Also, I’m not talking about political correctness.

Now, coming back to your point of equally reprehensive wrongdoings, I agree that genocide is equally reprehensible no matter who does it. However, this doesn’t rule out the need that some people have to categorize something as reverse discrimination. Changing this slightly, because you’re not arguing “reverse discrimination” but that all things that discriminate are equally reprehensible, I’ll still disagree on a fundamental level. What if a scholarship service provides money for high achieving kids in wheel chairs? That is discriminating against those that can walk on their own two feet, but it is reasoned that these kids deserve some extra money because of the trouble they have gone through. Now, think again, of a scholarship service that provides money for high achieving Latino students because, not only did they overcome the same barriers as the rest of america’s students, they overcame a whole different set of barriers that specifically arise in Latino families. Consider another example, the idea of a scholarship service that gives only white kids money. Are all these examples of discrimination the same? You’re probably contesting the inclusion of the first one. In that case, are the last two equally reprehensible? How can it be so morally evil in your eyes to help out a group of people that struggled a great deal more than most others do to just send their kids to college, let alone get them to graduate? Or, how a scholarship aimed squarely at white kids is on the same footing as a latino scholarship when it does not level the “playing field,” but continues to make it more unfair.

See, this playing field is rarely fair, built on capitalism and past racism it’s understandable that history came about in this way. However, what’s wrong with trying to level the educational playing field with private scholarships or government action? This is where anti-discriminatinatory law gets its bearing.

I’m glad you caught my use of quotes around the word “minority.” I happen to be of Asian descent (Filipino to be exact). Somehow, Asians are no longer a “politically correct” minority. Especially here at Berkeley; whenever you hear about the lack of minorities here, the only possible way to come to that conclusion is if you discount Asians. Not that there’s anything special about being part of a minority group. It’s just interesting to see how the media can spin the meaning a certain way.

Anyway, you can think what you want, but discrimination is NOT always the same discrimination when different parties are involved. Simply put, the white supremacists of the 60’s were far more fearsome in their ability to cause harm than the Black supremacists of the time. That very principle, that one group had more power over the other, suggests that they needed to be viewed differently. A cannon is, in principle, more powerful than a shotgun.

And I never used the term “reverse discrimination” mostly because I think discrimination is discrimination, no matter what parties are involved.

how disrespectful!