There is a major difference between classism and elitism and racism in that no one chooses their race. However, people in this country do have a right to pursue any class. Granted, it is not easy for some to change; I am not saying that classism and elitism are proper attitudes. Both are also wrong.
However there may be reasons for disliking a certain class. Say that most sports fans you meet are rude and obnoxious when watching sports and never seem able to carry on a conversation about real issues besides who won what game. Why wouldn't you tend to avoid people who voluntarily announce themselves as big sports fans. Of course you may be wrong about any givne individual sports fan, but it is not unreasonable to make the initial judgment.
Returning to accent, say you are a boss hiring for a job in which it is very important for people who call in to be able to understand the employee very clearly and quickly. Why should you not be allowed to hire those that speak the prevalent accent of the region in which you base your business? If you do not hire one with an accent, in no way whatsoever does it imply that you think down on that person or dislike him or her in anyway. (You could also pay for the employee to get voice classes or something. It is something changable, albeit hard to change.)
Why wouldn't you tend to avoid people who voluntarily announce themselves as big sports fans. This is the essence of racism, but I certainly see your point.
Why should you not be allowed to hire those that speak the prevalent accent of the region in which you base your business? A) the quota system (which I am against). B) it's cheaper. C) It depends on the accent. If we are talking a Southern accent vs. an Asian accent, that might be two different calls. But does that then amount to discrimination? I'm not sure.
This is the essence of racism, but I certainly see your point. No! The essence of racism is hate! Hatred towards a group of people because of a faulty view that ones genetic background determines the value of a person. It is furthermore discrimination based on that hate and unfounded belief. Finally, it is making pre-assumtions about people and not allowing for exceptions to a "rule" -- a "rule" that is unfounded to begin with.
Not all discrimination is wrong. When I was accepted into Johns Hopkins, many others were discriminated against and turned down because Johns Hopkins wanted a certain type of student. They were all discriminated against in regards to test scores and recommendations of others. Such discrimination is not wrong because it is fair, because it is based on reasonable beliefs that test scores and recommendations indicate who will make the best graduate students. It is not based on things that have no bearing whatsoever on graduate student status, such as race or gender or age or financial status.
So yes, hiring based on accent or speaking ability is discrimination, but -- depending on the circumstances -- it can be fair discrimination. In my opinion, for example, no graduate student should be allowed to TA unless he or she has passed some sort of speaking test. It is completely unfair to the students trying to learn, if they cannot understand the TA. This says nothing about the intelligence of the grad. student. It is about doing the best thing for the students paying the money to be taught. But because of fear of being called -- absurdedly -- racist, universities allow TAs to teach who simply cannot communicate to the students what they are talking about. And the TA could always take speaking classes or something, for which ideally, the university would pay.
It is the essence of racism in the sense that this type of discrimination leads to "rule" assumptions. The fact that a black man can be the "exception" to the rule still assumes there is a racist rule. I understand your example, but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about larger cultures.
Sorry very tired, had a few rum and cokes, you will hopefully get what I am saying though.
However there may be reasons for disliking a certain class. Say that most sports fans you meet are rude and obnoxious when watching sports and never seem able to carry on a conversation about real issues besides who won what game. Why wouldn't you tend to avoid people who voluntarily announce themselves as big sports fans. Of course you may be wrong about any givne individual sports fan, but it is not unreasonable to make the initial judgment.
Returning to accent, say you are a boss hiring for a job in which it is very important for people who call in to be able to understand the employee very clearly and quickly. Why should you not be allowed to hire those that speak the prevalent accent of the region in which you base your business? If you do not hire one with an accent, in no way whatsoever does it imply that you think down on that person or dislike him or her in anyway. (You could also pay for the employee to get voice classes or something. It is something changable, albeit hard to change.)
Reply
This is the essence of racism, but I certainly see your point.
Why should you not be allowed to hire those that speak the prevalent accent of the region in which you base your business?
A) the quota system (which I am against).
B) it's cheaper.
C) It depends on the accent. If we are talking a Southern accent vs. an Asian accent, that might be two different calls. But does that then amount to discrimination? I'm not sure.
Reply
No! The essence of racism is hate! Hatred towards a group of people because of a faulty view that ones genetic background determines the value of a person. It is furthermore discrimination based on that hate and unfounded belief. Finally, it is making pre-assumtions about people and not allowing for exceptions to a "rule" -- a "rule" that is unfounded to begin with.
Not all discrimination is wrong. When I was accepted into Johns Hopkins, many others were discriminated against and turned down because Johns Hopkins wanted a certain type of student. They were all discriminated against in regards to test scores and recommendations of others. Such discrimination is not wrong because it is fair, because it is based on reasonable beliefs that test scores and recommendations indicate who will make the best graduate students. It is not based on things that have no bearing whatsoever on graduate student status, such as race or gender or age or financial status.
So yes, hiring based on accent or speaking ability is discrimination, but -- depending on the circumstances -- it can be fair discrimination. In my opinion, for example, no graduate student should be allowed to TA unless he or she has passed some sort of speaking test. It is completely unfair to the students trying to learn, if they cannot understand the TA. This says nothing about the intelligence of the grad. student. It is about doing the best thing for the students paying the money to be taught. But because of fear of being called -- absurdedly -- racist, universities allow TAs to teach who simply cannot communicate to the students what they are talking about. And the TA could always take speaking classes or something, for which ideally, the university would pay.
Anyhow, I need to run....
Reply
Sorry very tired, had a few rum and cokes, you will hopefully get what I am saying though.
Reply
Leave a comment