The finest institutions in America are all made great by discrimination. Whether you are talking about companies, government agencies, schools, museums, or sports leagues/teams, the thing that makes them great, and keeps them great, is discrimination.
Look at the greatest companies in the U.S. Microsoft, WalMart, the industrial companies, banks, etc., etc., etc. They all became great because the founders did their absolute best on their own part, and when they hired people they discriminated IN FAVOR of the most intelligent, knowledgeable, competent people, and AGAINST those who were less than the best. The great universities became great because they only chose the best possible students, out of huge numbers who applied, in order to get the most intelligent and capable student bodies. The most efficient government agencies are the ones that discriminate most effectively, selecting the best and most capable applicants out of the many who apply.
In sports, this phenomenon is obvious and inarguable: the best teams are the ones that are best at identifying and securing the services of the best possible players, and shunning all the rest. This is discrimination at its best.
But under the influence of the political Left, the tradition and policy of discrimination in favor of the best is being not just compromised, but turned on its head. Companies, agencies, schools, and other institutions are being told that they must throttle-back on their discrimination in favor of the BEST, and substitute in many cases discrimination in favor of the "flavor of the month," regardless of whether the individuals representing that flavor meet the criteria that have long prevailed in that institution. THIS MANY positions must be reserved for women; THIS MANY positions must be reserved for People of Color; and don't forget to find some sexual irregulars, without whom no organization can possible be complete.
What results would you expect from an NBA or NFL team that was comprised of 70% "white" players, 13% Black, 15% "Hispanic," and 2% "other"? Obviously, it would suck.
And yet the same sorts of demands are commonly made of other institutions, with the expectation that the quality of that institution will not suffer. It is absurd.
Remember this when you hear that something is discriminatory. It's not always a bad thing.
Look at the greatest companies in the U.S. Microsoft, WalMart, the industrial companies, banks, etc., etc., etc. They all became great because the founders did their absolute best on their own part, and when they hired people they discriminated IN FAVOR of the most intelligent, knowledgeable, competent people, and AGAINST those who were less than the best. The great universities became great because they only chose the best possible students, out of huge numbers who applied, in order to get the most intelligent and capable student bodies. The most efficient government agencies are the ones that discriminate most effectively, selecting the best and most capable applicants out of the many who apply.
In sports, this phenomenon is obvious and inarguable: the best teams are the ones that are best at identifying and securing the services of the best possible players, and shunning all the rest. This is discrimination at its best.
But under the influence of the political Left, the tradition and policy of discrimination in favor of the best is being not just compromised, but turned on its head. Companies, agencies, schools, and other institutions are being told that they must throttle-back on their discrimination in favor of the BEST, and substitute in many cases discrimination in favor of the "flavor of the month," regardless of whether the individuals representing that flavor meet the criteria that have long prevailed in that institution. THIS MANY positions must be reserved for women; THIS MANY positions must be reserved for People of Color; and don't forget to find some sexual irregulars, without whom no organization can possible be complete.
What results would you expect from an NBA or NFL team that was comprised of 70% "white" players, 13% Black, 15% "Hispanic," and 2% "other"? Obviously, it would suck.
And yet the same sorts of demands are commonly made of other institutions, with the expectation that the quality of that institution will not suffer. It is absurd.
Remember this when you hear that something is discriminatory. It's not always a bad thing.
