True equality is something that rational-minded Americans, regardless of their political affiliation, strive for every day. It seems, however, that there is a bit of a divide among the people on just what truly makes people legally equal. Will the world ever see equality? Are “separate but equal” policies still considered equal in America? And what is so great about being equal under the law if you still don’t feel equal? Let’s explore this shall we.
Hate crime laws have been a very contentious issue in America ever since their inception. Some believe it puts minority groups on equal footing with the rest of the population and is necessary for true equality to exist. I disagree. Hate crime laws just seems like another one of those well-intentioned but not well-thought out ideas that came about because of tragic hate crime attacks on vulnerable minorities. The problem is that they end up favoring one race over another; they don’t make them equal. Let’s say a man kills someone because he is white and gets 20 years in prison. Then let’s say a man kills someone because he is black and gets 40 years. So wait, by law, the black man’s life is somehow more valuable than the white man’s? Even if they were of the same age, occupation, faith, and social status the black man would somehow be worth more? That sounds just as discriminatory if they made it only a 10 year punishment if the black man was killed.
It’s not just with the races. Discrimination occurs also between ethnicities, religions, genders, and sexual orientations in many places. True equality isn’t about making one person’s life worth more than the other; it is about making them equal. Anyone who is evil enough to kill someone else in cold-blood deserves life in prison regardless of their victim’s traits, especially if they are immutable (unable to be changed). Offering special protection to certain groups is collectivist and discriminatory in itself. As if that wasn’t bad enough, I would also make the argument that prosecuting some people more harshly for the same crime based on who the victim is causes different defendants to be treated unequally under the law, which is wrong.
Affirmative action is another example of well-intentioned but discriminatory laws. It is basically a form of reverse discrimination that devalues individual accomplishments and overvalues their personal traits. They are chosen because of the group they belong to not because of their accomplishments, which makes it all very counterproductive. It hinders reconciliation, replaces old wrongs with new ones, and encourages individuals to identify themselves as disadvantaged even though they aren’t. A perfect example of this would be the recent controversy surrounding college-bound Asian students who lie during the admissions process by placing themselves as white so as to avoid discriminatory policies against them. Affirmative action also increases racial tension because majority groups begin to hate minority groups for hypocritically supporting discriminatory policies.
American economist, social and political commentator, Dr. Thomas Sowell identified some negative results of race-based affirmative action in his book, Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study. Sowell writes that affirmative action policies encourage non-preferred groups to label themselves as members of preferred groups (primary beneficiaries of affirmative action) to take advantage of group preference policies; that they tend to benefit primarily the most fortunate among the preferred group (upper and middle class blacks), often to the detriment of the least fortunate among the non-preferred groups (poor whites or Asians); that they reduce the incentives of both the preferred and non-preferred to perform at their best — the former because doing so is unnecessary and the latter because it can prove futile — thereby resulting in net losses for society as a whole; and that they increase animosity toward preferred groups.
Anti-discrimination laws are also problematic. While the government certainly has no right to be biased for or against certain groups, private companies do. If consumers can choose to shop only at stores owned by certain races, ethnicities, or genders (under the guise of "supporting" that specific race, ethnicity, or gender), why can't a business owner choose who to hire based on race, ethnicity, or gender? It’s morally wrong to fire gay people just because they are gay or have discriminatory policies against them just because of religious beliefs (like the Salvation Army for example) but that does not mean we should impose our morality on them. We cannot force people to be tolerant or accepting. In fact, trying to force people to be more accepting has had the opposite results.
Anti-discrimination policies for pregnant women caused a lot of controversy where many pregnant women shouted out in opposition of the laws. The reason why they opposed these laws was because they made hiring women more risky and costly for private companies, who don’t want to have to face the possibility of damaging lawsuits. Discriminatory companies lose money and customers (not to mention potentially outstanding employees) because of their intolerant policies. Allowing these businesses to learn the hard way that their discrimination costs them money is a much better solution then forcing our morality (no matter how righteous they really are) on them, which only hurts those “protected” groups in the long run anyway.
Most of the examples provided so far have been described as “progressive” ideas but one prominent example is a popular one among conservatives. Civil unions are, by many people, considered “the same thing as marriage.” However, the truth is that many legal rights and privileges are not granted to couples in civil unions that are given to married ones. The mere fact that it has a different name makes it separate (and therefore unequal) from marriage. Civil unions are not equal in the legal sense or in the societal sense (people in civil unions report that society does not view their relationship as legitimate or genuine in comparison to married couples).
Indeed, egalitarianism is a very noble but difficult goal to attain. Many people have well-intentioned but impractical views on what will bring this ideal to the nation and its diverse population. Many believe that trading one form of discrimination for another somehow evens things out but an eye for an eye makes the world go blind in an already chaotic world. We must not fight discrimination with more discrimination. We must fight back with love and understanding (as corny as that is to say). Only then will we live in a truly equal world.
References:
No comments:
Post a Comment
thanks and continue to read!