I am going to start this one out with an apology up front:
I AM SORRY IF ANYONE PERCEIVES THIS IN ANY WAY AS BEING DISCRIMINATORY.
But I will push on with the thought that, sometimes, a legitimate question just needs to be asked.
Why does it seem that when victim and oppressor trade places, it's OK to continue the relationship, but with roles reversed?
When is reverse discrimination any better or different than the discrimination it was supposed to replace?
In this case, I refer to the recent news coverage concerning the Congressional Black Caucus.
News came forward about Representative Stephen Cohen, D- Tennessee, being denied entry to the Congressional Black Caucus.
Representative Cohen is white.
Representative Cohen denied that he had been refused entry to the CBC, stating he had not applied for membership. He went on to say that he was sure he would be granted membership in the CBC if he so applied and requested.
OK. All very nice. Very politically correct. Everything is hunky-dory.
There's one nasty little wrinkle, though.
CBC leader Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D- Michigan, said Rep. Cohen would indeed be refused entry if he applied, because membership is limited exclusively to blacks.
I must be missing something.
Aren't exclusionary organizations, based solely upon race, being discriminatory? Isn't discrimination the issue that thousands fought to correct in the last 45 years in our new, open society?
How long will we let ourselves be fooled into allowing situations like this to continue?
Does Rep. Cheeks Kilpatrick want us to believe that CBC membership policy, in and of itself, promotes something legitimately useful?
di·ver·si·ty [di-vur-si-tee]
1. the state or fact of being diverse; difference; unlikeness.
2. variety; multiformity.
3. a point of difference.
u·ni·ty (yōō'nĭ-tē)
1. the state or quality of being one; singleness.
2. the state or quality of being in accord; harmony.
3. singleness or constancy of purpose or action; continuity.
How long will we be party to this nonsense where diversity alone is supposed to lead us to unity? The words are diametrically opposed by very definition.
To be of any value whatsoever, the primary function of diversity must be to truly recognize the benefits of our differences, and not to continue discrimination because of them.
