Rand Paul's Faux Pas Page 2
I felt conflicted about the virtuous intent of
antidiscrimination laws when I first learned of Randal (Rand) Paul’s statement,
which followed closely on the heels of his having beaten Republican Trey Grayson
for Kentucky’s Republican Senate nomination, that government shouldn’t have made
laws in any regard directing corporations and businesses to hire and serve
people based on race or minority or ethnicity. Was federal intrusion into the
private sector justified to correct discriminatory behavior?
Virtuous intentions don’t mean dick if the tactics to
achieve virtuous ends trample the very ideal of individual freedom and equality.
It’s good to promote and protect people’s civil
rights, to preserve the ideal of democracy and fairness, but not if such
protections are government mandated and result in the loss of the civil rights
of all Americans who are excluded from the benefit based on their race and are
forced to provide that benefit—jobs, college enrollment, bank loans, housing,
shelf space for race-specific needs, etc.
But, I asked myself, how else could minorities have
thrived economically if it were left to a few white racists. How could
minorities ever gain the kind of political clout enjoyed by wealthy whites if
they remained poor in segregated, gerrymandered districts? Was a law necessary
to end the exclusion of minorities in mainstream society and personal
persecution? Weren’t Affirmative Action consent decrees a necessity to end race
discrimination practiced voluntarily by whites? The law made it illegal for
businesses to discriminate based on race, age, gender, ethnicity, and
disability. Though a job applicant or store browser having any of these personal
characteristics should not influence a business owner’s decision to hire, fire,
or refuse service, in a free economy, the penalty of law should not dictate who
someone should hire based on that applicant’s race, age, gender, or disability.
Race is not a job qualification.
Forced racial integration disrupted many lives, and
such disruption cannot be justified as payback for past enforced segregation, as
if two wrongs made right. But the law did help a lot of people by providing
better access to better education and greater opportunities in broader job
markets. Would minority races have ever gained the skills required to compete in
the broader marketplace had integration not been forced, and if discrimination
laws were not still enforced? Could minorities pass stringent competency tests
if not given preferential treatment? Could minorities seek knowledge from
libraries, go to public schools to learn a trade, practice the trade in the
absence of discrimination laws? It’s easy to say that now, with equality assured
and open access and opportunity and evidence of major financial success by
members of all races and ethnicities that continuing laws against discrimination
are unnecessary, since racist corporations surely would perish financially if
they didn’t cater to a broad segment of the population as part of its target
customer base. The boycotts of their businesses by consolidated, race-related
consumer organizations would put a devastating blow on their profit margins, and
government wouldn’t have to be involved at all in the assurance of justice for
minority races.
| Previous Page | Read more |