We are past the point of atonement toward those harmed by slavery. Empires and bad ideas (communism, fascism) have risen and fallen in less time

Everyone who benefited from the discrimination keeps their advantages. They just don’t get new ones. I guess it is one way to look at it. And it seems fair if your grandparents were not black Americans.

Don’t you ever wonder how members of the disadvantaged class manage to rise above it and succeed all the while members of the advantaged class fail in spite of their supposed advantage? Nah, I didn’t think so.

I read your posts and I have visions of Yoda with his gnarly little hand on your head, looking skyward announcing to the heavens, “Strong is the Dunning-Kruger effect in this one.”

Two wrongs don’t make a right. It doesn’t get any simpler than that. Tilting the playing field in any direction doesn’t work.

Moreover, the field is tilted now. Even if we agree that all will be treated equally based on skin color from now on, the field is still tilted against those who were discriminated against in the past.

Your position continues to be “yes, the government enabled people to get advantages in the past due to discrimination against others, and those people’s children are better off because of it. But, we cannot punish the children of the favored or favor the children of the victims because…” IMHO, that is a morally bankrupt position.

How do we make up for the wrongs of slavery, Jim Crow, and legal discrimination? I don’t know. But I do know that your claim that we should not even try appalls me.

Except that you are not for giving all people the same rights or privileges. You have previously written that you are in favor of “tilting the playing field” which means not treating people the same way irrespective of their race.

And I believe that this has a much higher moral priority than worrying about taking away the rights of the powerful (although this is a wrong, too).

And here I thought you weren’t for taking the rights of others away.

To me, that is moral bankruptcy.

It is not morally bankrupt to treat people as people. It is morally bankrupt to judge a person or give special treatment – either advantages or impediments – to people because of the color of their skin.

One cannot say “discrimination is wrong except when the groups I favor profit from discrimination.”

As it is, you and I are going round in circles now and we have made our points clear. I see no point in continuing the conversation. You are for discrimination and inequality in society and I am for equality in society (including the aforementioned collegiate disciplinary hearings) and against discrimination. It is clear to see which viewpoint is better for the country and society, but you certainly have the right to oppose that viewpoint.

Good luck to you.

I am of the opinion that the government should do what it can to ameliorate the corrosive affects of historical racist laws. And I believe that this has a much higher moral priority than worrying about taking away the rights of the powerful (although this is a wrong, too).

You, on the other hand, think that we should just wash our hands of the problems caused in the past and give society a chance at a fresh start, discharging the moral debts of the past. To me, that is moral bankruptcy.

It is not naive to say “two wrongs don’t make a right.” We either decide that racism is wrong and end it or we do not scream and yell about so called “institutional racism.” It doesn’t matter who is getting discriminated against. Either it is wrong or it is not.

We do not look at people based on character and abilities.

Speak for yourself. Now it is you who are crossing the Rubicon into the territory of “people of a certain color cannot be of good character.”

For every Walton or Bush that has built upon the success laid by their parents, there are Kennedy’s and DuPont’s who have squandered their parents fortunes due to a lack of character. Race does not determine or preclude success and character. If it were, how do you explain Condi Rice, Clarance Thomas, Colin Powel and Allan West? How do you explain Jesse Jackson Jr being in jail? Wasn’t he born into the same pedigree that you seem to think determines a person’s path in life?

But I do have an ideal,……

The problem that I see is that you see racism in everything without proof. So instead of taking a good look at people and what they can and do obtain in life, you give people excuses to fail and others to blame. Most of your blame is heaped upon those of a certain race. You have no problems judging people not on what they do, but what race they are. How is that not racism within you?

Finally, I want to remind you that our little dialogue started with you disagreeing with Hans Bader and his quest to make sure that college students are given fair hearings and due process. Bader’s quest and drive covers males and females and people of all races. Yet for some reason, you think he is wrong to pursue justice and equality for all.

As a nation, we have to decided to stop looking at people through the prism of racism and start looking at them by their character and actions. We can’t do that as a nation until we as individuals decide that is the moral we hold to in our private lives. If one looks and sees race in people all the time, one is not a part of the solution.

One is part of the problem.

I do wonder how to fix the problem of having some people coming to the plate with two strikes and others starting their at-bat already on third base, simply because of past institutional racism.

I think it naive to think it is fair to say, essentially, “well, let’s have racism for 150 years (or 300 years) and, after I get my advantage, let’s stop.”

We do not look at people based on character and abilities. We look at them based upon their pedigree. How else can you explain Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton candidacy? Do you really think the Walton heirs did much to earn their spot? Certainly, there are some Horatio Algers out there, but there are many, many, more Jay Gatsbys.

I do not have an answer. But I do have an ideal, as you do, that we look at people based upon their character and abilities, not based upon their luck at being born to people who benefited from discrimination to become rich and powerful.