I have been kicking this around in my head for quite a while and would like some genuine feedback.
What is the difference between THIS:
A sign excluding black people from a future business is enraging some people in a small town. Now, the man who put it up is speaking out.
Federal and State law says if the business is open to the public, prohibiting people based on race is illegal. If the man’s proposed gentlemen’s club was going to be a private club, then an African American historian says he could discriminate. Legalities aside, his is a sign that many say is appalling.
“If I’ve got a problem with you it’s going to be on the front of my store,” says Mark Prior.
Prior posted his ‘No Negros Allowed’ sign after he says he had some problems with black people in the past and needed to make a policy against them.
and THIS:
Other concerns Nass has about the UW System, according to Mikalsen, relate to a “touchy-feely admissions process that is more worried about diversity than academic quality” and the idea that some universities are more concerned about “indoctrination than education.”
I know one is straight to the point and the other uses nice code words, but in the end aren’t they saying the same thing?
“I know one is straight to the point and the other uses nice code words, but in the end aren’t they saying the same thing?”
No.
In fact, I would argue that the admissions process that have been altered as much as they have for the sake of diversity fit the bill of your firt vignette more effectively than Rep. Nass’s position.
I don’t care what color somebody is when (s)he applies to a university. Let the university decide who to admit based on merit.
Yes, but it’s also reasonable and desirable to take a big picture approach as to what constitutes merit. Giving additional consideration to kids who are the first in their family that hope to attend college or whose grades might be a slight step below other applicants, but relative to the other students in their school, are in a higher percentile. There are plenty of other, less cold, hard data factors that can and probably should be considered. However, skin color isn’t one of them – whether it is to increase or decrease “quotas.”
Oh and I should add – that post was me trying to make lemonade from lemons…trying to create a decent discussion from an awful post that attempted to make an idiotic comparison between to completely different things.
skin color isn’t one of them
Easy for you to say, Green Dot.
I won’t lie and say you’re wrong, but not quite sure why you’d automatically assume that.
I would say “Yes.” At some fundamental level, both are expressions of an ideology of market-fundamentalism which outright rejects the value of social equality as something society should strive for.
In the first case, there is the libertarian idea that a private business ought to conduct its business exactly as it and ONLY it sees fit. There is a hidden implication that, as long as the free market allows a business that uses racial discrimination to prosper, then there is nothing wrong. To the extent that racism is “wrong,” the free market will cause the business to fail, and that is all the moral regulation that humans need. The only thing “wrongness” MEANS in this scenario is: “not economically feasible.”
In the second case, there is the idea that a public university has a responsibility to be a gate-keeping mechanism for meritocracy. This is a narrow view which sees universities as a reward for the best and the brightest – their “merits” get them selected, justifiably, to be put on a fast track to success. Acceptance is the outcome of a competitive process that is *assumed* to be fair. This view totally ignores the huge roles that cultural background and family wealth/privilege play in high school achievement and standardized test scores. To call a situation where categorical inequalities are perpetuated and reinforced over time a “meritocracy” is disingenuous, but that IS where market-fundamentalism leaves us. If the “market” for education does not punish an institution for accepting mostly (or only) whites, then there is nothing inherently “wrong” with it.
In both situations, if you subscribe to the value that all humans should have the same opportunities and the same dignity, then you will have a problem with the racism each speaker defends. But if you have blind faith that the Economy is the be-all and end-all of human society and the magical Invisible Hand of the marketplace will make everything work out for the best, then racism amounts to a bunch of blasphemous, deluded socialists whining about an irrelevant, superficial physical characteristic. To push the logic to its extreme, ALL morality is ultimately reduced to a single dimension: economic feasibility. Consequently, ANY behavior (genocide, torture, rape) would be considered OK as long as the free market allows it to turn a profit. And THAT’S what both speakers are saying.
You worded this a lot better than I was trying to write, but this is ultimately what I was trying to convey. 🙂
Sorry Locke, i disagree but thats why I put it out there to get other perspectives.
In a perfect world it would be great if we could compare everyone equally but things just arent equal. The kid in Port washington has so many more advantages than the kid on Allied drive in Madison that you cant even count them. These differences need to be taken into account.
Not only that everyone the kid from allied drive and the kid from Port Washington need to learn how to interact with each other.
I see these two statements if not equal at least closely related. The question is, is this the kind of state we want to be known for or not?
But you didn’t actually even read my post, did you?
yep…read it word for word a couple times…
The one above – the one that makes most of the same points you do, about how other things should be factored it – just not skin color.
O and thanks Sven for that well worded reply I agree with you there also!
And wow – making assumptions about the skin color/ethnicity of someone you’ve never met, never see is a well worded reply?
You continue to find new ways to amaze me. And not in a good way.
Locke i made a mistake, while i find Svens map fascinating. I meant to say Hermes in terms of the well worded response. I agree with him in terms of some people think the “free market” will solve everything.
thanks, P.P.
I don’t think the free market is “bad,” just that it excludes important aspects of reality.
OK – then I owe you an apology.
The linked map is interesting (though not at all useful or accurate in low population areas like…oh, about 99% of Wisconsin. I know my community isn’t quite right. Still sampling limitations aside, it is neat to see that visually.
But that doesn’t at all change what I said about making assumptions about the skin color of people you don’t know.
Look at the census numbers, and you’ll see there are perhaps three people who identified as black in Abbotsford.
I dont think there really is such a thing as a “free market” all of the companies/people who complain about it on one hand are using the other to try and manipulate it for their advantage.
That guy in Abby is so charming, I cant believe anyone would rub him the wrong way.