On a chat list to which I subscribe, I was asked: “So you support whites being allowed to discriminate against blacks in their businesses? So you support Muslims refusing to do business with Christians? So you support Christians refusing to do business with Muslims? Or Hindus? Or Buddhists?”
I support freedom and, in a free country, all the above would be permissible. It’s called freedom of association. If you subscribed to such freedom, then you would be free to associate with whom you please and not forced to associate with whom you do not wish to associate.
In a free country, some whites will choose to discriminate against blacks in their businesses, some Muslims would choose to refuse service to Christians, etc. That’s what freedom permits. In a free country, some people are going to make choices you do not like. I know, it’s icky.
Left to itself, racial discrimination would all but disappear. It is largely a learned behavior. Racial tensions can only increase in a country like the U.S. where “Affirmative Action” (AA) is the law, creating more victims than it helps and damaging race relations, perpetuating racial stereotypes.
In a free country, there might be a NBA team that refused to hire black players. That would (and should be) their choice. But how competitive would they be? How much of an audience might they attract? Many potential fans would stay away because they would see the lack of black players on that team as wrong. More would likely stay away because the team would likely not be very good. Many of the players themselves would not want to associate with the team. Really, this is a problem that would solve itself in a free country.
How competitive might a business be if it didn’t hire blacks? Or women? Who would patronize it? Self-solving, in a free country.
Why shouldn’t a Chinese businesswoman be able to hire only Chinese if she preferred. (Or are you against choice?)
But we are not in a free country. In the U.S., the family with a room to let can turn me away for being blond or of Norwegian decent, but not if I’m a homosexual or black or Muslim. These are protected classes with special status that protects them from discrimination that is legal to use against me. In the name of “equality”, we have laws that legalize inequality, unequal treatment.
I spent the better part of three decades working at a plant on the Navajo reservation where Navajos had preference in hiring and promotion over everyone else. When hiring outside help, the contractors employed were required to hire Navajos unless one could not be found with the necessary skills. If a non-Navajo were hired, the contractor had to hire, in addition to the non-Navajo, a Navajo to be trained to do the job. If Navajos can insist on Navajo employees having preference, why can’t whites, Chinese or blacks do the same? It’s because Navajos are in a protected class, with the ability to do things that I, as a white man, cannot. I don’t live in a free country.
Ironically, in its help wanted adds my employer featured both “Equal Opportunity Employer” and “Affirmative Action Employer” along with “Navajo Preference”.
Some years before I retired, my employer had a RIF (Reduction In Force) and offered severance packages to all comers. Older people were given a higher percentage of their salary to calculate their severance amount than were younger employees with the same number of service years. When I inquired whether this amounted to age discrimination, the legal department informed me that only discrimination against older people was illegal; discrimination in their favor (against younger people) is perfectly legal. Once again, in the name of “equality”, the laws legalize inequality.
Earlier I opined that Affirmative action does more harm than good. I’ll expand on that and save you the trouble of asking how this can possibly be. Yes, I know you’ll probably still call me a bigot for being against AA. I’ll live with it.
Let’s say we have a job opening and ten applicants; six whites, three blacks and an Indian/Hispanic/Pacific Islander – whatever. Let’s say that a black gets the job. Bingo – we have created six victims that believe that the black got the job due to AA. They believe they didn’t get the job because they are white. Suppose that only half the whites think AA was a factor. We’ve still created three victims of AA while helping only one black, assuming AA was a factor. If AA was not a factor, we’ve created three victims and helped no one. How can AA not create resentment?
And what about the successful applicant? S/he will likely be viewed with suspicion as a probable AA hire or promotion. Is s/he any good at all? People will have their doubts owing to the very existence of AA.
When people visit the hospital and see a physician of color, might they wonder if s/he got into and through medical school assisted by AA? Do you want to put your life in the hands of someone who may not be all that good? Was “race norming” a factor in his/her grades in school? AA creates such doubts.
Why, after two generations of AA, do we still have this law? It perpetuates the stereotype that blacks cannot make it on their own and must be given preference.