At least then it is limited.
I’ve noted several times that it would be better for us if the Left were to codify their rule in precise laws, at least in those areas where they haven’t already done so. We may not do evil because it is the lesser of two evils, but there is nothing wrong in recognizing which evil is the lesser. Also, accepting unfairness that we have no power to redress is not itself an evil act.
My proposed “grand bargain” between the races is grossly unfair to whites, and like all forms of socialism, the only thing it will efficiently produce is misery, but it does grant us some legitimacy. It shifts the frame of racial justice from retribution to distribution, where, because aspirations are finite, they can be satisfied while leaving some room for the other goods of common life.
I’ve said before that it would be a great boon for academic freedom if Leftists would make their speech codes explicit. No fuzzy talk about being “offensive” or “marginalizing” special groups. Just a list of words that may not be used and propositions that may not be asserted. That’s how we Catholics did it when we ran things. That’s what you do if your goal is to defend an orthodoxy, not wield a general-purpose bullying stick. The list can be as long as they like with a formal process for additions; perhaps it can even have provisions that some words and ideas are forbidden only to certain classes of people. We Catholics never did anything so wretchedly iniquitous, but Leftist orthodoxy seems a bit more fragile, so maybe they need more fine-grained restrictions. But, given the list, no one can be punished for non-proscribed speech or research. Nulla poena sine lege. The limits are precise, so we may freely and safely explore everywhere outside, even up to a hair’s breadth of those limits. This would be the main advantage. A secondary advantage would be forcing the Left to own up to their own restrictions. With the current rules about not generating “hostility”, liberals always play the game of saying when challenged that they’re only protecting civility but then in practice taking these vague injunctions as a mandate to penalize dissent. Any criticism of Leftism is defined to be stirring up hostility toward its clients.
Explicit racial quotas would be much better than forcing every institution to make “diversity” its main goal. Thing of how much better college would be with any specified demographics but without all the diversity bullshit. Without explicit quotas, the only way to get an “acceptable” number of non-Asian minorities is to lower objective standards and introduce subjective components in the admissions process, i.e. to add enough noise to drown out the signal. Of course, we suspect that essays are in fact being used to identify desired minorities with plausible deniability (i.e. to unofficially have quotas), but that is actually the optimistic case. What if subjective pieces are mostly just introducing randomness? Wouldn’t it be best to use one’s white slots for the most academically gifted whites, the black slots for the most academically gifted blacks, etc? This clearly optimizes academic talent given the constraint of racial diversity.
“Hostile work environment” is another case of liberals getting to pose as mere protectors of civility while actually policing political opinions in the private workplace. We should not let them control the debate like this. Let’s all acknowledge that government is now in the business of using employers to enforce Leftist orthodoxy on matters of sexuality and race. If the Republican Party has any use at all, it should set goals to limit how this is done. I have suggested before a law to the effect that requirements to maintain positive work environments for protected class employees shall not be construed to require employers to compel affirmations of any idea or group from employees. Silence shall be considered sufficient. If employers want to persecute their “racist”, “homophobic” employees, so be it, but they are not required to do so. A second, stronger, law would be to withhold government contracts from businesses that penalizes employees for failing to affirm particular positions on the moral status of sodomy and the like. An even stronger law could forbid the government from working with companies that penalize their employees for political speech made outside of the work environment and not made in the employer’s name. Legal guarantees for government employees should certainly be an achievable thing. The Left will scream bloody murder, but if they want to make it so that teachers, policemen, and firemen can be fired for incorrect thoughts expressed outside of work, they should be forced to defend this. It should be the center of debate. Don’t let them play the game of “Of course these people are safe, only a paranoid person would want such a law”, then 5 minutes later, “Of course we can’t allow homophobes into positions of power”.
Step 1: realize how bad things really are. Step 2: proceed from there.
Filed under: Uncategorized |