Consider this question:
Which is worse:
a) Applying for a position and being told that you cannot be hired because there are already too many employees of your race; or
b) Hearing someone use a word that used to be common but which has now morphed into a racial "slur"?
Now let's modify the question just a bit. Assume that the racial quotas in hiring in choice (a) are prominently announced by a large American corporation. Assume also that after the word in (b) is used, the speaker apologizes and explains that the word was commonly used when he was young and had no negative connontation all those years ago. So which is worse?
If you are the mainstream media, the answer is clearly choice (b) is worse -- at least when the speaker is a Republican. Choice (a) is a reference to the practice of MSNBC host Chris Hayes to only parcel out positions on his show by sex and race. Indeed, that practice seems to be in violation of federal law, but apparently no one seems to care. Hayes proudly explained his practice in a recent interview with the Columbia Review of Journalism. Here is the Breitbart report on Hayes surprising admission of illegal behavior. Choice (b) is the statement by Alaska congressman Young who referred to farm workers of his youth in California as wetbacks and then apologized and explained. There are numerous stories in the media about the Young statement, but the Hayes admission of illegal behavior is treated as if it never happened.
So, which do you think is worse?
Which is worse:
a) Applying for a position and being told that you cannot be hired because there are already too many employees of your race; or
b) Hearing someone use a word that used to be common but which has now morphed into a racial "slur"?
Now let's modify the question just a bit. Assume that the racial quotas in hiring in choice (a) are prominently announced by a large American corporation. Assume also that after the word in (b) is used, the speaker apologizes and explains that the word was commonly used when he was young and had no negative connontation all those years ago. So which is worse?
If you are the mainstream media, the answer is clearly choice (b) is worse -- at least when the speaker is a Republican. Choice (a) is a reference to the practice of MSNBC host Chris Hayes to only parcel out positions on his show by sex and race. Indeed, that practice seems to be in violation of federal law, but apparently no one seems to care. Hayes proudly explained his practice in a recent interview with the Columbia Review of Journalism. Here is the Breitbart report on Hayes surprising admission of illegal behavior. Choice (b) is the statement by Alaska congressman Young who referred to farm workers of his youth in California as wetbacks and then apologized and explained. There are numerous stories in the media about the Young statement, but the Hayes admission of illegal behavior is treated as if it never happened.
So, which do you think is worse?
No comments:
Post a Comment