Suppose you are studying for your dream job, a job that will be interesting, rewarding, and that will pay well and provide good benefits. You expect that 1000 people will be hired when you graduate. The hiring process will require that you demonstrate knowledge of all aspects of your qualifications. However you learn that there are 10,000 people expected to apply for that job. How hard would you study?
Now let's change the scenario a bit. The people hiring not only want employees who can do the job, they also want a certain physical characteristic, namely red hair. In fact they are willing to hire people otherwise unqualified if they have naturally red hair. Of the 10,000 people studying for that job, only 800 are redheads and you are one of them. That means you are essentially guaranteed a job. Now how hard would you study?
“That's silly,” you say. “What employer would ever do such a thing? If they did they would only encourage certain groups to slack off. The employer would end up with incompetent employees. Other employees would resent them and the incompetents would feel inferior. Morale and company performance would both suffer.”
Sadly the answer is that lots of employers do similar things, and our government encourages them to do it. In fact government is the prime offender. The desired characteristics are not red hair but dark skin or two X chromosomes. Any employer with an insufficient number of employees in those categories is considered to be discriminatory, regardless of other reasons for the workforce makeup. Universities also attempt to admit students at least partly on the basis of ethnicity. The results are predictable. We've created a form of identity-based society. Groups of people think that they are entitled to jobs or advanced education because of their ethnicity or sex. In all too many cases, identity supersedes qualification.
For example, “Black American college students planning to go on to post-graduate education were found by one study to feel no sense of urgency about needing to prepare themselves academically 'because they believe that certain rules would simply be set aside for them.'”* That study was done before such things as the Bakke decision, but it does illustrate the problems created by entitlements. People simply don't work as hard when they perceive no need to do so.
Similar studies have found a lackadaisical approach to learning elsewhere when some ethnicities were given preference for hiring or admission. Malaysian students were legally entitled to preferential hiring for government jobs, over the better-educated Chinese minority. In the American Virgin Islands children knew they would have government jobs waiting so they failed to apply themselves in school. Meanwhile their West Indian classmates did better academically but were not eligible for those jobs. In those cases it was the majority getting the preferences and slacking off because of those preferences.* *
The result in such cases is discrimination against those who work harder to become qualified. Another result is poor performance of all employees. Those employees hired (or students admitted) to achieve “racial balance” or something similar are seldom qualified so they cannot do the work well. The qualified employees resent those hired to meet quotas, so they often fail to work to their ability. Everybody loses.
The U.S. Naval Academy is a sad example. Most applicants with C average grades and a 500 SAT score can forget about ever being admitted. Not so for black applicants. In an effort to “remove artificial barriers” they can be sent to a remedial school in Rhode Island where they will have a chance to improve their grades. Even if they fail there they may be admitted to the academy. Then if they do poorly in either class work or deportment they will be treated with kid gloves in order to reach the de facto quota of black naval officers.
As a result of this special treatment, those “special” students are the subject of resentment. Their white classmates resent the fact that they got special treatment. Of course there are plenty of qualified black cadets at the academy and they resent the fact that people may think that they were also admitted under affirmative action instead for their very real qualifications. As citizens we might all resent the fact that defense of our country is being entrusted to the unqualified.
Of course we should help inner city kids whose schools are hardly worthy of the name. However the way to do it is to provide them with opportunity for a good education, not to put them into situations where they are unqualified. Unfortunately too many people want to do it backwards. They want to build the superstructure before the foundation by admitting the unqualified to higher education or by hiring them. Instead we should build the foundation first by educating them at the primary and secondary level.
College admission is not an entitlement. Neither is a job. We need to encourage people to become qualified for education and jobs, not just give it to them because of skin color. Giving someone an “entitlement” because of irrelevant physical features deprives the person of the satisfaction that comes from being a productive citizen. It deprives others of the jobs or education they might have had. It deprives the country of what that person might have produced had he developed his potential instead of just taking “entitlements.”
We should all work to stop this nonsense, for the betterment of the country and for the benefit of both those discriminated against and those handicapped by receiving preferences.
*Thomas Sowell, The Quest for Cosmic Justice, p40, referring to Daniel C. Thompson, Private Black Colleges at the Crossroads
** Ibid
Showing posts with label preference. Show all posts
Showing posts with label preference. Show all posts
Monday, July 27, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
Identity Politics, Part 3, A Polarized Society
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
Yugoslavia. When it existed as a country it was in the Balkan region, an area known for ethnic and religious strife and for fomenting violence. That violence too often spread to other countries and even triggered World War I. Yugoslavia itself was composed of diverse groups with historical animosities. Yet for a time under Tito the country was relatively peaceful. Whatever Tito’s faults, he kept ethnic tensions under control by not allowing demagogues to stir up old hatreds. That all ended after his death. Slobodan Milosevic re-ignited the historical mistrust and tensions. He undoubtedly saw political gain for himself by use of “divide and conquer” rhetoric. The result was that the country disintegrated, but not before thousands died in internecine violence.
Sri Lanka is another example. The Tamil and Sinhalese generally got along peacefully for decades. Then the newly independent government decided to make Sinhalese the official language and to institute an affirmative action plan, ostensibly to make up for past discrimination against the Sinhalese majority. The result was 25 years of nasty civil war and terrorist actions, even now only partly settled.
Yugoslavia and Sri Lanka illustrate the dangers of identity politics. Sadly, they are not isolated examples. Sunni and Shiites in Iraq, Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, Armenians and Turks, etc. Wherever one group is pitted against another there will be strife, and it is not possible at the outset to know where that strife will lead. Favoritism in education, employment, and government benefits is nearly certain, but the problem often goes farther. It is common for both sides (or all sides when more than two groups are involved) to see themselves as victims and others as oppressors. That leads to a mob-like mentality, regarding the “oppressors” as a group of faceless enemies. This helps justify all manner of anti-social behavior, ranging from isolated attacks on individuals all the way up to armed revolution.
Where will the identity politics in the U.S. today take us? It is impossible to say. However we can know where it has taken us in the past. This country has seen Blacks lynched just because someone accused them of looking at white women. We have seen church burnings and bombings. We have seen race riots in which innocent shopkeepers were assaulted for the crime of being of a different ethnicity than the neighborhood majority. Fortunately at present we do not face overthrow of our government by armed revolutionaries, at least as far as I can foresee. However continued demagoguery can stir up strife in this country, including riots and other violence.
What can we do about this? First we must publicly and vociferously oppose the demagogues who try to pit one group against another. When a politician or other misleader advocates favoritism we must call it the bigotry it is.
Secondly we should emulate those parts of our society in which bias is most nearly eradicated. The most color-blind areas today are probably the military and professional sports. In those fields people are rewarded for performance, not for skin color. Few people care much about the color of LeBron James’ or Tom Brady’s skin. However both men have fans who care very much about their ability to get a basketball in a basket or a football into the hands of a receiver. Millions of young people work very hard to develop abilities similar to those of Brady and James.
What if we could spread the ethic of hard work and personnel qualification beyond sports and the military? What if we told the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world that they should encourage education and work instead of preference as the way to succeed (something Jackson used to do)? How would that change our society? Imagine millions of young people working as hard to learn math as some do to learn basketball. What would that do for them individually and for the country as a whole within a few years?
Let us tell the identity politics demagogues to crawl back under their rocks. Instead let’s encourage everybody to find enjoyable, fulfilling work and to become good at their work. And let’s reward them for performance, not for ethnicity or gender.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
Yugoslavia. When it existed as a country it was in the Balkan region, an area known for ethnic and religious strife and for fomenting violence. That violence too often spread to other countries and even triggered World War I. Yugoslavia itself was composed of diverse groups with historical animosities. Yet for a time under Tito the country was relatively peaceful. Whatever Tito’s faults, he kept ethnic tensions under control by not allowing demagogues to stir up old hatreds. That all ended after his death. Slobodan Milosevic re-ignited the historical mistrust and tensions. He undoubtedly saw political gain for himself by use of “divide and conquer” rhetoric. The result was that the country disintegrated, but not before thousands died in internecine violence.
Sri Lanka is another example. The Tamil and Sinhalese generally got along peacefully for decades. Then the newly independent government decided to make Sinhalese the official language and to institute an affirmative action plan, ostensibly to make up for past discrimination against the Sinhalese majority. The result was 25 years of nasty civil war and terrorist actions, even now only partly settled.
Yugoslavia and Sri Lanka illustrate the dangers of identity politics. Sadly, they are not isolated examples. Sunni and Shiites in Iraq, Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, Armenians and Turks, etc. Wherever one group is pitted against another there will be strife, and it is not possible at the outset to know where that strife will lead. Favoritism in education, employment, and government benefits is nearly certain, but the problem often goes farther. It is common for both sides (or all sides when more than two groups are involved) to see themselves as victims and others as oppressors. That leads to a mob-like mentality, regarding the “oppressors” as a group of faceless enemies. This helps justify all manner of anti-social behavior, ranging from isolated attacks on individuals all the way up to armed revolution.
Where will the identity politics in the U.S. today take us? It is impossible to say. However we can know where it has taken us in the past. This country has seen Blacks lynched just because someone accused them of looking at white women. We have seen church burnings and bombings. We have seen race riots in which innocent shopkeepers were assaulted for the crime of being of a different ethnicity than the neighborhood majority. Fortunately at present we do not face overthrow of our government by armed revolutionaries, at least as far as I can foresee. However continued demagoguery can stir up strife in this country, including riots and other violence.
What can we do about this? First we must publicly and vociferously oppose the demagogues who try to pit one group against another. When a politician or other misleader advocates favoritism we must call it the bigotry it is.
Secondly we should emulate those parts of our society in which bias is most nearly eradicated. The most color-blind areas today are probably the military and professional sports. In those fields people are rewarded for performance, not for skin color. Few people care much about the color of LeBron James’ or Tom Brady’s skin. However both men have fans who care very much about their ability to get a basketball in a basket or a football into the hands of a receiver. Millions of young people work very hard to develop abilities similar to those of Brady and James.
What if we could spread the ethic of hard work and personnel qualification beyond sports and the military? What if we told the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world that they should encourage education and work instead of preference as the way to succeed (something Jackson used to do)? How would that change our society? Imagine millions of young people working as hard to learn math as some do to learn basketball. What would that do for them individually and for the country as a whole within a few years?
Let us tell the identity politics demagogues to crawl back under their rocks. Instead let’s encourage everybody to find enjoyable, fulfilling work and to become good at their work. And let’s reward them for performance, not for ethnicity or gender.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Identity Politics, Part 2
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me
Senator Patrick Leahy has strongly implied that criticism of Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor is racist. And what were those “racist” remarks? The culprits quoted Sotomayor verbatim. There is no doubt that Sotomayor made a racist statement. There is no doubt that she said it multiple times. Yet Leahy has the nerve to accuse people of racism when they simply point out what she said. Worse, he misquoted her, apparently deliberately.
Leahy claimed, “[Sotomayor] said that, quote, you 'would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would reach wise decisions.'" Notice that he claims to be quoting her verbatim. That was a lie; he was creatively editing her words to make her statement sound neutral when in fact it was racist.
What Sotomayor in fact said was, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." The claim that her race and sex would reach better decisions is clearly racist, as I’ve discussed in my blog on the Gander Test. Removing the racist part of the quote is dishonest. Leahy is a liar when he says that he is quoting her statement.
However we should not be surprised that someone like Leahy, well on the left of the political spectrum, would do such a thing. Many of those people are incapable of recognizing racism in anybody but a white person. Leahy probably thinks that telling his lie is actually serving a good cause. Many of those people actually believe that it is not possible for a Black or Hispanic to be a bigot. That is a part of identity politics, they judge people by the color of their skin or their sex, not by what they actually say or do. However racist is as racist does, contrary to what the leftists claim.
This is the other side of identity politics, excusing all manner of sin on the basis that the culprit is a minority. Worse, anyone who criticizes a minority, even for valid reasons, is labeled a bigot for having the temerity to speak the truth or a non-politically-correct opinion. This is widespread in our country today. For example, anyone who opposes homosexual marriage will be called homophobic and anyone who opposes affirmative action will be called racist. That is just the way identity politics works.
Another aspect of this is the article of faith on the left that any minority must be leftist. Many go so far as to call a black person who does not toe the leftist line “not an authentic Black.” In fact recently Senator Barbara Boxer used testimony by Harry Alford, chair of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, to imply that the other groups represent black people but that Alford’s organization does not because it does not go along with the leftist agenda.
Many of Boxer’s ilk think that minorities should remain in lockstep and not be allowed to stray from the leftist reservation. They think that minorities off that reservation lose their identity.
Can we change the adherents of identity politics? I doubt it, at least not most of them. They tend to have closed minds on the subject and will reject facts or sound reasoning. In fact they will call such facts and reasoning bias, but of course cannot tell us how they are biased. Oh there may be a few who listen to reason but most won’t. Most regard the accusation as proof, no more discussion needed.
What we can do is refuse to give in to the twisted accusations of identity politics. Of course first we must examine ourselves to be certain the charges are untrue. If they are all we need do is make a simple statement of that fact.
A leftist might say, “You’re a bigot, you called Sotomayor racist.”
A good response might be, “I am not a racist, in fact I have many Black and Hispanic friends. I simply quoted her own words, words she has spoken multiple times. Then I pointed out that if someone made a similar statement, claiming that a white man could make better decisions than a Latina woman, it would be recognized for the racism it is. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and Sotomayor’s statements are racist.”
Such a response probably won’t change the mind of the accuser; he is likely too closed-minded to understand it. However it will have an effect on neutral observers. Furthermore it will help us avoid the temptation to become as biased as the accuser in an attempt to avoid the accusation.
Leahy and his ilk will undoubtedly continue to make false accusations of bigotry. However I do not believe they are the majority in this country. I believe most people are smart enough to see how ridiculous those accusations are.
If you don't like it, please tell me
Senator Patrick Leahy has strongly implied that criticism of Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor is racist. And what were those “racist” remarks? The culprits quoted Sotomayor verbatim. There is no doubt that Sotomayor made a racist statement. There is no doubt that she said it multiple times. Yet Leahy has the nerve to accuse people of racism when they simply point out what she said. Worse, he misquoted her, apparently deliberately.
Leahy claimed, “[Sotomayor] said that, quote, you 'would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would reach wise decisions.'" Notice that he claims to be quoting her verbatim. That was a lie; he was creatively editing her words to make her statement sound neutral when in fact it was racist.
What Sotomayor in fact said was, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." The claim that her race and sex would reach better decisions is clearly racist, as I’ve discussed in my blog on the Gander Test. Removing the racist part of the quote is dishonest. Leahy is a liar when he says that he is quoting her statement.
However we should not be surprised that someone like Leahy, well on the left of the political spectrum, would do such a thing. Many of those people are incapable of recognizing racism in anybody but a white person. Leahy probably thinks that telling his lie is actually serving a good cause. Many of those people actually believe that it is not possible for a Black or Hispanic to be a bigot. That is a part of identity politics, they judge people by the color of their skin or their sex, not by what they actually say or do. However racist is as racist does, contrary to what the leftists claim.
This is the other side of identity politics, excusing all manner of sin on the basis that the culprit is a minority. Worse, anyone who criticizes a minority, even for valid reasons, is labeled a bigot for having the temerity to speak the truth or a non-politically-correct opinion. This is widespread in our country today. For example, anyone who opposes homosexual marriage will be called homophobic and anyone who opposes affirmative action will be called racist. That is just the way identity politics works.
Another aspect of this is the article of faith on the left that any minority must be leftist. Many go so far as to call a black person who does not toe the leftist line “not an authentic Black.” In fact recently Senator Barbara Boxer used testimony by Harry Alford, chair of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, to imply that the other groups represent black people but that Alford’s organization does not because it does not go along with the leftist agenda.
Many of Boxer’s ilk think that minorities should remain in lockstep and not be allowed to stray from the leftist reservation. They think that minorities off that reservation lose their identity.
Can we change the adherents of identity politics? I doubt it, at least not most of them. They tend to have closed minds on the subject and will reject facts or sound reasoning. In fact they will call such facts and reasoning bias, but of course cannot tell us how they are biased. Oh there may be a few who listen to reason but most won’t. Most regard the accusation as proof, no more discussion needed.
What we can do is refuse to give in to the twisted accusations of identity politics. Of course first we must examine ourselves to be certain the charges are untrue. If they are all we need do is make a simple statement of that fact.
A leftist might say, “You’re a bigot, you called Sotomayor racist.”
A good response might be, “I am not a racist, in fact I have many Black and Hispanic friends. I simply quoted her own words, words she has spoken multiple times. Then I pointed out that if someone made a similar statement, claiming that a white man could make better decisions than a Latina woman, it would be recognized for the racism it is. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and Sotomayor’s statements are racist.”
Such a response probably won’t change the mind of the accuser; he is likely too closed-minded to understand it. However it will have an effect on neutral observers. Furthermore it will help us avoid the temptation to become as biased as the accuser in an attempt to avoid the accusation.
Leahy and his ilk will undoubtedly continue to make false accusations of bigotry. However I do not believe they are the majority in this country. I believe most people are smart enough to see how ridiculous those accusations are.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Identity Politics, Part 1
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” So spoke the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. in 1963. To a great extent his dream has been realized. Official barriers to certain races have been eliminated. The Jim Crow laws are no longer with us. Of course there are still bigots in the country but at least they can no longer use the force of law to keep people out of schools or jobs just because of skin color. However the official forces of evil have are still with us, ironically now sometimes represented by the very people who claim to follow Dr. King.
The identity politics of Dr. King’s time involved blatant discrimination against black people. Today’s identity politics is not as blatant but still advocates discrimination. In the name of civil rights some are now advocating that people be judged by the color of their skin or by their sex instead of by the content of their character or their ability. In the state of Oregon for example, the Department of Human Services brags about having a great majority of women in upper pay ranges. They claim that having a majority of women somehow gives them diversity. They also say that they need to hire more people of certain races. That is hardly the color-blind society of Dr. King’s dreams. I have to admit that I fail to see how that can be squared with the constitutional requirement for equal protection under the law.
Identity politics is based on the idea that certain people should be given preference. That used to mean not hiring Blacks, Irish or people of certain other ethnicities. Today it again means discrimination against people of a certain skin color or sex. It is a group-based instead of an individual based legal theory. If a white man of 50 or 100 years ago discriminated against a black man of that same time, identity politics says that today we should discriminate against a white man to make up for it. The fact that both men from 50 or 100 years ago are now dead does not enter into the equation, nor does the fact that neither the white man discriminated against today or the black man benefiting from discrimination were even born when the earlier discrimination occurred. This theory punishes and rewards people for actions outside their control, actions done by people long dead.
Suppose your neighbor whose hair is the same color as yours were to steal a large amount of money, then disappear. His victim also moves away to parts unknown. Would it be fair to require you to pay back the money to someone in the victim’s old neighborhood whose hair is the same color as the victim’s? Yet that is essentially what today’s identity politics does under the name of affirmative action. Its advocates want to punish people for having an appearance similar to dead bigots. They want to use that punishment to the advantage of people who look like dead victims of discrimination. Rewards and punishments are handed out to people who had no control over the actions on which those rewards and punishments are based.
Consider three babies born the same day in the same city. One is the child of a wealthy black physician, another the child of a white single mother who struggles to pay the rent, while the third is born into a middle-class Chinese family. The physician’s child goes to a top-tier university, expenses paid by his father. The white child manages to get into the same university, taking out loans and working part-time to get his education. Both graduate with honors and apply for the same job. Who do you think will be hired? Most likely the doctor’s child because of his skin color. In fact, for many jobs the black person will be hired even if his qualifications are lower than those of the white person.
And what about the child of Chinese ancestry? He wasn’t even admitted to that university, even though he was more qualified than the other two. He had the misfortune to live and study in California where students of oriental ancestry have done too well. They are discriminated against in order to restore “racial balance.”
Affirmative action is discrimination, pure and simple.
In the long run identity politics harms everybody. While it’s obvious how in harms those discriminated against, there is also real damage to the supposed beneficiaries. Those people are encouraged to spend their time and energy defending their preference instead of working to get educated and preparing to compete on a level playing field. The person who spends his time working to get preference in hiring may come away with a job but will probably not feel competent in that job. If he spends that time studying engineering, science, business or something similar he will probably become qualified for a rewarding and possibly lucrative career.
Fairness and the constitution both require a color-blind society. We must work toward that end. Identity politics and affirmative action mean judging people on ethnicity or other irrelevant characteristics, not on character or ability. That is discrimination, pure and simple.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” So spoke the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. in 1963. To a great extent his dream has been realized. Official barriers to certain races have been eliminated. The Jim Crow laws are no longer with us. Of course there are still bigots in the country but at least they can no longer use the force of law to keep people out of schools or jobs just because of skin color. However the official forces of evil have are still with us, ironically now sometimes represented by the very people who claim to follow Dr. King.
The identity politics of Dr. King’s time involved blatant discrimination against black people. Today’s identity politics is not as blatant but still advocates discrimination. In the name of civil rights some are now advocating that people be judged by the color of their skin or by their sex instead of by the content of their character or their ability. In the state of Oregon for example, the Department of Human Services brags about having a great majority of women in upper pay ranges. They claim that having a majority of women somehow gives them diversity. They also say that they need to hire more people of certain races. That is hardly the color-blind society of Dr. King’s dreams. I have to admit that I fail to see how that can be squared with the constitutional requirement for equal protection under the law.
Identity politics is based on the idea that certain people should be given preference. That used to mean not hiring Blacks, Irish or people of certain other ethnicities. Today it again means discrimination against people of a certain skin color or sex. It is a group-based instead of an individual based legal theory. If a white man of 50 or 100 years ago discriminated against a black man of that same time, identity politics says that today we should discriminate against a white man to make up for it. The fact that both men from 50 or 100 years ago are now dead does not enter into the equation, nor does the fact that neither the white man discriminated against today or the black man benefiting from discrimination were even born when the earlier discrimination occurred. This theory punishes and rewards people for actions outside their control, actions done by people long dead.
Suppose your neighbor whose hair is the same color as yours were to steal a large amount of money, then disappear. His victim also moves away to parts unknown. Would it be fair to require you to pay back the money to someone in the victim’s old neighborhood whose hair is the same color as the victim’s? Yet that is essentially what today’s identity politics does under the name of affirmative action. Its advocates want to punish people for having an appearance similar to dead bigots. They want to use that punishment to the advantage of people who look like dead victims of discrimination. Rewards and punishments are handed out to people who had no control over the actions on which those rewards and punishments are based.
Consider three babies born the same day in the same city. One is the child of a wealthy black physician, another the child of a white single mother who struggles to pay the rent, while the third is born into a middle-class Chinese family. The physician’s child goes to a top-tier university, expenses paid by his father. The white child manages to get into the same university, taking out loans and working part-time to get his education. Both graduate with honors and apply for the same job. Who do you think will be hired? Most likely the doctor’s child because of his skin color. In fact, for many jobs the black person will be hired even if his qualifications are lower than those of the white person.
And what about the child of Chinese ancestry? He wasn’t even admitted to that university, even though he was more qualified than the other two. He had the misfortune to live and study in California where students of oriental ancestry have done too well. They are discriminated against in order to restore “racial balance.”
Affirmative action is discrimination, pure and simple.
In the long run identity politics harms everybody. While it’s obvious how in harms those discriminated against, there is also real damage to the supposed beneficiaries. Those people are encouraged to spend their time and energy defending their preference instead of working to get educated and preparing to compete on a level playing field. The person who spends his time working to get preference in hiring may come away with a job but will probably not feel competent in that job. If he spends that time studying engineering, science, business or something similar he will probably become qualified for a rewarding and possibly lucrative career.
Fairness and the constitution both require a color-blind society. We must work toward that end. Identity politics and affirmative action mean judging people on ethnicity or other irrelevant characteristics, not on character or ability. That is discrimination, pure and simple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
