From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 08:10:11 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Discrimination and Prejudice are Not Necessarily Bad Things
Message-ID: <v0310281eb093cfb6329b@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




The recent list discsussion reminds me that not all of you have yet thrown
off your knee-jerk reaction to "prejudice" and "discrimination."

I'm not surprised to hear high school students, when asked what the world's
Number One problem is, cite "prejudice." Or "bigotry." Or "racism." Their
teachers have drilled this idea into their heads for most of their school
years, and the media does its part with public service announcements,
heart-warming after school specials about the wonderfulness of
multiculturalism, and so on.

But I am surprised that more members of this list have not managed to throw
off the baggage of "discrimination is bad" simplemindedness.

To be sure, certain forms of racism, bigotry, and discrimination are both
irrational and counterproductive. The black man who thinks of all whites as
devils is no different from the white man who thinks of all blacks as
illiterate criminals.

But let's not forget what "discrimination" means. It means choosing some
actions or beliefs over others. It used to be a compliment  to say someone
had "discriminating tastes."

(Of course, this sense is still used, and I understand that the sense in
which people say "discrimination is bad" is the sense related to
unreasonable or irrational beliefs about certain races. But the good
meanings of discrimination are tending to get lost in the political
correctness baggage surrounding the term.)

I happen to believe many, even most, aspects of "black culture" in America
today are highly destructive to those who practice this culture. Extremely
high rates of illegitimacy (exceeding 70% overall, and exceeding 80% in
inner cities, compared to less than 25% for whites overall, and less than
20% for suburban whites). An extreme aversion to professional careers (on
average, obviously, not in any particular cases). And so on.

My "discrimination" is to avoid these kinds of people, to not hire them,
and to urge their culture to change, and fast. (Many black leaders, even
Jesse Jackson, are urging the same thing. Even Louis Farrakhan is saying
black culture in America is corrupt.)

Does this mean I have a morbid fear of black people? Nope. Does it mean I
would never hire a black? Nope. (I did in fact help hire a black scientist
when I was at Intel.)

And I also don't think certain words are off limits to white people. If
blacks use the term "nigger" (or "nigga") and refer to black women as
"hoes" (whores, in Ebonics), why are these terms then bowdlerized in
mainstream texts as "the "N" word" (etc.)?

Likewise, if homosexuals call themselves "queers" and "dykes," as in "Queer
Nation," "Dykes on Bikes," and so on, how can they object when others use
these words? (I know the post-Marxist, deconstructionist claptrap about
their reclaiming of patriarchal words, blah blah. It still remains a case
of "If we use it, it's OK, but if you use it, it's racist and homophobic.")

I really don't care what people do with their bodies, so long as they don't
interfere with me in any way. Or force me to subsidize them, or hire quotas
of them, or otherwise require me to change what I would do of my own free
will. If a store doesn't want to serve homosexuals, or doesn't want to hire
men as servers (the Hooters case), this is their basic property right. (And
this was recognized in the freedom of association interpretation of the
Constitution, even after the 14th Amendment (and its "equal protection"
language). It only became a "crime" for a restaurant to disallow certain
groups, or for a church to "discriminate against" Satanists, or for a
health food store to "discriminate against" 300-pound women seeking
employment in the store, etc., after the 1964 Civil Rights Act. More
specifically, the "Title 7" nonsense.

>From a a liberty, freedom, and property rights viewpoint, anyone is free to
do with their property as they wish, to set admissions policies, to invite
those they wish to enter (and to exclude others), and so on. The 14th
Amendment, more than a century ago, established certain voting and other
rights AS RELATED TO GOVERNMENT AND TO THE STATES! Basically, ensuring
freedom from slavery, repeal of Jim Crow laws, and other STATE INTRUSIONS
into fundamental constitutional rights. Again, rights as they related to
the government.

The 14th did not say that government had some right to tell a shopkeeper
that he had to serve all creeds, colors, and genders. It did not "ban
discrimination."

And the 1964 Civil Rights Act corrected a few wrongs that had remained
after  the 14th, mostly related to voting rights and such in the South.
Still, many thoughtful persons believed it just wasn't needed, that the
14th was already sufficicent, were it to be enforced, to halt certain
government-sanctioned cases of "discrimination."

(What might be called "Discrimination," with a capital D, implying state
sanction, and not "discrimination," with a small D.)

But over the decades following the Civil Rights Act, the language of Title
7 was used to "ban discrimination" (little D), so that a private store or
restaurant could not choose whom it wished to serve, for example. More
importantly, a business could not choose whom it wished to hire.

Hence the lawsuits charging "discrimination." Hence the EEOC and formal
quotas. Hence the conflicting laws about employers being _barred_ from
inquiring about race or ethnicity while at the same time being _required_
to meet certain EEOC guidelines and quotas.

(As I have said here before, when I was out college recruiting for Intel in
the late 70s, I was forbidden from noting an applicant's race or ethnicity
on the forms I filled out, but I was _required_ to put a small letter on
the top of the form, one of the letters in "C O I N S"--Caucasion Oriental
Indian Negro Spanish. These letters were so that Intel could obey the law,
Title 7 style, and report that it had indeed interviewed (and later hired)
the appropriate quotas of Negro and Spanish engineers! One part of the law
said it was illegal to hire based on race, another part of the law said it
was mandatory. True Orwellian doublethink.)

And so now we have the situation where a group of men can sue Hooters
demanding to be made into jiggly servers. Never mind that Hooters doesn't
want them. Never mind that such suits ought to be (and woudl have been,
prior to the Civil Rights Act) dismissed on a matter of law: it isn't a
crime for business owners to hire whom they wish. Period.

And the language of Title 7  and its descendants has been used to harass
businesses. As when the City of Los Angeles decided it did not want a strip
club open. It inspected the strip club and found that the "shower dance"
stage was not "wheelchair accessible." (!!!) Never mind that the strip
joint was not about to hire any cripples as strippers.

(Oh, and even though this is the most basic common sense point one can
make, that strip joint had better not _say_ it doesn't want cripples, else
it'd be hit with a multmillion dollar damage suit the next day.)

So, this is what we've come to. The mantra of "discrimination is illegal"
has now impinged on basic rights of free association and the basic liberty
to say what one wishes. Say certain things today and face a lawsuit. Or a
probe by the EEOC and its related agencies.

Blacks can call each other niggas and hoes, but let a honkey use these
words and he may be in real trouble. Homosexuals can call themselves fags,
queers, queens, and dykes, but the rest of us had better use the PC term du
jour. If Joe Whitey makes an "insensitive" or "discriminatory" remark, look
out. He may even lose his teaching job, or his engineering job at Sun, or
be denounced as a racist by Joichi Ito, Protector of Nipponese
Unmongrelized Sensibilities.

Some discrimination is good. In fact, a lot of it is. Think of it as
evolution in action.

--Tim May

The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."