Yoga Michigan

In our efforts to be politically correct, we sometimes take a good concept and go overboard with it so that it ends up worse off than what we started with. Equality has certainly been one such concept. Let us take for example the following statement which was printed on a document of a governmental organization in Michigan:

 

(Our organization is open to all) "without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, religion, age, height, weight, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status, family status or veteran status."

 

At first glance, some people may find it impressive that this organization is really trying not to discriminate against a wide group of people. But then you are left with the afterthought, is all this really necessary? In the old days, an equal opportunity statement usually included race, color, sex and national origin. One can understand that nobody wants to be discriminated against, but is it really necessary to itemize those differences in this manner?

 

What if persons who had dark hair felt that they could be discriminated against on the basis of their hair color? Should we add another clause "hair color" to the above to make them happy? What if others who had a large nose felt they may be discriminated against because of it? Should we add a clause for "size of nose?" And if we did, persons with small ears may scream out and say, "hey, what about us?"

 

Another, more fundamental question that should come to mind is, if they are not "regarding" a person's race, color, national origin, etc., etc., then why even mention it? By mentioning it, are they not "regarding" it? The organization adds that they are an "affirmative-action equal-opportunity employer," another oxymoron. By definition, "affirmative action" means to offer preferential treatment when hiring someone based on their race, color, national origin, or any of the listed categories. If you are not regarding them based on these categories, then how could you possibly offer preferential treatment to them? Can such discrimination really be called "equal opportunity" in the first place?

 

There was undoubtedly good intention behind the statement when it was originally created, but it has clearly gotten out of hand. So one may ask, then what is the solution? Why not simply state, "We do not discriminate against anyone" and "We are an equal opportunity employer," period? The fact is, however, that during an employee selection process, the candidate must go through subjective evaluation by other human beings who choose based on what they feel are suitable qualities. They may like the way the person speaks, or that the person went to the same university as they did, or has the same birthday as they do.

 

People are highly subjective creatures. A world with no discrimination simply cannot exist. The best solution? Eliminating these discriminatory clauses altogether is the next step. A society can achieve the highest level of equality only when it stops focusing on differences.