Like Button

Friday, November 23, 2012

But Is It Good?

At Tufts University a student-led club attempted formal club recognition. You know, be able to schedule events, use space on campus, that sort of thing. The campus chapter of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship included a requirement that those serving in leadership of the Christian organization must embrace "basic biblical truths of Christianity". Well, such a requirement would violate the diversity and non-discrimination requirements of the school. Thus, in order to remove that particular diversity and in clear discrimination against the group, the university banned them.

You see, there is something we know for absolutely certain. Diversity and non-discrimination are good, and their opposites are bad. No one doubts it. No one. Well ... almost. Because I'm not seeing it. Some silly examples. Diversity in the women's locker room is likely a bad idea. You want women in there, not mixed gender. No one would suggest that a physics course should include English and History and Social Sciences because when the focus is physics, you want ... physics, not "diversity". And if you're really hard over in favor of non-discrimination, I really want visit your store. Because you could charge me $20 for something and I could pay with a $5 and if you protest I'd say, "You're discriminating!" And, of course, you are. You're discriminating between a $20 and a $5. You'd better be.

The point is not that diversity or non-discrimination are bad. My point is that you need to think about it. As the example above illustrates, defending diversity and non-discrimination by eliminating diversity and discriminating is ... well, insane. Think about it. It's like the guy who is yelling at you for being intolerant and judgmental without recognizing that he is being intolerant and judgmental. It doesn't make sense. Or how about Liberty University (you know, Jerry Falwell)? They banned the Democratic Party club because "we are unable to lend support to a club whose parent organization stands against the moral principles held by the university". Oh, now that's evil. That whole banning of Christian groups is okay. Azusa Pacific's banning of a conservative political organization is probably a good thing. But banning a Democratic Party group? Wrong! You see, folks, it just doesn't make sense.

Here's a big one these days: Bipartisanship. With the reelection of the president, the big call is for the conservative members of Congress to lay down and die in favor of "bipartisanship" because, as we all know, bipartisanship is a universal good. Oddly enough, when the Left refuses to budge on principle, that's a good thing. When the Right does it, however, it's "politicking". It's a refusal to compromise. What we need is a compromise like the President gave those religious organizations that opposed the demand that they violate their beliefs by requiring them to pay for contraceptives for their employees. "Okay," they were told, "you just have to have your insurance pay for it." But ... that's what the original law stated and that's what the original problem was. In what sense is that a compromise? Well, it's in the sense that the President called it such, so it must be. Bipartisanship. It's a good thing! Or ... is it? Would we really be better off if everyone in Congress simply thought the same thing, made the same decisions, walked the same path? Or do we need multiple, differing voices to stand without bending when something is not right? Would the left want their side to "go along to get along" with the right? Or does bipartisanship only work one way? From all that I've heard, that seems to be the case. And that's not a good thing.

I'm sure you could come up with a longer list than I have of things that are certainly and universally considered "good", but when you think them through they don't quite work that way. "Equal opportunity" is another example. Who could disagree with that? Well, in Sweden in order to obtain "equal opportunity", a school has banned gender. Yes, that's right. No use of male or female pronouns. You won't find "Cinderella" or "Snow White" in their library because that serves gender stereotypes. The aim is to eliminate gender role thinking and gender differences and provide "equal opportunity". You know, of course, that the opportunity will be equal in only one direction. Girls, for instance, will be allowed to play on boys teams, but you won't soon be seeing boys allowed to play on girl's teams. That just wouldn't be fair! So some people are more equal than others and "equal opportunity", as good as it sounds, comes into question.

You know, sometimes what we think is clearly and obviously good may not be. Do you suppose we're just as confused about "bad"? Why do humans find it so difficult to think these things through? I'm pretty sure you can supply your own answers.

2 comments:

Marshal Art said...

Your post reminds me of the common frustrating rhetoric regarding the GOP "holding the middle class hostage in order to give tax cuts to the rich". Yet, somehow they do not view themselves as holding that same group hostage in order to insure said cuts.

To say that diversity, compromise, discrimination and "bi-partisanship" is a one-way street with the left goes without saying.

I don't want compromise as much as I want the best possible idea or solution to be agreed upon by those with the sense to see it. But compromise involves disappointment on both sides together with joy on both sides. In a previous discussion where Romney's stance on abortion was at issue, I would indeed agree to the compromise that allows for abortions in the case of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother in order to cull the amount of abortions to an extreme minimum. It's not ideal, but it is a far greater option than to maintain the status quo. The other side maintains their talking point objections put forth to counter the pro-life side.

But of course, they are not willing to compromise at all. This has been proven in the past by the left's "agreeing" to compromise only to fail to deliver on their end of the bargain. A notable example is Bush 41 and tax hikes. This same threat exists now, as I would not want the GOP to allow ANY hikes until spending cuts are first implemented. (Note: I don't want hikes at all and know they are not either necessary or effective in accomplishing the goal of debt reduction) I'd be willing to wager that Boehner will push for hikes on the rich in exchange for spending cuts, but will find that like Charlie Brown, the Lucy Democrats will once again pull away the football.

Stan said...

Sometimes compromise is good. Sometimes it's not. Sometimes discrimination is good. Sometimes it's not. Sometimes diversity is good. Sometimes it's not. We should learn to tell the difference ... and appreciate the advantages of both when they are advantageous.