Reject discrimination, not only reverse discrimination Reject discrimination, not only reverse discrimination
Posted on Mon, Apr. 14, 2003
By PATRICK OSIO JR.
Many years ago, 20 workers -- 10 whites, five Latinos and five Negroes -- gathered daily at a job-hall. A foreman would choose 13 workers, sending away the remaining seven. Each morning the foreman, a white, always chose the 10 whites and sometimes two Negroes and one Latino, or two Latinos and one Negro. The 10 whites had no say on how the selection process was determined; they were just happy to be chosen.
The seven left out complained about the unfairness of the process. The foreman said he had the right to chose whomever he wanted, and besides, the nonwhite 10 got to work some days. They should be thankful. THE AMERICAN DREAM
In time, the working whites purchased homes in nice neighborhoods. Steady income provided credit, allowing them to own newer cars and other conveniences in their pursuit of the American Dream. Their children were able to attend good schools, thus easing academic advancement, facilitating their entry and success in college, ultimately improving their generation's economic future.
The Negroes and Hispanics, on the other hand, not having steady work and income, lived in less desirable neighborhoods. Unable to buy homes, and not affording much for rent, the housing was of poor quality. Not having lines of credit, they were forced to buy lower quality furniture, older appliances and older cars. Some became embittered and depressed, abusing alcohol and their families in the process.
Their children's schools were not of the same caliber as those found in better neighborhoods, so the children didn't receive academic advantage qualifying them for college, dooming their generation to the same life. Without hope, many dropped out, turned to drugs for escape and to crime for economic relief. In time, for many it became a way of life.
Someone finally said: ''This is wrong. Americans should not be denied work due to the color of skin or race.'' The freedom to discriminate vs. the freedom not to be discriminated clashed. The Supreme Court decided that in America the freedom not to be discriminated is greater than the freedom to discriminate.
The foreman was told that he could no longer discriminate, but he continued choosing the 10 whites first and then the others. The Negroes and Latinos accused him of discrimination, but the foreman said that he was simply choosing those with more experience. This attitude created affirmative action. The plan mandated the hiring of a fixed percentage of minority members.
Now the foreman had to choose not just three, but six, minority workers. This left out three whites who had always worked. The three ousted whites complained bitterly, claiming to be the victims of reverse discrimination. They were right. Then someone took note that whites were being promoted at work, so it was mandated that members of minorities had to be promoted at a higher percentage to fill a quota. Thus, in many cases, minority members were promoted over more-qualified whites.
Those bypassed complained that they were victims of reverse discrimination. They were right. Universities had far too many whites and far too few members of minorities. It was determined that this was due to the inadequate preparatory schooling and to discriminatory university policies. So it was mandated that universities had to admit minority members in greater numbers in preference over nonminority students. White students left out, complained that they were victims of reverse discrimination.
They were right. Despite laws prohibiting the practice, persistent discrimination created affirmative action to right a wrong, but at the expense of the beneficiaries of past discrimination. These beneficiaries are angry at the negative effects that they suffer via reverse discrimination, but not at the past practices of discrimination against minorities. They say that there should be no discrimination; we are now a ''colorblind society,'' they claim. They would be right -- if that were true.
But it isn't. They see some black and brown faces in universities and the work force, and they consider this a proof of their words. They refuse to accept that this is due to affirmative action as a mandate, not from the heart and soul of a ``colorblind society.'' In truth, as long as whites remove discriminatory practices and their negative effects from their own lives, they can live with discriminatory practices against others by simply not acknowledging that they exist.
Patrick Osio Jr. is the editor of www.HispanicVista.com
News and Announcements | AAD Home Page