I am increasingly frustrated by people of various backgrounds who demand changes by well-established organizations to meet their own ethnic and religious requirements. Not that I don’t believe in equal rights. It’s just that sometimes we go too far, bending over backwards to accommodate all these groups that we start to lose our own original character. There is a difference between discrimination and selectivity.
The US is a melting pot. It stands to reason that all peoples could be considered American; therefore, organizations must strive to provide equal opportunities to all. However, when a private organization, whether school or church or other institution, has been established for years with their own religious or statutory ideals, they create their own criteria for selection. These organizations want to keep their character consistent by being selective. But in an age where civil rights groups are gaining enormous lobbying powers, these organizations have become targets of discriminatory legal battles. There is no discrimination here. Had these organizations formed and stated they want no women, no Blacks, no Jews, no Republicans, etc., I would be inclined to call them discriminating.
But things have changed to give all and sundry equal opportunities regardless of their abilities or background. How can Harvard maintain their elitist status if they were forced to accept inferior students simply because they were from disadvantaged backgrounds? It should not be Harvard who has to suffer. Those students should have been given opportunities much earlier on to give them an equal advantage when applying for the few available places in prestigious higher education institutions, if they are so inclined.
A similar case exists when religious schools are asked to accommodate students of other religions. Why? When these students choose to attend these church-affiliated schools, they have the option to either participate in their school’s religious activities or not. But to require these schools to provide additional support for these students’ religious education becomes ridiculous. How many religions do they have to provide when they were established with one in mind? There are numerous schools of various religious backgrounds. Why must one demand that a school, funded and supported by moneys from one religious organization, support all other religions?
Because of the fear of litigation on racial, religious, etc., grounds, many groups have bowed down under pressure from civil rights groups. They can no longer be selective because it would appear to some that they are being discriminating. I am quite surprised, therefore, that the boy who wanted to join Girl Scouts (to make a point in a retaliatory discrimination case when a girl fought to join Boy Scouts) did not win or even make it to court. Do people consider Girl Scouts/Guides and Boy Scouts as discriminatory organizations?
Outside of the New World, most other countries have developed their own sense of national character, but this essential character is under threat of being beaten to extinction. The beating comes at the hands of their own people, who are trying in desperation to be “fair” to all newcomers. Britain has been most affected, of all the European countries, with regards to immigration, and their new laws seem very accommodating of these immigrants, whether European, Middle Eastern or Asian; Christian, Muslim or Hindu. The British sense of fairness, however, does not take into account that their beneficiaries may not return the favor in the future. In fact, it seems these people have taken full advantage of all the benefits and are still demanding more.
When will enough be enough? Soon, Britain will be a melting pot as well and their national character will be nonexistent. If this lack of national identity is the goal for the British, then so be it. I would hate to see it go by the wayside, though. There is such a rich heritage in Britain that it would be a shame for its people to abandon it all for the sake of appeasing the newcomers. I can no longer tell who is a Briton and who is not. Many are now considered British by virtue of being born in the country. This is analogous to the joke that a pig born in a stable is a horse. Will Britain recover its heritage?