meanly when deciding to be a grouch and take your punishment.
“take your punishment.”
How do you suggest we punish gays, UNK?
Why should they have anythings like OBE and racial prefrences and ebonics and all this other poppycock nonsense favored by JESSE JACKASSON and AL SHARPTON and the RAINBOW/PUSH bunch.
By not sitting with them, I assume.
Punishment may have been a bad choice of words on my part.
Not suggesting that people make an effort to inflict pain on gays or grouches by not sitting next to them.
But if they are openly gay or grouches by choice, one should not feel required to sit next to them if you don’t want to.
Gary sez:
As a born again christian, I puzzled by what the crusade against gays the church is having.
I think you are puzzled because you are like many who embrace “buffet table Christianity”, where they pick and choose as they like, which tenets of the faith or warnings of the scriptures apply. Homosexual behavior is a sin. What part of that don’t you understand? Is sin optional under your brand of “convenience store Christianity?”
We are all sinners, a white lie you tell to your friend is as grave as two men lying with each other. It’s sin.
Of course sin is sin, but there are gradations of sin as the scripture makes plain. See the Laws of Moses for example. The man whose negligence caused his neighbor’s ox to be injured paid restitution in kind or cash. He was not sentenced to death like the murderer. Same principle applies in Christianity. At the Last Day, at the Final Judgement, each of the unrepentant or unsaved are judged according to their deeds. The mass murderer will certainly receive a harsher judgement than the shoplifter. This should be pretty obvious to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Christianity.
It’s like parenting, the more you say no to your kids, the more they want to rebel. The more obsession evangelicals will have in bringing down the gay movement, the more it’s gonna rise.
Using this reasoning, then none of the moral teachings of the scripture apply or need to be stood up for, since people are gonna sin anyway. It is really ludricrous. Do courts and police wave away enforcement of criminal law because some people are gonna break the law anyway?
God doesn’t need our help to fight his battles. Christians become easy prey to Satan’s tricks. The minute something happens in our society that goes against the bible, you see millions of Christians with cardboards protesting on TV like it’s the end of the world.
Actually not quite. How many of these millions of Christians have shown up on TV to protest shoplifting (which is against the Bible) for example?
What about love? I’m always wondering if this Christian movement agains the gay movement is motivated by the bible or people’s own personal prejudice against the behavior.
Actually it is motivated by the clear injunction in both the Old and New Testaments against homosexuality, hard as this is for “convenience store Christianity” to swallow.
Do we want homosexuals to change or do we want to constantly remind them of their sins to feel better of ourselves. It’s like the story of Jonah in the bible who didn’t want to save the people from Ninives.
Actually people have been known to change by constantly being reminded of moral standards. Legal systems are full of “reminders” of various standards of behavior to follow. In personal life, children for example have been known to abstain from theft, murder, rudeness, arson and other things because their parents took the time to deliver “boring” or “useless” or untrendy “reminders.” This is Life 101. As for Jonah, his problem is that he DID NOT want to remind the people of Nineveh about their sins. The example of Jonah actually contradicts the point you are trying to make.
If Christians are so worked up about gays, then what about alcoholics, drug addicts, prostitution, dirty corporate dealings ect… I mean these themes don’t get the same “heat†that Christian generate when they talk about..
Actually many of the themes you mention get a lot more “heat” in the scriptures than homosexuality. References to drunkeness and prostitution for example far outnumber those that deal with homosexuality, so your notion of “heat” doesn’t stand up. In real life the same pattern applies, Every Sunday these supposedly “cold” themese you mention get a lot more attention than homosexuality. I think your problem is that you want either want Christians to turn a blind eye to homosexual sin, or you want to give homosexuals special treatment that no other sinner gets.
People who cheat on their wives or frequent prostitutes do not get any special favors under Christianity. There are no calls for “tolerance” of that sort of behavior. Why is it that homosexuals and their sympathizers want special treatment, and special dispensation to continue with their sin, while others are called on the carpet? What makes gays so special that they are exempt from the same moral standards as everyone else under Christianity?”
Gary further sez:
Again, I 100% doesn’t agree with homosexuality, but I think Christians are going about this the wrong way, our goal is to save souls in a compassionate way.
Actually when Jesus confronted sin, he did not pull punches, look the other way or talk about “tolerance” with a nod and a wink. When the woman in John 8 was taken in adultery, he told her to “go and sin no more.” He did not say “carry on with business as usual.” When he made a scourge of whips and drove the shysters and moneychangers from the holy temple, he was not talking “tolerance” and “diversity”. He was talking ahderence to moral standards. Such facts are too often forgotten by those who mumble the mantras of “compassion.” What they are realy saying is Let’s give homosexuals special exemption from moral standards that no one else in Christianity is getting, and let’s cover this sleight of hand by talking ’bout ‘compassion’”
Homosexuality is no different than lying, cheating, gossiping, or even looking at someone. How many times, have we looked at anyone on TV, public place and say “he or she is cuteâ€, that’s adultery.
Actually it is. The AIDS epidemic that killed so many young people in their prime was not caused by “gossip” or looking at someone “cute”. Your tactic here is to try to water down moral standards against homosexuality by making it seem trivial, but scripture does not treat it as trivial. The second part of your tactic is to again plead for special treatment for homosexuals.
Scripture does not treat things like adultery or prostitution as trivial. Why should homosexuals get special dispensation to “do their own thing” while the rest of us have to repent and correct our behavior? What makes homosexuals so special that they are exempt from moral standards? Why the special treatment?
When a gay person watches television and sees a televangelist go on and on and on about homosexuals burning in hell for their sins, do you think that that person would ever want to get saved, become Christian, or re-think his lifestyle?
Actually yes. That is the beauty of the Gospel. People realize God is righteous and that he thus hates sin. They realize that God has in Christ, made a way to escape the burden and effect of that sin. And they take advantage of God’s offer- set forth in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Tens of millions of people have rethought their lifestyle because of the Gospel. Again, what makes homosexuals so special that they are exempt from this process? Again, why do homosexuals get special dispensation to “do their own thing” when the rest of us don’t?
When I read Jesus’s journey on earth, it was all about compassion, compassion for the poor, the sick, the prostitutes, the thieves, the crooked tax collectors. That’s the problem I have with conservatives and evangelicals these days NOT ALL, I just don’t seen any compassion.
Actually you neglect to mention the first thing that comes before compassion- righteousness. If a burgular is beating a victim to death, we can all have “compassion” for said thug because of his difficult upbringing, but the first order of bidniss is righteousness- stopping said hooligan from beating his victim to death. The foundation of compassion is righteousness- doing right. It is only by doing right that true compassion manifests itself. Many do not like to hear this “untrendy” message, but it is the primary element of Christianity in action.
Like Jesus told the pharisees regarding Mary Magadalene, I’m paraphrasing “whoever is without sin be the first one to cast the first stoneâ€
And like many you forget to mention the last words of Jesus to that woman- “go and sin no more.” She was to STOP what she was doing- clean up her act. She was not to continue business as usual with her adultery. The hypocritical Pharisees were called to account, but so was the woman. Many conveniently forget to quote the WHOLE example of that woman, as set forth in John 8. It is a convenient memory lapse, but it cannot change the foundation of righteousness.
The word to homosexuals from this example, is that you can make a change for the better. You can do better. You can repent and change. It may not happen overnight, but the opportunity is there- the door is open. We ALL have to go through it. Take the opportunity like the rest of us, without asking for special dispensations or favors to continue business as usual.
Yeah Enrique - He told her to go and sin no more, not that she was going to burn and suffer in hell, or that she should die, and that 9/11 and AIDS was her fault
But I see nothing wrong with laws — as well as business policies or education policies — which seek to achieve diversity. Diversity does not mean preference of one group over another; in fact, it literally means the opposite.
Why is “diversity” the highest good? And how do you define “diversity?”
As a shareholder or a customer in a business or as a taxpayer, I want the most qualified person — black, white, purple or polka-dotted — in the job. When you start making laws and policies about whom should be hired, that has the potential to put the more qualified person out of the running.
I have been grossly insulted to know that my bosses have gotten extra points on their scorecard because they had me — a woman — on their payroll. They had “diversity” targets, you see. They were supposed to have a certain number of women and minorities above a certain level. How demeaning to even think that I had the job not because I was really good (which I am!) but because I don’t have certain genitalia.
It is insulting to anyone to assume they aren’t good enough to get somewhere without special help. If employers are stupid enough to hire the less qualified because they don’t like their skin color, religion, sex, ethnic background, or whatever, they will suffer the consequences by competing with businesses that are smart enough to hire good people irrespective of appearance.
[On a related note, if I were in charge of a company, I would fire all the men and hire just women, because WE ALL KNOW THAT WOMEN MAKE JUST 76 CENTS FOR EVERY DOLLAR A MAN MAKES! The smart CEO would cut his labor costs dramatically by hiring only women.]
#41 Zakia: “…He told her to go and sin no more, not that she was going to burn and suffer in hell, or that she should die…”
And if she went and continued sinning, she was going to what? Would you mind enlightening us on the logical follow-thru for consequences of living/dying in sin per Jesus’ teachings?
Comments on this entry are closed.