“Those who oppose exclusion, prejudice, and generalizations are often guilty of it themselves…Certain groups may be discriminated against and offended (men, whites, Christians, Westerners, natives, heterosexuals). They are regarded as the oppressive or privileged groups. Other groups, on the other hand, should not be discriminated against (minorities, non-whites, Jews, Muslims, gays, women) as they’re the oppressed.” – The Discrimination Myth
Recently, ex-royal Prince Harry, along with his American diva wife, Meghan Markle, went on a press junket to expose the travails of their unhappy life inside the palace, including claims of racism. Born second fiddle in the hierarchy of British heirdom, left Harry, the spare, unfulfilled, and eager to share his pain. Since there is no merit in monarchy, the antiquated institution, much like a union shop, favors the first-in or first-born, in the case of the Windsor dynasty. Now it seems, even Diana’s ginger gene has brought angst to the miserable new commoner. Adding understudy and red hair to the ever-expanding list of progressive victim classifications.
Yet, in today’s world, a Christian baker is held legally liable when refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, while a progressive restauranteur receives no discernable blowback for refusing service to an evangelical group for their wrong think. When social etiquette becomes political, standards are never applied equally, because it is always acceptable to condemn the outgroup, but never permissible to discriminate against one’s own side.
In fact, in practice, anti-discrimination policies apply to all races except whites, all genders except males, all sexualities except straight, and all religions except Christianity. Thus, politics-based discrimination seems to only go one way, to bully dissenters into silence. To excuse their own biases, they have redefined discrimination based on power structures, so that instead of looking for equal opportunity, they now demand equal outcomes. When one begins with the assumption that people are alike in all ways, then naturally all outcomes should mirror population percentages.
Unfortunately, all men are not alike. For instance, all men do not have an equal shot at becoming professional athletes. And if we can acknowledge that there are physical differences that impact end results, wouldn’t we have to concede that there are psychological, intellectual, and performance differences as well? Perhaps there are also occasions where discrimination (or preference) would be acceptable: like Jews excluding all religions except Judaism when selecting a spouse; or a patient choosing a male doctor over a female doctor.
In Frank Karsten’s 2019 book, “The Discrimination Myth”, Karsten looks at the expanding reach of discrimination that seems to grow by the day. Not only have traditional categories for age, sex, nationality, sexual orientation, and religion increased to include every conceivable victim group, but now there are several instances where discrimination is not only acceptable but encouraged: affirmative action quotas, and college admissions, to name a few. But Karsten argues that discrimination is a natural outcome of everyday life, because every time we choose A, we discriminate against B. This form of discrimination, as a preference, is simply one’s choice. Since all discrimination, no matter the reason has consequences, whether, in the marketplace or workplace, most negative effects will be resolved with people either voting with their dollars or their feet.
Ironically, anti-discrimination laws encourage the discrimination it hoped to avoid. For example, when the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed in 1990, it intended to accommodate the disabilities of individuals in an attempt to return them to regular life. Instead, the percentage of the disabled who are employed has continuously fallen, with less than 20 percent of people with disabilities employed today. In addition to making disabled workers less appealing due to their potential for litigation, the law expanded the definition of disabled, leaving it open to court determination, creating another likely pitfall against the hiring of the disabled. These kinds of forced equality not only put people into positions they are unlikely prepared for but also create resentment in the discriminated parties that are apt to fester and grow.
The American experiment gave citizens the freedom to live as they wished. Although there can be no legal privilege for one group over another, the American Constitution guarantees the Freedom of Expression, whether offensive or unpopular, while Freedom of Association allows citizens to choose for themselves whom they wish to interact with. These bedrock principles, while allowing all kinds of discrimination, ensure rights that the government may not forbid.
As the loathsome Markles slink back to their multi-million-dollar mansion in Montecito, we can only hope that their never-ending moment in the spotlight is finally over. Their self-inflicted wounds likely resulted from their own unpleasantness, and not through any imaginary bias.
Comments