Today on Blogcritics
Home » Whither Integration?

Whither Integration?

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Last month, we paid tribute to one of the most influential Americans of my generation, indeed, of any time in our country’s history, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. As a “child of the 60s,” I remember vividly the struggles led by Dr. King and clearly can recall the year my school in Birmingham, Alabama was integrated. In contrast to the violence, boycotting, and “standing in the doorway” histrionics at some schools, we — in the middle-class suburb of Fairfield — had none of that. Our integration with black students, which occurred in 1967 (my junior year of high school), was not only uneventful, it was a truly remarkable time in my life and the lives of my classmates.

Our school and the little suburban world we lived in was enriched — culturally, athletically, and educationally — with the addition of black students. We all grew — as students and people — with the experience of integration after years of segregation. The black students I went to school with were interested in the same things I was — an education. We studied together, we sang together, we played athletics together, and we all grew together. And those experiences were all due to the efforts of Dr. King and others who broke down barriers and, through civil disobedience, fought to become a truly equal and integral part of American society.

As I think back on those stressful but incredibly enlightening times for me, personally, I also look around today bewildered. I wonder about how Dr. King would view the world we live in today. In our times of “political correctness,” I wonder how Dr. King would view our society’s “progress” toward his goal of integration and racial equality. I think he might be surprised at what he sees. Dr. King fought hard and, ultimately, died for a society that was “color blind.” I believe Dr. King wanted one society with equal rights and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race or religion.

As I look around, I see a more pernicious form of segregation today than I saw 30 years ago. It appears to me that we are moving farther and farther away from a “color blind” society and closer and closer to a more subtle, but no less distinct, form of segregation.

To make my point, let me give you a “what if” to think about. What if Rupert Murdock or some other non-black multimillionaire announced to the world, on Martin Luther King Day 2006, that he was starting a new television network. This television network would present programming directed to the white demographic, specifically white adults between the ages of 18 and 49. This network would be called “White Entertainment Television” with the call letters, “WET.” The cable and satellite network would also be presenting the first of an annual “Miss White America Pageant” in the summer. In the fall, programming would also include the first of an annual “Image Awards” ceremony which would honor white Americans who have made significant contributions to American white culture. What if, in making his announcement, the fictitious owner stated:

“White Entertainment Television (WET) is the first and only television network in the United States primarily devoted to the attraction of white viewers. Launched with a paltry $100 million investment in 2000, the white-owned and operated, basic-cable franchise had grown into a diversified, $500 million media enterprise by late 2004. Nonetheless, WET has become much more than just a basic-cable network since its humble beginnings. By 2004, WET Holdings owned and operated a broad array of white-oriented media products, including: White Entertainment Television, the basic-cable network; YSB (“Young Sisters and Brothers”), a magazine targeted at white youths; “White Politics,” a magazine offering analysis and commentary on contemporary issues facing white America; Action Pay-Per-View, a national, satellite-delivered, pay-per-view movie channel based in Birmingham, AL.; WET International, a provider of WET programming throughout Scandinavia and other predominantly white foreign markets; Identity Television, a London-based cable service targeting white European viewers; WET Productions, a subsidiary providing technical and production services to outside companies; WET Radio Network, a radio service providing news and entertainment packages to affiliated stations across the U.S.; and WET Pictures, a joint venture with Blockbuster Entertainment Corporation to produce and distribute white, family-oriented films.”

Let me continue to ask what the country’s response would be to this white multimillionaire announcing that, starting in January, 2006, his company would be publishing two new magazines. A monthly magazine, “Ivory,” would have in depth articles about white leaders in politics, entertainment, and sports. The second magazine, a weekly called “Vanilla,” would be primarily a news format with current events relating to the white world. Incidentally, the mogul announced that he would be sponsoring, in January, 2006, the first annual “Historically White College All-Star Game” for football.

What do you think the country’s response would be to such announcements? I think I know what that response would be. Outrage. Boycotts. Death threats. Protests. Quite probably, mass rioting. My question is simply this: Why is it “politically correct” to have all of the above — i.e. broadcasting networks, beauty pageants, “Image Awards” events, publications, and sports events — celebrating one race when they would be abhorrent if these same things were held by another race? I am honestly asking for a perspective and some insight.

[As an aside, the fictional “press statement” quoted above is taken from a company statement taken off Johnson Publishing’s web site. Johnson Publishing, founded in 1942 by Robert Johnson, owns and operates all the entities mentioned in the above statement. References to “black” were simply changed to “white.” Other word substitutions and paraphrasing were done to make the point.]

In Dr. King’s dream for American society, is there a legitimate justification for such racial separation? Was not Dr. King’s goal integration — not segregation? Indeed, Dr. King was reviled by the “Black Power” movement in his time for seeking integration not separatism, as championed by Malcolm X and his followers. Dr. King was strongly criticized by the Black Power and the Black Muslim sect leaders as misguided and, yes, even an “Uncle Tom” for seeking integration within the American community. Racial integration was anathema to the Black Power and the Black Muslim (now known as Nation of Islam) movements. But, in my understanding, it was integral to the philosophy of Dr. King.

I wonder, now, in our “enlightened” time of political and cultural “correctness,” what Dr. King would think of our efforts toward integration? In a time when non-whites (I am not sure that is politically correct but what I mean by that is “persons of color” — is even that currently P.C.?) enjoy unsurpassed popularity and influence in all fields of endeavor in our society, is there an acceptable rationale for any racial segregation? In my fantasy example, why is it acceptable in our society to have BET and not WET? Why is there no public outcry when an event like “Miss Black America” airs when, if someone actually did propose a “Miss White America” pageant they would be, I have no doubt, called racist, exclusionary, and bigoted? To me, that seems paradoxical. To me, it sounds much more like a manifesto of segregation than it does the teachings of Dr. King.

Will we ever — can we ever — be one society? A society equal and color blind? Will Dr. King’s vision ever be clearly realized, or are we slipping, ever so slowly, toward the preaching of a different, more dangerous, type of segregation movement? Specifically, are we becoming a society that is racially “equal but separate?” And, if that is true, I wonder aloud: Is that what Dr. King saw in his dream?

Powered by

About Diet Doc

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Well, the key thing is that this is entirely voluntary self-segregation. Part of an attempt to preserve and perpetuate a particular cultural identity. And that’s okay when you’re the minority, apparently. You know that there’s an active movement among African Americans to create all-black schools in the inner city, on the theory that black kids can learn better in a racially homogeneous environment.

    dave

  • http://dietdoc.blogspot.com Diet Doc

    Dave wrote:

    “And that’s okay when you’re the minority, apparently.”

    Reply: Dave, that’s where I have the question. I understand that, when Johnson established his business in the 1940s, it was sorely needed. But, today, I wonder why the dicotomy? I guess it goes to the bigger question: Can a truly multiethnic, multicultural society long exist? And, more cogently, what (who?) defines “political correctness?”

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I believe Political Correctness is defined by those who feel they have the right to be offended by something. But, of course, white Anglo-American males NEVER have the right to be offended by anything.

    And yes, I think a truly multicultural society can exist just fine, so long as none of the legal institutions recognize any difference between the races. So right now the biggest real threat to multiculturalism is probably Affirmative Action and similar programs which grant one group a priveleged status, both creating resentment among other groups and an unjustified sense of entitlement in the priveleged group.

    Dave

  • http://dietdoc.blogspot.com Diet Doc

    Dave writes:

    “But, of course, white Anglo-American males NEVER have the right to be offended by anything.”

    Reply: I have to admit, I really haven’t felt “offended” by anything in some time. Probably because the world has become so intriguing with its conundrums and incongruency. I am bewildered and bemused but rarely offended. Besides, who would care if a middle-aged Anglo was offended?

  • Eric Olsen

    this is very well done and I understand the concern, but remember there is all kinds of specialized programming: women, gays, Spanish-speakers (and all kinds of other languages as well), young people ,old people

  • http://emeraldcitycomments.blogspot.com/ Roy Smith

    Another question: Why is it that every other (previously) despised minority in American history has successfully integrated into American culture? Think of the experiences of the Irish, Chinese, and Japanese. More recently, Southeast Asians and Hispanics are overcoming the same sorts of challenges and are on the way to successfully integrating. But blacks seem to be stuck, and it doesn’t make sense to me why. And before anybody says that it is because the majority culture is racist, every other one of the minorities I listed above also went through severe racial discrimination – but they moved past it.

  • http://wisdomandmurder.blogspot.com Distorted Angel

    It might have something to do with the fact that all of the other minorities arrived here of their own free will, don’t you think? My own grandparents came here from somewhere else, but as far as I know, they were the ones who made the decision to get on the boat. The psychological and cultural baggage of slavery has yet to be cast off. I don’t understand why people find that so difficult to comprehend. No other minority groups that I am aware of were forced to endure years of legally enforced segregation from the mainstream of society. Why is it so hard for people to understand that the history of blacks in America is quite different than it was/is for other minorities?

  • http://dietdoc.blogspot.com Diet Doc

    Eric writes:

    “but remember there is all kinds of specialized programming: women, gays, Spanish-speakers (and all kinds of other languages as well), young people ,old people”

    Reply: Absolutely. But, consider my premise: why would it be so offensive if someone directed similar programming to, specifically, WASPs? I have no problem understanding ethnic and culturally directed programming, advertising, etc. It’s just trying to get to understanding why the flip side of the coin is so inflammatory.

    Roy writes:

    “Think of the experiences of the Irish, Chinese, and Japanese. More recently, Southeast Asians and Hispanics are overcoming the same sorts of challenges and are on the way to successfully integrating.”

    Reply: Well said. I wonder myself.

  • Eric Olsen

    yes, as DA says, there is that small issue of slavery

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    Jedi wannabe, you are, I see

  • http://wisdomandmurder.blogspot.com Distorted Angel

    I don’t buy into the myth of the poor, discriminated-against white male, guys, sorry. To not understand why the flip side of the coin is inflammatory is to ignore the notion that for many generations, white Anglo-Saxon (and predominantly male) culture was pretty much all we had. White people whining about how unfair it all is just doesn’t cut it for me.

  • Eric Olsen

    Doc, the flipside is so “infammatory” because the male WASP ethos is seen to be pervasive throughout the culture anyway, superceding and subsuming all of the other elements that have gone into that culture, so something that explicitly was geared to that sensibility is seen as absurdly redundant and gratuitous

  • http://dietdoc.blogspot.com Diet Doc

    Distorted Angel writes:

    “White people whining about how unfair it all is just doesn’t cut it for me.”

    Reply: You misunderstand. I am NOT whining! I just said I can’t remember when I have been offended, culturally or otherwise. I am just trying to understand the duality of it all. As for the slavery issue, I agree that is is unique. Other minorities, though, have had endured servitude and downright slavery in early America as well. Early Chinese immigrants – I am not sure they were all voluntary either! – in California are a good example. I am not disputing, at all, the importance of slavery.

    Cheers,
    Ron

  • http://dietdoc.blogspot.com Diet Doc

    Correction: Should have read

    “indentured servitude”

    Sorry.

  • JR

    Another question: Why is it that every other (previously) despised minority in American history has successfully integrated into American culture? Think of the experiences of the Irish, Chinese, and Japanese.

    They have ballots in Chinese in San Francisco. I’ve seen Korean and Vietnamese on ballots in Southern California. Is that supposed to be successful integration?

    Looking at academic performance, the experience of the Asians seems to be that they can be more successful if they don’t fully integrate into American culture.

  • http://wisdomandmurder.blogspot.com Distorted Angel

    Diet Doc, I do think that failing to understand the duality is a somewhat disingenuous position to take.

  • http://emeraldcitycomments.blogspot.com/ Roy Smith

    Distorted Angel: No other minority groups that I am aware of were forced to endure years of legally enforced segregation from the mainstream of society.

    Ever heard of NINA? Or the experiences of Chinese laborers on the railroads and in Alaskan fish canneries? There were (enforced) laws on the books for years forbidding Chinese from becoming citizens, owning land, entering certain occupations, or marrying non-Chinese. The Japanese were interned (and most of their property stolen) during World War 2.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    When I read DA’s argument, what I hear in my head is: reverse discrimination is OK because of the way it used to be. Basically, fuck the white guy, he fucked everybody else for so long, he deserves it?

  • http://dietdoc.blogspot.com Diet Doc

    Distorted Angel writes:

    “Diet Doc, I do think that failing to understand the duality is a somewhat disingenuous position to take.”

    Reply: I wish I could convince you of the depth of my confusion on this (among other) issues. Really, I understand why culturally and ethnically oriented media is fine, but the inverse is taboo. That is my “disingenuoos position,” for better or worse. I wish I could understand why one is OK and the other is not with your clarity of vision. I really do.

    Cheers,

    Ron

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com alienboy

    there is specialist programming for white folk, it’s called fox news! lol

  • http://wisdomandmurder.blogspot.com Distorted Angel

    Agreed, Roy, but I think that historically those situations were not as long-lived or woven into the fabric of society as was slavery, and I don’t think the situation with the Japanese during WWII is analagous at all. Segregation against blacks was still alive and well in my lifetime, so I don’t think we are so historically removed from it as we would like to think.

  • http://wisdomandmurder.blogspot.com Distorted Angel

    Andy, you completely misunderstand me. I guess what I’m saying is that I fail to see how the majority (that would be us white folks) is in any way discriminated against in this country, and I also fail to see how anyone perceives that to be the case.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    DA – not to long ago, right here on this very site, there was a person, that it was almost a given, if she knew you were white and not a liberal, would scream from the heavens that you were in fact a racist!

    The issue that this post is discussing is not discrimination, but reverse discrimination and why is it OK. Why are quotos OK? I’ve asked the question that Ron asks here a million times. Of course, you can’t ask it outloud without being branded a racist. Why is BET OK? Why is a black miss america pagaent OK?

    I’ve heard answers in the past like, it’s ok because every other channel on TV is WET, or every other pagaent is a white pagaent. But that excuse doesn’t cut it for me. Racism is racism is racism!

    Why did minorities fight so hard for desegregation only to voluntarily segregate themselves after they got it?

  • http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

    and why do people get so beside themselves about ‘reverse discrimination’ and yet things like legacy admissions to colleges and sports scholarships are given a pass?

  • http://wisdomandmurder.blogspot.com Distorted Angel

    Andy, first off, I hope you’re not implying that I’ve called anyone here a racist.

    The answer that I would give you is that I just don’t see efforts to level the playing field as reverse discrimination. I don’t know why we’re even talking about BET, for heaven’s sake — it’s a television network that has programming aimed at a specific market, not unlike Lifetime, Spike or MTV. If you feel that we need make no efforts as a society to see to it that the doors of opportunity are not systematically closed to groups of people on the basis of demographics, then we will have to agree to disagree about this issue. And I still fail to see how the majority can be discriminated against, Andy.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    DA – first let me say, I know you didn’t call anyone a racist.

    Quotas are a perfect example of how a majority can be discriminated against. I’ve known plenty of people that work for places like the Newark, NJ fire dept that have been passed over for promotion solely based on the fact that they’re not black.

    Ever take a civil service exam? If you’re a black pregnant female ex-wartime vet, all you have to do is put your freaking name on the exam. You get so many points it’s ridiculous.

    That’s discrimination!

    MS – who gets the majority of those sports scholarships these days?

  • http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski


    MS – who gets the majority of those sports scholarships these days?

    i don’t know…and that’s not the point.

    the argument is always made that affirmative action is bad in the case of college admissions because people should get in only on their academic merits.

    why doesn’t someones’s athletic ability of the size of their daddy’s wallet make people equally as crazy?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    Maybe because you’re talking about a few thousand people at most and it doesn’t matter in the larger scheme?

  • http://dietdoc.blogspot.com Diet Doc

    Let me give one trivial but cogent example of the subtle “racisim” that obscures the issue of what is “politically correct” and what is not.

    Not 30 minutes ago, in my clinic I called back an African-American patient, and while I waited – I was piteously and unconsciously gyrating (one could definitely not call it “dancing”) to a song on my office speakers. I think it was Phil Collins. Regardless, when the very nice lady – a long-time patient – approached she giggled aloud and remarked, “Come on, Doc! You know white people can’t dance!” Of course, I don’t take myself very seriously EVER, and replied “You are absolutely right! I can’t dance a lick!” And laughed along with her most innocent of remarks.

    But, just think. If I were in this person’s place of business and remarked, publically, “Come on, Mrs. Whatever! You know black people can’t [fill in the blanks]!” Maybe while she figured out my bill at her business, I giggled and said “Come on, Mrs. Whatever! You know black people can’t add!”

    I realize this is all but ridiculous to compare apples and oranges and – for the record – I do not feel offended, discriminated against, etc. etc. – but it highlights what I, at least, am trying to discuss and understand.

    Cheers,

    Ron

  • http://dietdoc.blogspot.com Diet Doc

    Boy, my last post was a conversation stopper, wasn’t it?

    [sigh]

  • Eric Olsen

    clearly there are discrepancies in the arrows of racial generalization, I think the point is to understand why this is allowed to be, and it is allowed to be because of the historical record of the socio-racial hierarchy

  • http://dietdoc.blogspot.com Diet Doc

    Eric writes:

    ” I think the point is to understand why this is allowed to be, and it is allowed to be because of the historical record of the socio-racial hierarchy”

    Reply: For my edification, and if you could find the time, could you elaborate? I am not sure I follow.

    Cheers,

    Ron

  • Eric Olsen

    who’s been on top of the heap of the central North American continent for the last 400 years or so?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Maybe I can provide an example of how reverse descrimination goes wrong.

    Here in the State of Texas the state government has a program to promote the use of ‘Historically Underutilized Businesses’ as suppliers by state agencies. The idea of this rule is that when buying supplies or equipment – like desks and chairs and pens and computers – agencies have to actively seek bids from approved HUB vendors, and have to buy from HUB vendors over any other sources. And in fact, they have to buy a minimum quota of their purchases from HUBs regardless of the price, even if all the HUBs they have to choose from charge much more than non-HUB vendors.

    Then there’s the question of who gets to be a HUB. You might think it means businesses owned by blacks or hispanics. But in fact it means businesses owned by ANY minority, including minorities which have never been discriminated against here in the US, like Pakistanis, Iranians, Indians, White South Africans, first generation Chinese immigrants, etc, plus groups which really don’t face discrimination issues as business owners like white Women. Basically, any business which is not owned by a white man qualifies as a HUB.

    IMO this sort of system goes beyond affirmative action to become active discrimination against white males as a group. Because it defines the priveleged group as everyone else, it amounts to discrimination against the excluded group.

    It’s also troubling that it often results in state agencies spending more of our tax money to buy HUB products when they might be cheaper from non-HUB vendors. But then on the other hand, there aren’t an awful lot of non-HUB vendors left because every office supply company in Texas is now nominally owned by the real owner’s wife.

    A system which creates an incentive for that kind of hypocrisy is obviously deeply flawed and abusive.

    Dave

  • SFC SKI

    Lots of points have been made, but lots hof the posters have failed to acknowledge the validity ofthose points but continueto act from their own buttons being pushed. Listen to each othr, consider what the other person might be trying to say rather than going with the gut reaction their words cause.

    Good article, Doc.

  • Eric Olsen

    I am not trying to defend reverse discrimination, just explaining its existence and relative acceptance

  • SFC SKI

    A shirt reads “It’s a black thing, you wouldn’t understand” well, hell man, sit down and talk to me so maybe I can understand.

    One great thing about the military is that it forces people to live and work together. No, it is not perfect, but it is integrated for the most part, and that constant interaction can open up communication, can make the other seem a bit more familiar and human, and that is a key to eliminating racism.

    I have to agree that no matter it might feel like irony or poetic justice for a white man to be passed on for a minority for any reason other than merit, it is still the same thing: discrimination.

  • Eric Olsen

    on the individual level, absolutely, and that is another irony: we are supposed to be a society based upon the sanctity of the individual

  • http://dietdoc.blogspot.com Diet Doc

    SFC Ski writes:

    “One great thing about the military is that it forces people to live and work together. No, it is not perfect, but it is integrated for the most part, and that constant interaction can open up communication, can make the other seem a bit more familiar and human, and that is a key to eliminating racism.”

    Reply: I am going to assume – I know, bad move – SFC stands for Sargent First Class? Ski, having spent 12 years in the Army myself, I gotta agree with your statement. I loved my time in the Army. There was no black and white, or brown, or any other color. My boss and direct supervisor was a great Colonel (who just happended to be a black man). We were just guys working for our country. A lot of bonds and friendships which last even today (15 years later).

    I think, if we started thinking about our country more as “a cause” in and of itself, we might start feeling that same “esprit de nation.” I would like to think so. As I said in the BLOG, we ARE really in this thing together. And the sooner we start bitching and howling at each other and work toward solutions together, the better. Else, I fear for our nation and its safety.

    Cheers,

    Ron

  • http://dietdoc.blogspot.com Diet Doc

    Damned dyslexia!

    Previously posted: “And the sooner we start bitching and howling…”

    Meant to say: “And the sooner we stop bitching and howling…”

  • SFC SKI

    Ron, you are right on both counts; SFC and this,I think, if we started thinking about our country more as “a cause” in and of itself, we might start feeling that same “esprit de nation.”

    Ain’t always pretty, ain’t perfect, needs some work, but still worth supporting and building, not tearing down.

    I am well aware that the US has a major issue with race, but here is a big difference between a media outlet for a specific group and a club that says you can’t come in because you aren’t like us. It is sometimes a very fine line between the two.

  • SFC SKI

    Funny that this article shows up, from Instapundit:http://www.sfweekly.com/issues/2005-01-26/news/feature_print.html# (One day I will learn HTML formatting, I promise)
    The article is not really about race per se, but this quote struck me as very pertinent to our discussion here: ” …the college was “very ethnically Balkanized, very separated, particularistic. Every group and department was only interested in themselves, what they were doing. There were lines of difference within all the units — different Asian groups, different Latino groups — but there was very little appreciation of the commonalities that people might have. ”

    On a larger scale, that is the danger we face if we as Americans choose to divide along racial lines, again, a fine line between celebrating one’s heritage and bigotry.

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    SFC SKI: Try this (you can cut-and-paste):

    linked words

    The “target=” switch opens the result in a new window, instead of replacing the contents of the current window. For the simpler same-window option, use:

    linked words

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    Damnit! Sorry, SFC SKI, I forgot the posting engine here converts characters. You’ll have to remove the extra spaces on either side of the “< " and ">” characters instead:

    < a href="YOUR URL HERE" target="new"/ >linked words< /a >

    < a href="YOUR URL HERE">linked words< /a >

    I hope that comes across…

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    Good post, DietDoc – even if the horrendous history of the human race so far leads most to fear the tyranny of the majority ever again. In India, for example, post- Independence, a conscious policy of reservations and preferential treatment for the hitherto underprivileged and backward classes, and electoral dynamics has meant a cosseted, privileged class, who, often enough abuse these privileges to get into colleges, etc. at the cost of other, perhaps more intelligent students. It is legally a crime in India to question the policy of reservations (reservations ~= affirmative action) – a policy that was intend by the framers of our constitution as a temporary measure, until social conditions improved, which they have, yet the policy persists.

    Dr Pat, send him an email – your html is converted not quite as you intended

  • SFC SKI

    Thanks, I can be trained.

  • HW Saxton

    Aw C’mon now, will somebody please tell
    me WTF is “Reverse Discrimination”?

    That is the most oxymoronic term I have
    ever heard used recently besides maybe
    the term: “Reality Television”.

    I know what message you are trying to
    convey but, that term just does not work
    to describe it.

  • SFC SKi

    Technically, you are correct, but the fact that we can come up with and use the term “reverse discrimination” just shows you how convoluted the problems of race are.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Reverse Discrimination is when a policy which is designed to eliminate perceived discrimination against one group does so by discriminating against another specific group instead. It’s when you have 100 free slots in a law school class and reject otherwise qualified members of one specific ethnic group to make room for less qualified members of another specific ethnic group.

    The reason it is so heinous is that in most cases there is no actual specific act of discrimination being addressed. No one is being singled out for rejection because of race, there is only an assumption that low admissions of a particular group are the result of discrimination rather than other factors – such as members of that group simply choosing not to apply to that particular school, perhaps because there is another regional university which is viewed as more culturally compatible or inherently easier to get into, or in a better location or some other reason.

    Dave

  • SFC SKI

    Semantics, but more than that.

    I understand the meaning and use of the term, but it is a misnomer, discrimination is discrimination. The term “Reverse” makes it clear which direction the discrimination goes, but does that part matter? It is still discrimination, and if more people so it all as discrimination without qualifiers, maybe it would be a step towards ending discrimination.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    From your lips to the publics ears, Ski. But that’s not the way people think yet.

    Dave

%d bloggers like this: