Thursday, May 27, 2010

two Larry's on Rand: Freedom 101 and sexual discrimination

Here's a link to my earlier posts on Rand Paul and the "civil rights furor". Now, more stuff...

From Larry Elder at TownHall.com who starts by criticizing National Review's Rich Lowry for this: "I'm sympathetic to libertarianism, but it sometimes has a weakness for theoretical exercises removed from reality."

This sounds like a white, guilt-ridden rationalization to justify an abandonment of principle. And it has real world, not merely "theoretical," consequences. For one thing, it encourages grievance-driven race-based identity politics -- and invites special-interest legislation to protect all manner of niche groups perceived...

Republicans go all deer-in-the-headlights when someone questions their colorblind bona fides. But when Nazi sympathizers want publicly to march, many conservatives correctly defend the "right." Constitutional rights extend to both saints and sinners and those in between...This is freedom 101...

The consequences of government coercion are more harmful than the certainty that some will use their freedom in ways that offend....


And from Larry Beane at LewRockwell.com who goes off on Bryn Mawr College and
page 29 of its 2009–2010 Undergraduate Catalog: "In conformity with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, it is also the policy of Bryn Mawr College not to discriminate on the basis of sex in its educational programs, activities or employment practices. The admission of only women in the Undergraduate College is in conformity with a provision of the Act." After ripping the obvious blindness and hypocrisy, makes this observation:

...nearly every private business, private or public school, and government office discriminates based on sex – at least if they have sex-segregated restrooms or locker-rooms. It is not uncommon for colleges and universities to have sex-segregated dorms. Every individual who is not bisexual discriminates on the basis of sex. Any time a business, educational institution, or government entity opts to use a sex-based title such as Mr., Mrs., Miss, or Ms. – there is discrimination based on sex....

Only government (and their allies in the academy) can look us straight in the eye and claim discrimination is not discrimination. Of course, one of the definitions of discrimination is "to use good judgment." So maybe there is something to such denials after all.

1 Comments:

At May 27, 2010 at 7:13 PM , Blogger William Lang said...

Apparently, all of this discrimination is allowed by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, so I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. Indeed, the 1964 Act does allow discrimination by private parties, within the context of private non-profit clubs or in religious institutions.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home