X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 13:35:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: A "right to discriminate?"
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

>         I wouldn't say there is a *right* to discriminate, but I would say it'
> not the place of government to define discrimination.
>
>         It was government, after all, that gave us slavery, separate but equal
> Jim Crow laws, etc.  It was the people--protesting, lobbying, etc.--that fough
> for the repeal of government mandated discrimination.

Hold on now.  Governments did not institute human slavery, set up rules
and regulations to preserve the institution, then step back and wait
until some entrepreneur said "Hey!  What a great way to latch on to some
extra cash!"  Slavery was protected by the law because slave owners and
slave dealers wanted it to be, and they had the power to influence the
law.  The same goes for segregation and Jim Crow--both existed before
the law protected them, and the law was changed to protect them because
powerful interests found it useful to do so.  And in all of these cases,
the laws in question were found to be in violation of the principles
that should supposedly underlay all of our laws.

I find disingenuous the claim that the law was the cause for situations
that obviously arose before the law had dealt with them, and that these
situations are the natural outgrowth of law, rather than a perversion
of law by those in power.

>         And it's very ironic that what is largely a phyrric victory (quotas an
> such) is being touted as the reason why government should be given (really,
> "keep") such powers.

The victory is very real, I assure you.  Black students now have equal
access to virtually every college in the US.  That was not the case even
thirty years ago.  Black and women workers now have access to a whole
range of jobs that would have been closed to them a generation back.
And employers or institutions who discriminate now face the possibility
of real sanctions, taking away their ability to discriminate with
virtual impunity.

>         Now if the people want to legislate what is discriminatory, then fine.
> Although you'll run into the same problems as those who try to legislate
> morality, it's a damn sight better than the government simply telling us what
> we can and can't do.

The people did so, in the Fourteenth Amendment.  All the rest is just
implementing regulation  :-).

>         What has 30 years achieved?  I'd say that's time enough for the curren
> "solution" to have worked.  Toss it and try again.  I'd suggest letting the
> people decide.  (Gasp!)

It has achieved a level of opportunity for those once deprived of it
that was undreamed of just a few decades ago.  It has produced a real
increase in achievement for groups who were once pushed into the
corner.  One important result is that it has made people think more
about issues of equality and fairness, and try harder to put the ideals
they profess into practice.

Now, maybe you're referring to the phenomenon that whenever a law is
passed, some people will do their damnedest to get around it.  That's
true, but it hardly invalidates the law itself.  And for everyone who
takes that route, there will be some who will prefer to follow the law
rather than a discriminatory social custom.

>         Note that in an electoral process, it's those that get to the gate
> first who usually set the ground rules.  Witness Colorado 2 and Oregon 9.

No.  Colorado was a reaction to local legislation that existed before
the statewide initiative started.  Oregon was a reaction, too, pushed
by people who think that rights are okay for themselves but don't like
the idea that other people have them.  Those are the same kind of people
who perverted the law in the past.  They bear close watching.

You see, a law that mandates discrimination is not the equivalent of a
law that prohibits it.  The one is a violation of the principles on
which this country was founded.  The other is an attempt to bring those
principles a little closer to reality.

Best,
Peter

> Brett'