The hypocrisy has reached new levels

[Mithrandir]

Recently two of my friends were kicked out of a study lounge on my very college campus because of the color of their skin. They were making no noise, not disturbing anyone, and yet were "asked" to leave anyway. This study lounge is one of the nicest, cleanest, and most accessible lounges on campus, yet only a select few are allowed admittance. The lounge is called something along the lines of "The Minority Lounge" (they have a much longer and more flowery name which have never cared to waste the brain cells remembering). When asked why only pictures of African-Americans grace the walls when there are plenty of other minority heroes (since it is, after all, the "Minority Lounge") the moderators reply, "Just because". When a suggestion is made of numerous other well-respected and heralded minority individuals whose portraits would serve well on the walls, the moderators reply, "I don't think that will ever happen".

These actions are fully endorsed by the University.

Yes, my friends who were kicked out of the lounge based upon their skin color were indeed Caucasian, but that is honestly only a part of the point. When will people in this country learn that reverse discrimination is just as horrible and disgusting as discrimination itself is? What do you think the reaction would be at my University if a "Whites Only" study lounge was created in the most accessible part of campus and it was made one of the cleanest, nicest, and quietest to boot? It would be shot-down and condemned as utterly irreprehensible... and I wholeheartedly agree that it would completely deserve the vitriol that would be directed towards it. Same situation, but different skin color, and now the University is proud of it? Something is wrong here.

You can't tear down discrimination and hatred, exposing them for the evils that they are, by instead merely directing discrimination back upon other individuals. Hate breeds hate.

The University has put forth many excuses as to why it applauds this behavior, but all of them are half-assed fumblings meant to shroud the true issue and spurn forward their suicidal liberal hate train, doomed to eventually careen off the very twisting tracks it has laid itself and come crashing back down to Earth.

Reason Numéro Uno:

"Terrible injustices have been done to them in the past. We must pay for our forefathers' sins."

This excuse has always fallen upon deaf ears with me. Have the minorities of this country and many others been subject to many, many hardships? Yes, of course. I completely agree and really, truly do feel for these people. Many terrible things have been inflicted upon them for the benefit of others in one way or another. But I have done nothing wrong, there is no reason I should have to pay for events that occurred 50+ years ago with which I do not even begin to agree with in the first place. I would have liked to believe that we had moved beyond the Bible-thumping-fear-of-God way of thinking that all human beings are naturally evil. I have no sins to pay for in this issue. Attempting to make me feel guilty for things I never would have, or even could imagine, doing just so you can further your own agenda makes me sick to my stomach.

Did a great man not once say, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"?

Yes, it is horrible that you had to undergo these trials. No, it does not make things "better" to hurt others in return to give yourself extra benefits. When will this cycle of pain and hatred ever do anything but continue to spiral downwards and downwards and downwards? In an ironic sense, there is the sense that I am standing above the toilet that is what this issue has become waving "... and ducky go down the hooooole" as yet another thing that was once great is flushed down until the entire situation is bound to overflow and explode, like the classic Donald Duck cartoon.

The classic example of this inherently flawed way of thinking? Affirmative Action. The common party line for AA is actually that its intent is to give economically-challenged minorities the opportunities to succeed in the new American workplace. A very laudable cause, to say the least, but it approaches it totally wrong. Any suggestion that AA instead be changed to extra points for economically disadvantaged instead of an across-the-border free pass into a situation of which you may not be totally prepared (up to a year ago at my University, the bonus awarded for being African American was equal to a combined 3.8 high school GPA, perfect essay, and 1500 SAT) is met with questionable excuses of how it "wouldn't work" and that a blanket policy based upon race is better in the long run. How are blankte, stereotypical policies based upon poor knowledge of the true situation ever any good in the long run? AA fails utterly in its purpose, and instead just furthers the very stereotypes it is fumbling in the dark to magically abra-cadabra away. Some of the first in-depth studies on AA are coming out and they are showing that minorities who get into colleges due a large part to AA "benefits" have an astronomically high drop-out rate compared to those individuals who get in without the need of the free points. I fully support the idea of diversifying the workplace and providing benefit to underprivileged people, but when you lie about who you're actually providing the benefit to (I know this is a crazy concept to some, but there are Caucasian poor people too and not even all minorities are covered by AA policies!) and then those that you do force in are, unfortunately, failing in droves I cannot help but wonder at what the true motives beyond your disgustingly flawed view of the world can possible be.

How do you fix the situation? Get rid of this AA crap. Instead, start pouring more money into inner-city and other low-income schools. Then fix the administration of these funds. Currently, funding for non-private schools is horribly managed because good people who would actually care about the children they are responsible for the future of are discouraged from assuming the role of managing funds due to the politics of the position. Cut the crap. Get the good, qualified, and resourceful individuals into the positions they need to be in. Stop putting out bills with flashy names ("No Child Left Behind") meant to get oooh's and aaah's and instead get to the heart of the matter. Easier said that done, to be sure, but necessary nonetheless.

Once you get schools in poor areas are given the tools they need to compete with the more affluent areas of the nation, then there is no more need for any of the AA/"Eye for an eye" bull#$%&. Everyone gets the equal opportunity these deserve and you don't have to institute horrible hypocritical blanket plans in order to pull the covers over the public's eyes as to what is really wrong.

I love my country, but there are a disgusting number of band-aid fixes that are secretly rotting and turning gangrenous beneath its shroud. For too long the public has been content to live out their lives, happy merely in the fact that they just don't have to see the festering wound - not caring to make any effort to fix it since to fix it one would have to admit that it exists in the first place.

It's time to take the band-aid off. It's time to take the cover off our eyes.

Perhaps the most insidious effect of AA is how it also subtly undermines much of the minority community while claiming to be doing just the opposite. There was a letter in the 'Letters to the Editor' section of the campus newspaper recently in which the writer described himself as a "strong, well-versed black man proud of his heritage". Yet, he went on to describe how because of AA he wakes up every single morning unsure whether he really deserves to be at the University, or if he instead just received a "free ride" based upon the color of his skin. He tells how he wanted to be accepted based upon his academic merit and never, ever desired to be handed anything for free in life. To be given something for free is not to truly appreciate all that it entails. It saddens me to a great extent how AA shook the confidence of unnamed man.

Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. One cannot interpose flowery words and empty ideas in an attempt to cover up the ugliness that discrimination is. One cannot look me in the eye and tell me that giving advantages to others based solely upon the color of their skin is discrimination. Discrimination is ugly in any form. Reversing it doesn't make it any prettier.

It's time to drop the notion that the past is anything but the past. Let the past be the past. If we are to move on as a society, a nation, and perhaps even as a species we must look towards the future. Drop the vitriol towards those perceived slights that occurred between the fathers of the fathers of the fathers of the fathers. Drop the hate. Drop the flawed idea that anything is "owed" to you. The world owes you nothing. The world owes me nothing. The world owes no one anything. Just drop it all.

How are we to grow as a people if we are doing nothing but living in the past, hung up on who did who wrong?

[WarLocke]

Sad but true.

Unfortunately, I doubt anything can be done about the AA craze (at least, not in our lifetimes). It's a part of the bureacracy now, and the ultimate point of bureacracy is to resist change and ensure that it's a 'necessity,' after all.

I will nitpick one point, though:

When will people in this country learn that reverse discrimination is just as horrible and disgusting as discrimination itself is?

There really is no such thing as "reverse discrimination." It's still plain old discrimination, just (in the case you outlined) directed to the majority rather than a minority. "Reverse discrimination" happens to be one of my (many) pet peeves. <_<

[Archon_Wing]

Yes, I always thought it was ridicolous to think that somehow you can't be racist against Caucasians. -_-

Certainly the best way to solve racism is to shift the racism. Obviously since people's ancestors commited acts of racism, their children have to pay! Excuse me while I vomit.

[Yrrek]

You put into words what I have been feeling for a long time now. :(

[Sir_Die_alot]

The fact you have a minority lounge with minority heroes on the wall, and not just a lounge with heroes on the wall underscores the problem. People who sponsor that sort of thing have the exact "them and us" type of thinking that was the cause of many rasist and abusive polocies of the past. They are so focused on sins of the past they miss the fact that they are behaving in the same manor (or just simply don't care, another cause of said polocies).

[Assur]

Hi

Am I right in assuming that this is taking place in the US? How far are colleges(universities?) outside the normal law about discrimination? It would seem to me that normal laws/anti-discrimination laws would ban such behaviour!?

no, not good hunting/ just curious

[Swiss Mercenary]

One word (Four words, actually): Politics in the workplace.

[Mithrandir]

WL:

There really is no such thing as "reverse discrimination."

Yeah, I worded that poorly. I concur with you completely.


Assur:

Am I right in assuming that this is taking place in the US?

Indeed.

How far are colleges(universities?) outside the normal law about discrimination? It would seem to me that normal laws/anti-discrimination laws would ban such behaviour!?

In all honesty, my friends who were kicked out could probably have some balls busted for this, but they just don't see any motivation to get behind it. Even then, Affirmative Action has won a couple major cases in the past couple years, so who really knows what would happen? I hope that they would win, but couldn't necessarily guarantee it... which, in my estimation, is very sad.

Our campus is extremely liberal. Last poll I saw, over 80% of the faculty identified themselves as liberal. I actually enjoy the atmosphere (it gives me lots of people to argue with :) ) but some things just take it too far.

[Jester]

"Obviously since people's ancestors commited acts of racism, their children have to pay!"

The more nuanced version of that argument goes something like this: You are not responsible for the actions of your ancestors, nor am I for mine. However, you inherited the benefit of opression, whereas I inherited the burdens. Society (not you in particular, but everyone collectively) has an obligation to ensure that this unequal state of affairs does not continue indefinitely, with advantages and disadvantages being passed down through the generations.

Would you agree with that notion?

Jester

[whyBish]

The lounge is called something along the lines of "The Minority Lounge"

Yes, my friends who were kicked out of the lounge based upon their skin color were indeed Caucasian, but that is honestly only a part of the point.

But I have done nothing wrong, there is no reason I should have to pay for events that occurred 50+ years ago with which I do not even begin to agree with in the first place.

Unfortunately I must be brief :(

To your original point, you have not had to 'pay' as you state. You have been denied access, much as the same way a male would be denied access to a female toilet, or a young person is denied the pension.

At my University we have a similar thing, and also a 'female lounge' (a place for breastfeeding mothers). Do you think that mothers would be comfortable breastfeeding in front of males?


I do however agree with you that it is sad that *some* members of *some* minority groups sit around waiting for a hand out for things done 150 years ago (NZ), but as far as I recall the U.S. was still segregated into the 1970s?

[whyBish]

How far are colleges(universities?) outside the normal law about discrimination? It would seem to me that&nbsp; normal laws/anti-discrimination laws would ban such behaviour!?

IIRC from my very brief study of Ethics, 'reverse discrimination' has been allowed by the supreme court in the U.S., and does not have to be given to the particular individual/s that was wronged, but may go to their 'group'.

Check out the Civil Rights Act 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e Title VII. (Don't ask :P )

[WarLocke]

Do you think that mothers would be comfortable breastfeeding in front of males?

(Playing Devil's Advocate)

Why would they? There's nothing sexual or taboo about breastfeeding - well, except perhaps the 'public nudity' taboo, which strikes me as fairly silly.

But, if a mother would be uncomfortable breastfeeding in public, she could always do it in privacy, or choose to use baby formula. setting aside a lounge for breastfeeding mothers seems a terrible waste of space to me.

Then again, I'm still boggled over the study lounge (a type of room I've always assumed was meant to be used by everyone) set aside for a minority group.


Mith: Is the 'normal' lounge offlimits to members of the 'exclusive' one? I would so appreciate the irony...

[Count Duckula]

To your original point, you have not had to 'pay' as you state.&nbsp; You have been denied access, much as the same way a male would be denied access to a female toilet, or a young person is denied the pension.

At my University we have a similar thing, and also a 'female lounge' (a place for breastfeeding mothers).&nbsp; Do you think that mothers would be comfortable breastfeeding in front of males?

Um.

From my point of view, an attitude of "we don't want you in here because this is the place where only black people should be" is just as poisonous as "we don't want you in here because this is the place where only white people should be."

As for breastfeeding mothers, their privacy is another matter entirely. But if our culture didn't attach some sort of negative stigma to physical differences or actively suckling babies, there would be no such need for this segregation.

(Hey, what can I say, I attend a liberal women's university. ;))

[Mithrandir]

Jester:

The more nuanced version of that argument goes something like this: You are not responsible for the actions of your ancestors, nor am I for mine. However, you inherited the benefit of oppression, whereas I inherited the burdens. Society (not you in particular, but everyone collectively) has an obligation to ensure that this unequal state of affairs does not continue indefinitely, with advantages and disadvantages being passed down through the generations.

Would you agree with that notion?

Of course I agree with this notion. However, Affirmative Action doesn't solve this either. Quite to the contrary in fact. The original intent of AA was to lift the impoverished that are not receiving the same education up out of their state and give them the tools they required to improve their lot in life. The impoverished of this nation have a stronger tendency towards being minorities precisely because of the "burdens of past oppression" (as you put it). However, this blanket action based solely upon race is an inferior system at best: many individuals undeserving of its benefits receive them, whereas many who do deserve the benefits (as based upon their economic bracket) don't get them solely based upon the color of their skin. Are non-minority low-income individuals not just as deserving of a chance to pull themselves up the economic ladder (by getting a quality education) as minorities?

But even then, AA does not even attempt to address the problem until 18+ years of inferior education have already passed for said individuals. It is a band-aid fix. It does not address the true issue at hand in this country: poor/low-income individuals are getting a significantly worse education in this country than wealthy individuals. They are never being given the opportunity to snatch the tools they need to succeed and excel in life for the most part.

Stop pussyfooting around. Attack the issue at its heart rather than instituting broad, discriminatory policies bent on stereotyping individuals and categorizing them based upon their skin color.


whyBish:

To your original point, you have not had to 'pay' as you state. You have been denied access, much as the same way a male would be denied access to a female toilet, or a young person is denied the pension.

Please. I guess it was okay then for African Americans to be denied access to restaurants, bathrooms, theaters, and buses (or at the very least forced to endure lower quality service) prior to America's cultural revolution, eh? After all, they're not "paying" for anything! They're just being denied access! No biggie!

Bleh.

Males aren't permitted in female bathrooms because different facilities are required for each. Also, viewing someone's naked body of the opposite gender when they do not wish it is generally considered a bad thing in our society. Therefore, equal bathrooms are created for each gender mostly out of a modesty issue. In no way is there any corollary between the example and AA, a policy that insinuates that individuals of a certain skin color are more deserving of certain rewards than others.

As to the pension... Young people aren't given pensions because they didn't put it the work, loyalty, and time needed to receive one. AA, on the other hand, hands free gifts over to individuals who have done nothing to deserve it. A rather significant difference, no?


Edit: One more :)

WL:

Mith: Is the 'normal' lounge offlimits to members of the 'exclusive' one? I would so appreciate the irony...

Nope. All lounges all around campus are open to anyone at any time... except this one. Hell, it's not really even a faux pas for undergraduates to go study in the graduate or even law libraries (although they are a little bit more strict about noise level than in the undergraduate library ;) ).

[WarLocke]

Nope. All lounges all around campus are open to anyone at any time... except this one.

Well, heck.

I guess it's time to go in for some Melanin treatments. And maybe get some hair plugs. Then I can get stuff for free!!!11!1!!1!!oneone!!one1!!

[Nightwind]

Unfortunately, I doubt anything can be done about the AA craze (at least, not in our lifetimes).&nbsp; It's a part of the bureacracy now, and the ultimate point of bureacracy is to resist change and ensure that it's a 'necessity,' after all.

worst part is that if you try to contest afirmitive action, and are not able to claim the role of a persecuted minority, they instantly assume that your a bigot, and some kind of hatemonger. OR, they can ad hoem you into such an apearence.

[alex_reno]

an inferior system at best: many individuals undeserving of its benefits receive them, whereas many ... don't get them solely based upon the color of their skin. Are non-minority low-income individuals not just as deserving of a chance to pull themselves up the economic ladder (by getting a quality education) as minorities?

Essentially, I agree with you that such things should be awarded based on economic bracket rather than race. But...

But even then, AA does not even attempt to address the problem until 18+ years of inferior education have already passed for said individuals. It is a band-aid fix. It does not address the true issue at hand in this country: poor/low-income individuals are getting a significantly worse education in this country

It could certainly be argued that if you had received 12 or 13 years of lousy education from lousy teachers, you might be perceived as undeserving of higher education. If we agree that being poor gets you a worse education, and that a far greater percentage of minorities are poor than whites, then one would have to suspect that these programs are not especially poorly targeted.

Furthermore, racism is more likely to have played a part in a poor minority's low (perceived) qualifications, which in combination with the poorer education, gives your average white a significant head start over a minority with similar gifts.

I agree with you that the solution is better education for the poor. Until that happens, though, affirmative action does seem to address some of the problems that past racism has left us. More minorities get a chance at a decent education, and if they can't hack it, they wash out and try something else. Keep in mind that some who washed out might not have failed had they been given the same chances throughout their lives as a white.

[kandrathe]

I do believe that the "minority lounge" management handled your friends poorly and that by your description they were discriminated against. So, it is a bit contrary of me to argue for the minority in this case, but for the sake of discussion, I'll give it a try. I've never been a minority, and so I have no idea what it is like for them. I can only imagine, and probably not that well.

My proposition is that while your friends are quiet and respectful, they have probably dealt with many who were not. There may even be many minority students who have white friends that might want to study together, but also must find an alternative place. This minority group has gotten permission from the "powers that be at the University" to have a specially designated minority lounge. This may be a place where "the minorities" can congregate and be together to help them build a "community". A non-threatening environment as it were. I would guess that your friends have the opportunity to go to any number of quiet places to study, and that having this one as well is not all that neccesary. So, if they did not enforce the "minority" part of that it would just be another lounge. Your University might be a public institution funded with tax payer dollars, but that doesn't mean that you can go anywhere you like and do anything you want.

Maybe it is alright to have some discrimination. Like, we take for granted the segregation of mens and womens locker rooms (separate but equal). Women may not be comfortable changing clothes with a bunch of men hanging around. Minority specific fraternal and sorority organizations are able to discriminate based on race. When I was at the University, there were any number of campus groups that discriminated who could become members (e.g. Campus Lesbians, Muslim Prayer Group, and a plethora of ethnic groups). Take my example of the Muslim Prayer Group. They had a very nice place, and it was a very spiritual place, but it was set aside for followers of Islam. So, imagine now that 200 Christians were allowed to also use the space displacing the 2 dozen Muslims. It would become a Christian place, and cease being a place where the Muslims would feel comfortable. These special islands are very important for minorities to have an identity as minorities, amongst the ocean of homogenization that happens within the University.

(again, remember this is me playing the devil's advocate)

Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. One cannot interpose flowery words and empty ideas in an attempt to cover up the ugliness that discrimination is. One cannot look me in the eye and tell me that giving advantages to others based solely upon the color of their skin is discrimination. Discrimination is ugly in any form.

I am challenging this notion. We are not all the same, and we should not be forced to be the same. How does one differentiate themselves in society if one is not allowed to have express their differences in gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual preferences. The tyranny of the majority should not dictate the norm for the individual. If that happens, where is freedom? "Discrimination" is ugly when it excludes an entire class of people from the services to which the majority have free access. It is not ugly when the minority protects itself from being assimilated by the majority. I may not agree with the teachings and philosophies of David Koresh, but I support his right to have a place to follow his beliefs (however waco they might seem to me) as long as they don't violate any laws (which was his problem).

So my observation of how the courts work is that the crux of "what is discrimination?" is that as long as the white students are served with similiar areas where they can study peacefully, then discrimination is not occuring against the "class" of whites but only to those that want to study in every area.

[Nystul]

Forget about the lounge, they should be glad they were even admitted into the school. Public universities in the United States take pride in discriminating against Caucasian Americans. Until or unless the Supreme Court decides to make a firm stand against it (don't hold your breath waiting), the trend will continue to grow.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Is there an historic "unequal state of affairs"? Yes, definitely.

Does "Society {have} an obligation to ensure that {it} does not continue indefinitely."? Yes, definitely.

Is the solution to reverse which group has the unfair advantage? Does such a policy lead to equality? I don't think so.

Unfair discrimination is wrong, no matter which side it favors. If the field is tilted one way, tilting it the other just replaces one injustice with its opposite. It is much more difficult to level that field. But that is the only just thing to do. And the only path which has any hope of leading to a society free of racism.

--Pete