Reader comments
Today's discrimination takes more subtle forms

The right to control one's property and engage in only voluntary associations means that discrimination is a fundamental human right. If someone wants to discriminate against women as a group in hiring, they have committed no crime - defined as damage to life or property.

Everyone discrimnates to some degree. I have heard people say I would never drive a Ford, they are no good. Are they discriminating? Should the government force them to drive a Ford in the name of fairness. The concept of no discrimination sounds great in academia, but it is necessay in the real world.

The original intent of affirmative action was to make the African American population whole in a response to slavery and Jim Crow. Few failed to appreciate the need for such action. But since, the affirmaitve action/discrimination front has become increasingly obscure. Virtually every other ethnic,gender and racial group (except for white men) have sought to claim a guaranteed piece of the pie via affirmative action. This has lead to conflict between white men and the rest, and among favored targeted groups. Are we ever going to get this right?

When one discriminates on the basis of denying another human being "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", THAT is the discmrination about which Prof. Sondack writes. To minimize the seriousness of that discrimination is to keep your head in the sand.

Go Obama, Go!

The author seems not to have understood a few things that he wrote, because he wrote, correctly, that discrimination is stupid. Discrimination by a business assures that such a business will be less successful than one that does not discriminate. Financial markets tend to week out such unsuccessful managers, and replace them with smart (non-discriminatory) managers or owners. The primary impediment to financial markets punishing real bigots in the only way that would really make them see the light (their pocketbook) is government intervention, which provides places to hide. The author therefore would directly undermine the solution to the problem, by encouraging government to "get involved."

The second thing that is troublesome is that he correctly states that most discrimination today is unconscious, perhaps even inadvertent, and yet he wants the government to get involved and punish that discrimination. Excuse me, but now we are going to give government the green light to punish us for the things we do subconsciously? If we don't know we're doing them, how is government supposed to be able to tell? It is a perfect opportunity for government agents to amass just a little more power for themselves. Scary.

HB 89 by Rep. Chris Johnson would prohibit discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation. Let's hope the legislature is as intelligent as Prof. Sondak.

Actually Anon, if you discriminate against women in hiring decisions, you have commited a crime.

Most people cannot see the bad times economic truck bearing down on them - people will be discriminating, stereotyping and scapegoating more than ever before and as usual, the rich will be getting even more rich.
The country will be ripe for a fascist regime. (In fact, we're already there!)

Let's leave the government out of private business. As a businessman, I should have the right to hire anyone that I want. To force me to hire a certain percentage of white men, a certain percentage of white women, a certain percentage of hispanic women, a certain percentage of hispanic men, etc., is not good for me and not good for the nation. The government can pay its bills when I make a profit. If I don't make a profit, I pay no taxes and the government goes broke.

If I'm an idiot and hire the wrong person, I lose. If the government is an idiot and forces me to hire the wrong person, it loses my tax 'contribution'.

I agree with his statement, "Discrimination begins with stereotyping - attributing to each member of a group the characteristics thought to be typical of that group".

This forum is usually full of this type of stereotyping, with comments like, "All you Utahns are this and that", "You Mormons do this and that", or "Liberals are like this" or "All conservatives think this", etc.

I thought this opinion piece made some good points. I will try to take them to heart (because I tend to be one of the worst).

I doubt discrimination will ever go away. Only the acceptable whipping boy will change as the PC pendulum continues to swing back and forth. The only thing guaranteed to perpetuate it would be to get our government more involved in trying to irradicate it.

It would, however, be great if people responding to Forum letters would be more discriminatory in word usage and spelling....

And speaking of discrimination -
what's that I hear about Utah's rabid opposition towards The Equal Rights Amendment?

To ERA and Utah,
You've hit a real sore spot with me. All of my life, I've tried to hold my wife and my daughters in the highest possible regard. To ratify a Constitutional Amendment that would REQUIRE them to get down in the mud with me and slug it out with enemies to the State is unthinkable. To think that a lovely mother should have to abandon her precious children on the State's whim is unthinkable.

Women are not equal to men, they are much better. To bring them down to our level is unthinkable.

I hope this was a joke. Is this person still living in the 70's or something?

Where would you hear "Utahns have a RABID opposition towards the ERA"? Is that old myth still going around?

Utah's discrimination of blacks and women are well-documented.

Typical Utahn tactic - pretend the thing doesn't exist. (ERA opposition in Utah by its manly-men who insist on keeping the womenfolk barefoot and pregnant.
I'm surprised anyone has even heard of the ERA.

Just type in Equal Rights Amendment, and Utah in your browser and see for yourself the type of discrimination that exists in Utah.

It looks like Prof. Sondak has engaged in his own, unconscious discrimination as he wrote this article. Not once did he even give nod to the notion that men, or those of European or Asian descent might be subjected to discrimination at the hands of affirmative action programs, scholarships targeting "under-represented minorities" and other laws and policies current in effect.

Nor does he mention the ways in which politically correct speech codes are applied unevenly in both academia and the workplace. For campus groups to chant "keep your rosaries off my ovaries" is considered protected political speech. But should someone be offended at what they hear eavesdropping on the private conversation between a couple of evangelicals, heaven help the pro-life fellows.

In the workplace, anything liberals find offensive is grounds for termination. But taking the name of God in vain remains an acceptable profanity?

Yes, discrimination still exists. Probably always will in some forms. What a shame university professions writing on the topic and presuming to lecture the rest of us don't see their own culpability.