Rational Discrimination vs. Indiscriminate Equality
The unnamed woman … filed a lawsuit in federal court this week, claiming the coach’s decision discriminates against her child. — NY POST
The mother’s son had failed to make the varsity soccer team.
There goes that evil word “discrimination” (or at least some derivation thereof). However, each of us necessarily “discriminates” on a daily basis. We do so every time we pick a restaurant, choose a job, or take a spouse. [Or perhaps, the absence of “discrimination” may explain the high incidence of divorce. But, I digress.] In any decision based on merit, there is “discrimination” (e.g. selection for a varsity/professional sports team, being “first chair” in an ensemble or symphony, or hiring the CEO of a company). [The aversion to merit selection might explain the proliferation of participation trophies in nearly every aspect of life.]
As individuals and as a people, we come to decision points in life where we must choose (i.e. “discriminate”) between one thing or another (including our associations with other persons). It is impossible to avoid such decision making. Personal and societal growth depends upon qualitative discrimination. The objective should be to choose the better alternative more often than not: Do I go to college or try meth? Should one routinely make poor choices, (s)he should expect a more challenging and less fulfilling life.
Generally, the societal objective should be to encourage “reasonable” discrimination and to discourage “unreasonable” discrimination. In other circumstances, I have used the similar words “rational” and “irrational.” The distinction is between subjective “(un)reasonableness” versus objective “(ir)rationality.”
Individuals in their own private interpersonal interactions need not be “objectively rational.” One does not have to have an extensive checklist and expansive analysis to justify his or her determination of friends or romantic interests. Nevertheless, even in such instances, there should be some consideration of the overall positive or negative impact of having certain persons active in one’s life. Either way “discrimination” is involved. Few persons are entirely “indiscriminate” in their personal associations.
While some persons may — as a result of ignorance, illness, vice, or addiction — act contrary to their own self interests, the unfounded fear is that persons generally will discriminate “unreasonably” just for spite, even when that discrimination is contrary to their own self-interests. Such a position, as applied to adults of ordinary understanding and comprehension, is nearly indefensible on its face.
Unreasonable discrimination cannot exist as a viable commodity in an open and fluid marketplace of ideas. Such societal discrimination can exist broadly and permanently only under circumstances, in which it is endorsed and enforced by government action (or unyielding social mores). Absent compulsion, the unreasonableness of the act will be understood and accepted over time, and the incidence of unreasonable discrimination will decline.
In other activities, primarily state action, in which there is a mandate that all persons must be treated “equally” under the law, there is a necessary requirement that any resulting discrimination must be “objectively rational.” Official government discrimination (i.e. variance in the application of laws) cannot exist legitimately without an established rational basis.
However, no such “rational basis” should be required as a matter of law in private “discrimination.” Individual liberty and personal freedom require that persons be allowed to act “irrationally” and contrary to the collective will of the populace (absent a showing of demonstrable and material harm proximately caused to another person or his property by the act, as opposed to the desire for conformity or increased efficiencies).
It should also be noted that government compulsion toward diversity/equality in such instances where the objective is deemed unreasonable/irrational from the perspective of the persons, upon whom the compulsion is directed, is unlikely to be effective. In such instances, government is attempting to command individuals to act contrary to their own interests. I would argue that such objectives are destined to failure and entirely contrary to the legitimate authority of government.
So, there are at least three (3) takeaways:
First, we cannot live life without “discrimination,” and it is counterproductive to individuals and the species to eliminate meritorious distinctions among persons, policies, philosophies, and actions.
Second, in our private and public actions we should encouraged reasonable/rational discrimination and discourage unreasonable/irrational discrimination. Private discrimination in interpersonal actions need not be objectively rational. It is enough that it be subjectively reasonable.
Finally, government has a necessary obligation to treat all persons “equally” (in the application of laws); therefore, government discrimination must have a “rational basis.” However, no such requirement of objectivity should be imposed generally among private transactions and interpersonal interactions (by operation of law).
