First of all, there's no such thing as "Reverse Discrimination"

According to an article by the Associated Press today, the Supreme Court overturning of Sotomayor’s discrimination ruling will cause “confusion.”  That, according to “civil rights” advocates and union attorneys like Wade Henderson.  Henderson, the President and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, has suggested that a ruling in favor of the white folks (and two hispanics) in the New Haven case will create “confusing standards on how to meet that obligation.”

“Employers will now face a convoluted minefield when attempting to protect workers from discrimination,” Henderson said. “Employers are looking for bright lines … they’re looking for clear directives to help them better understand how they can engage in nondiscriminatory decisions.”

The ruling is confusing, Henderson said, because the high court seemed to say that while New Haven officials tried to avoid discrimination, throwing out the test was discriminatory. “It puts employers in a real quandary,” he said.

Shirley Wilcher, who is the executive Director of the American Association for Affirmative Action (could there be a more useless organization?) also chimed in, saying that the Obama Administration should be creating guidelines on how to deal with the ruling.

“In the meantime, we’re scratching our heads,” she said. “We’re concerned about the impact on employers who want to comply with the law and do not want to discriminate … and it’s not clear how to do that.”

There’s more, and I suggest reading the full article.  But we’ll stop there.  Several things bugged me about this piece.  But first thing’s first.

I need to address a pet peeve of mine.  I know I’ve heard Limbaugh use the phrases “Reverse Discrimination” and “Reverse racism.”  Many times, Conservatives use that termanology to differentiate between racism against non-whites and racism against whites.  “Progressives” have the same use: to them, there’s “real” racism, and then “reverse racism” — that against those who are racists by default.  This termanology needs to be expunged from our vernacular.  “Discrimination” and “racism” are not defined by ideology or by which group is being victimized.  Discrimination is simply the preference of one group over another.  Racism is simply ideological discrimination based on race.  Period.  White, black, red, tan, pink-and-orange — racism is racism and discrimination is discrimination.  Okay?  Moving along.

Now then, to Henderson and Wilcher.  What they seem to be saying — indeed, what Wilcher just comes right out and says — is that people don’t know how not to discriminate without instruction from … other people.  This idea is, let’s call it problematic, on many levels.  First, the obvious.  Does election to public office automatically enable one to answer a philosophical social question that an unelected person is (according to Wilcher and Henderson) funamentally unequipped to answer?  How does that work?  That takes care of the clear idiocy of Wilcher’s suggestion.

The bigger problem, though, is intent.  Let’s start with a basic statement of reality: If you need somebody to tell you how NOT to discriminate, you’re doing it wrong.  When I was a substitute teacher, my students were shocked when they found out I’d never experimented with illegal drugs, had never been drunk, and had been celibate before my wedding (hey, they asked, and they were in high school — I figured they could use a good, adult example).  “How,” they asked, “did you go through College without doing any of that stuff?”  “Simple,” I joked.  “I’m lazy.”  Then seriously, I would say, “Look, it’s actually very easy to not do something.  You just… don’t do it.  Inactivity is the default state.  Temptation is the hangup of people who seek approval from others.”

The same argument can be made for discrimination.  You don’t have to be told how to not discriminate.  You just don’t do it.  In a work situation, you make the choice to select the best candidate.  Period.  Yes, it’s actually that easy.  And, of course, while I’m not in favor of antidiscrimination laws in the private sector (I believe people should have the right to be a**holes if they so choose), there can be absolutely NO place for discrimination of any kind in the public services. 

What Henderson and Wilcher are really saying, then, is not, “How do employers know how not to discriminate” but rather, they are asking what the question of Affirmative Action has been all along: “How do they know who it’s okay to discriminate against.”

To a liberal, racism and discrimination are facts of life.  It is always going to go on.  Nobody gains through work, experience and acheivement — gain is always at the expense of somebody else.  This worldview is evident in nearly every single socio-economic policy liberals have ever introduced.

For Henderson and Wilcher, discrimination is always a zero-sum game.  In order for black individuals to NOT be discriminated against, white people must be.  And THAT is why they are so confused, and why they think employers will be.  Because they don’t understand that some people actually make the honest effort to be color blind.  An effort, for the record, which would actually be much easier if “progressives” weren’t so damned hung up on making it an issue.