Discrimination: Right or Wrong

[The_Horses_Boy]

Question: Is discrimination right or wrong?


Now when I say discrimination I am not refering to any specific instances, but the general idea. Are there instances where it can be right?

For example, discriminating against child molesters in hiring an elementary teacher, in my mind, would be the right thing to do.

Discriminating against people with multiple crime offenses in the last few years would be, in my mind, reasonable in hiring a police officer.


I only bring this up because I know so many people that simply speak of discrimination as if it is ultimately wrong. While I think that in many instances it is wrong, I feel that there are instances where it is. Is discrimination absolutely wrong in all cases, are there exceptions, is it wrong in only certain cases, or is it OK?

 

[shadowmage36]

There is no absolute answer whether discrimination is right or wrong. As you've said, in some cases it's right. However, in most cases that are discussed, it tends to be wrong (ie racial discrimination, religious discrimination, or discrimination based on sexual preference, etc.).

But an absolute answer as to whether it's right or wrong? Impossible.

 

[boxcarguy07]

Exactly as shadowmage said.
It's all semantics, depending on what you mean by discrimination.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

I agree with you guys. Most cases that come into discussion of it are wrong, but there are cases where it is right... I wanted to vote between the middle two but chose that it is "wrong only in certain cases"... I don't mean that it's rarely wrong but I didn't put in a strict middle ground, which I should have.

 

[Skaloop]

The way I see it, the examples you mentioned as discrimination don't really count as discrimination because they have a legitimate, reasonable, and justifiable reason behind them. There's a good reason for keeping child molesters from being teachers. It's only true discrimination when there is no good reason for it (eg - an office not hiring a black receptionist).

Meh, that's probably still open to a lot of interpretation, but it'll do for now.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

The way I see it, the examples you mentioned as discrimination don't really count as discrimination because they have a legitimate, reasonable, and justifiable reason behind them. There's a good reason for keeping child molesters from being teachers. It's only true discrimination when there is no good reason for it (eg - an office not hiring a black receptionist).

Meh, that's probably still open to a lot of interpretation, but it'll do for now.

The following is simply what the dictionary gives as it's main entry.

to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit; especially : to make a difference in treatment on a basis prohibited by law (as national origin, race, sex, religion, age, or disability)

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste Horses_boy,

thank you for the post.

in my view discrimination is something that is an ongoing process of evaluation based on a whole host of interrelated factors.

there are certainly areas where discrimination is not correct and, perhaps, illegal.

that said, generally speaking, beings are equiped with a discriminator engine which we call the brain. i think that the real trick is suppressing discriminator behavior when it manifests in a negative manner and supporting it when it manifests in a positive manner.

for instance, it would be a negative manfestation to discriminate against a being for their ethinicity or religious affiliation (and may well be illegal).

on the other hand, it seems perfectly acceptable to discriminate in ones food selection and choice.

so, to sum up, i think that the heart of the question is the context in which the discrimination is occuring.

metta,

~v

 

[Skaloop]

The following is simply what the dictionary gives as it's main entry.

to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit

See, it's that underlined bit that I was sort of going for. The duties of a teacher are to instill knowledge in children, keep the children safe while at school, mediate disagreements between children, etc. A child molestor may not necessarily fill all of those requirements. If two teachers are equally qualified, but one has a blemished record due to molestation, than giving favour to the other teacher is based on merit, and therefore not discrimination. Being a child molestor does impact ones ability to properly perform ones duties as a teacher. Being black or gay or Jewish does not, and selection based on those criteria would be discrimination.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

See, it's that underlined bit that I was sort of going for. The duties of a teacher are to instill knowledge in children, keep the children safe while at school, mediate disagreements between children, etc. A child molestor may not necessarily fill all of those requirements. If two teachers are equally qualified, but one has a blemished record due to molestation, than giving favour to the other teacher is based on merit, and therefore not discrimination. Being a child molestor does impact ones ability to properly perform ones duties as a teacher. Being black or gay or Jewish does not, and selection based on those criteria would be discrimination.

I see. But then there are some subjectives...

For example, let's say that we're talking about a Catholic school. It would make sense to favor a Catholic teacher, I think. Or if there were an all-black school it might make sense to have a preference for a black teacher, don't you think(which I think it is odd that an all-black school is politically correct but an all-white school is not, but that's a totally different discussion)? Or, say, in an all-girls school it would make sense to want a female teacher, in my mind at least.


... there are so many ways that we can just drag this on pointlessly, isn't there?

 

[Skaloop]

I see. But then there are some subjectives...

For example, let's say that we're talking about a Catholic school. It would make sense to favor a Catholic teacher, I think. Or if there were an all-black school it might make sense to have a preference for a black teacher, don't you think(which I think it is odd that an all-black school is politically correct but an all-white school is not, but that's a totally different discussion)? Or, say, in an all-girls school it would make sense to want a female teacher, in my mind at least.


... there are so many ways that we can just drag this on pointlessly, isn't there?

Yep, it could go on forever. And a Christian school not hiring a non-Christian teacher, I wouldn't consider that discrimination, given that providing a Christian education is part of the job requirement. Now, if the teacher had, say, a degree in Christian theology, but was in fact an atheist, then it gets trickier; that teacher has the expertise for Christian-based teaching, so there is no lack of merit on which to deny the job. But, a private institution such as a Christian school is free to discriminate on religious grounds because that is the nature of their business.

As for black teachers at black schools, well, that gets tricky too. If you have two teachers applying for a job at an inner-city, largely black school, and both are equally qualified as teachers except one is a black guy who grew up in similar conditions and the other is a white guy from a family of privilege in the suburbs, then I might give preference to the black guy, just because he'd likely do better interacting with the kids. And vice versa, if the white guy was ghetto and the black guy was suburban, then I'd hire the white guy. However, if they're both kids from the ghetto, but one guy has slightly better credentials, then I wouldn't say that colour makes a difference.

I never said it was simple. And if it were, we wouldn't need to discuss it at all.

 

[jayem]

A real world scenario:

I work in occupational health. We do a lot of pre-employment job physicals. Carpal tunnel syndrome is a major work comp expense for industries whose employees do hand intensive tasks. These companies would really like to screen out prospective employees susceptable to CTS. One large company is now doing nerve conduction studies on all prosepctive hires. If there is any abnormality, they are not hired. (Strictly speaking, to avoid ADA violations, they are told the tests are only done for job placement. Anyone with possible nerve problems will be hired for non-hand intensive work. But since few such jobs are available, these folks are put on a "waiting list," to be called whenever such a job opens up. In the vast majority of cases, they won't be hired at all.)

This deception aside, it may seem reasonable to "discriminate" in hiring based on physical limitations in performing a job, or having a medical condition that could be worsened by a particular job. But the fact is that there is no objective evidence that having mild abnormalities on a nerve conduction test will eventually lead to full blown carpal tunnel syndrome. Most of the people who are positive on this test have no symptoms at all. They are fully capable, at the present time, of doing hand intensive work without problems. It may well be that these are normal variations, with no relationship to CTS. There is simply no reliable data on this subject. The company has instituted this policy based on a hypothesis that is not yet supported by scientific studies. Such studies are being done, and the hypothesis may be correct after all, but the data isn't there now. So is it ethical to discriminate in hiring, based on an as yet unsupported presumption of what MIGHT happen in the future?

 

[.Mikha'el.]

Question: Is discrimination right or wrong?

'Tis neither right nor wrong. It really all depends on the situation.

I think we all can agree that the vast majoirity of peopkle living in the western world do not like the taste of liver. Threfore, it is not a food that most poeple eat.

Refusing to eat liver based on the fact that it tastes terrible is discrimination, but I think we can all agree there is nothing wrong with that.

However, the racial segregation and other infringements on the basis of race are absolutely abhorrent, because skin colour has absolutely no impact on voting or the use of public facilities.

 

[Texas Lynn]

As Alex Trebek says "more specific information is needed."

To summarize just one area, employment: it depends on the BFOQs (bona fide occupational qualifications) for the position.

Morgan Freeman would not have a leg to stand on if he sued the production company for Marie Antoinette for casting Kirsten Dunst in the title role instead of him.

A church body which believes homosexuality is sinful would be justified in not ordaining an open LGBT person, but they would be on the wrong side of the law and of morality should they refuse to hire one as a program manager for a "faith-based initiative" social services program they operate.

 

[UberLutheran]

Discrimination is a fact of life; and like most other situations we encounter in life, we're expected to exercise our judgment when discrimination is appropriate and when it isn't.

If we're expecting a "black and white" answer (sorry!) -- there isn't one.

Most people would feel very uncomfortable having a convicted pedophile babysit their children. That's discrimination -- and that kind of discrimination exists for a very good reason.

I recall one time, back in 1980, when I was visiting Chicago and got lost. I ended up in a part of Chicago which frankly, was the pits and one kid came up to my car and said, "Mister, it isn't safe for you to be around here." (It turned out I was in Cabrini Green.) Maybe that's discrimination -- but it may have been a very appropriate discrimination.

I also recall being verbally reprimanded when I was six years old and drinking from the "colored" water fountain. Well: I was six, and it was hot outside, and I was thirsty -- and I really didn't care if the water fountain was off limits to white people. Separate but equal facilities are a notorious form of discrimination because while they may be separate, they're rarely equal and people of different races have the same essential body structure and bleed the same blood.

There are Christian churches and Jewish synagogues and Muslim congregations which really do not want gays and lesbians within their midst. I think that's an unfortunate form of discrimination because these organizations might have a great deal to learn from people in a minority who are discriminated against -- not only in religion, but in accomodations, housing, employment, and civil and legal benefits for their partners and their relationships -- and yet many gays and lesbians manage to keep their faith, anyway.

In our society, it's considered wrong to discriminate against someone on the basis of their sex, their race, their religion, creed, belief, age and (in many places) sexual orientation in terms of accommodations, housing, and employment when that person is equally qualified.

At the same time, a black person might not want to attend a meeting of the Ku Klux Klan (which is discrimination); nor would a gay or lesbian person want to visit Coral Gables Presbyterian Church or Thomas Road Baptist Church (which is also a form of discrimination); and a lot of straight men aren't real keen on going to gay bars (again, discrimination).

There is no "right" or "wrong" answer to this: we discriminate every day, and some of that discrimination is actually a very good thing. We have to exercise our judgment about when discrimination might be appropriate (and wise) and when discrimination is a reflection of our own character defects.

 

[UberLutheran]

Refusing to eat liver based on the fact that it tastes terrible is discrimination, but I think we can all agree there is nothing wrong with that.

Hey -- I like liver (especially when it is fried and wrapped in bacon with caramelized onions on top).

What are you -- some sort of livid liver loather?

 

[1337King]

For people who have done thing's to deserve discrimination, like murder someone, or rape someone, than discrimination is a good thing. But discrimination based on race is retarded, and I can personally say it stink's. Cause im a whiteboy from the projects, so ive spent most of my life being discriminated against... And it sucks.

 

[ebia]

I see. But then there are some subjectives...

For example, let's say that we're talking about a Catholic school. It would make sense to favor a Catholic teacher, I think.

Unless the teacher has to teach RE, around here Catholic schools just want the best teachers they can get (providing those teachers will sign to say that they will uphold the values of Catholic Education).

Or if there were an all-black school it might make sense to have a preference for a black teacher, don't you think(which I think it is odd that an all-black school is politically correct but an all-white school is not, but that's a totally different discussion)?

I would say that either school would be well justified in favouring the black teacher all else being equal. In either school it would help to undermine steriotypes.

Or, say, in an all-girls school it would make sense to want a female teacher, in my mind at least.

Most schools - whether single sex or co-ed - want a balance of genders in their teaching staff. For this reason male candidates are often prefered for primary school teaching positions where they are in short supply (at least here and in the UK).

But to get back to the main point, yes it can be complex and difficult to determine when there is a genuine question of merit vs discrimination.

 

[katautumn]

When applying the definition of discrimination, the scenarios in the OP wouldn't really be classified as discrimination. Since discrimination is treatment based upon a specific factor rather than individual merit, I think it would be safe to say that a person with an extensive criminal history wouldn't show merit when being interviewed for a law enforcement position. That would be like asking if it would be discrimination if a high school football coach was denied a position as a university football coach for Notre Dame if he had not lead his varsity team to a single victory. It would be discrimination if he was not selected on the grounds of him being a black man or a homosexual. Just like it wouldn't be discrimination for a church to refuse hiring an Atheist as pastor.

I feel there is a fine line between discrimination and discretion. You would be, for example, exercising discretion if you were trying to select a person to take care of your children and decided not to if you found out that had prior child abuse convictions. You would be exercising discrimination if you didn't hire the person just because they were black, even if they had excellent credentials and a spotless track record.

 

[kopilo]

There is a differance between noticing differences and discrimination. Discrimination where I come from is specific to treating people differently based on their demographic, religious, etc apperance and actions. The anti-discrimination act does classify the consequences of discriminatory actions, ergo discrimination is wrong because it breaks the law.

Of course this relates completely to the treatment or prejudice based on class or category. Not to perception.

 

[Merlin]

Discrimination:
Choice.
Free will.

I like choice.