(04-17-2015, 10:20 PM)Hammerskjold Wrote: I live in Canada, and in a city where multi-culturalism and diversity is trumpeted. I like it in general, however. There is a danger I think, of becoming too smug in believing one's cause\way is the only true and just one, and becoming a palette swapped monster that one claims to be fighting.Well, Racists exist. The compulsion, by fascists left or right, is to quell free speech, and free association by power of the state. I have nothing against exposing the "David Dukes" of this world for what they are, and ridiculing their wrong thinking. I am troubled when it is aided and abetted by the forces of laws, and the state power apparatchik.
I feel what Rand gets slammed for is trying to have the dialog where we can discuss the limits of effectiveness of public policy like affirmative action. And, his association with people who are more dogmatic in their strict adherence to Libertarian ideology. We ideally also live in a meritocracy, where your potential is weighed impartially. We know this is not always true, and often who you know (your relationships and networking) are more important than what you know. The little "d" discrimination in who gets hired, and who get accepted to Harvard get blurred with big "D" discrimination, often even unintentionally by the offender. In examining the statistic we can see in EPIC magnitude how, for example, black people are denied the same potential for success due to their neighborhood, or their cultural inheritance.
Here is a place where the strict ideology of libertarian emphasis on individual rights conflicts with our sense of "right and wrong", like the right to have wrong headed racist thoughts, or the right to earn a living wage. Pure philosophy and ideology must step aside for the pragmatic reality of how things really work.
It is where we must also be careful qualify, as Rand did, saying "I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation."
But, we must have the discussion, because to me it is clearly a recipe for further pain to promote people who are unprepared into eventual failure. We must go back to improve the coaching to get over that bar, and not lower the bar. In the spheres of higher education, where I work. The most "exclusive" institutions have high retention and graduation rates because they are the most selective in choosing students who are all but guaranteed to succeed. Their finances are worked out in advance, and their preparation and "merit" are assured. They can do this due to the overwhelming number of applicants they get.
As you can see above in this chart on dropping out, things are improving for all races at the secondary school level. But, the gaps remain. The picture for Hispanics is most improved, however it was also the most dismal. The trouble I see remaining is the decreasing number of students prepared for the rigor of college. At the college level things are also better, but I wouldn't say things look good.
But, you may retort, "Not all people need to go to college to be successful." Which is true, if you have the resources, or can tie into the resources required to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps". Here is where the cultural heritage of racial discrimination, crime, and poverty set certain groups at higher disadvantage. This is made worse by double or triple when you criminalize those who are victimized by the vices associated with poverty, such as drugs, or prostitution.
I abhor the system that enforces the inevitable inequality it produces, which is made by mostly white people who cannot fathom how their disparate support for laws tears apart communities, and destroys livelihood for generations -- while patting themselves on the back for the benevolence of their interventions, all at the expense of taxpayers. Taxpayers, who are also more white, rich, upper middle class, or wealthy and blithe the the effect to which their enforced contribution yields.