(no subject)

[hermionesviolin]

White male students at University of California, Berkeley, made t-shirts saying "Overrepresented" on the front and "White male for diversity" on the back.

Michelle Dulak comments:

No, the truly funny part is that white males at UCB are an underrepresented minority. Non-Hispanic whites are 46.7% of the CA population as of the 2000 Census, so they're a "minority." They are 34.4% of the announced 2004 admits, so they're "underrepresented." And white men are likely more severely "underrepresented" than white women are, because significantly more women than men go to college. For the UC system as a whole, 2004 admits are about 56% female, but I couldn't find stats disaggregated by campus or ethnicity.

I have had problems with hate crime laws probably since about the time i learned of their existence, because as much as i think intention is important, i think it’s really troubling to say “Okay, A killed B for money, but C killed D because D was gay, so somehow C is a worse person than A and deserves a harsher punishment.” I mean, can’t we just say “Murder is mad. If you kill someone, you will spend the rest of your life in jail”?

I also have problems with anti-discrimination laws, for similar reasons. You shouldn’t be mean to people. You shouldn’t mistreat people. People should be considered for jobs based on their qualifications, and shouldn’t be disqualified for things like weight, color, gender identity, whatever, unless that is an actually relevant reason for disqualification, which happens rarely, but i get wary when legislation enters into hiring practices, and i fully admit that the Smithie “I’m more oppressed than you are” disease has made me particularly cynical about stuff like this, made me fearful that people will claim discrimination when really there was none, thus weakening the legitimacy of real accusations of unfair discrimination.

Things like that lead to things like this wherein professors who use insults in role-plays get sanctioned.

And then i learned about this through people who seem to see no problem with it. The opening paragraph well sums it up:

The Canadian Senate gave final approval to a bill adding "sexual orientation" to a hate crimes law that Christian organizations say will muzzle public discussion of homosexuality and even someday silence pastors.

A later paragraph points out my problem with the subjectivity inherent in legislation like this.

Current Canadian federal law forbids anyone from speaking or publishing materials that could bring "incitement of hatred and genocide" against listed groups. By adding "sexual orientation," lawmakers may have created the grounds for prosecuting anyone who criticizes homosexuality.

The article goes on to criticize various specific aspects of the bill, but i thought those two paragraphs well articulated my big problems with legislation of that sort.

This story is also interesting.

Ottawa, ON, May. 4 (UPI) -- The Canadian Refugee Board has denied asylum to a Mexican homosexual because he is not "visibly effeminate" and therefore not vulnerable to persecution.

[...]

The IRB only offers protection to effeminate or HIV-positive men, as well as political activists and whistle blowers from Mexico, the Globe and Mail reported.

Comments

Re: i am demanding.

[hermionesviolin.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, Sarah. I think my brain was more in a "Dear self, you keep talking about writing in more depth about these issues, please remember to actually do so at some point" kind of place. My apologies for the misleadingness. I'll try to come up with a more thorough discussion shortly.