A recent discussion in my economics class made me recall the words of the ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius: "When words lose their meaning people will lose their liberty." My seniors had not attempted to ram the proverbial square peg into the round hole so much as they had simply exhibited the propensity to allow their thinking to be boxed in by years of training and indoctrination. The implications for the loss of liberty, though, were in the details of their understanding of a specific term.
Each semester, I have my students write a short paper that requires them to make a defense of either competition or coercion as the best means to end discriminatory practices in the marketplace. To provoke their thinking, I have them read Steve Sailor's "How Jackie Robinson Desegregated America," which appeared in National Review magazine on the 50th anniversary of Robinson's breaking the color line in Major League Baseball.
The directions for the paper are quite simple. I proscribe the mechanical and structural parameters for the paper and restrict them from taking an "if-then" position. Reminding them that the presence of coercion anywhere, even if slight, is an open invitation to apply coercion everywhere, I review the term "mixed economy." Contrary to what many textbooks and economics instructors teach, I instruct my students that "mixed economy" is nothing more than semantic cover for socialism. Therefore, I do not allow my students to employ Orwellian rhetoric or offer state-directed egalitarianism as justification for even minimal coercion whenever, in their mind, competitive markets "fail." They must choose competition or coercion and defend their choice.
Originally, this assignment became part of my curriculum as a sarcastic response to a request made by the student council at my prior school. As part of the celebration for "Civil Rights Week," the student council had put out a request to all teachers to try and do something civil-rightsy. Always one to push the limits of irritability, I thought this would be another opportunity to derail the march of conformity and overemphasis on pointless emotional drivel to promote diversity. I never realized how useful my creative mockery would prove as an analytical and evaluative device.
Never have any of my students used this paper to link competitive markets with private property. While grading this round of papers, it hit upon me that perhaps the reason all along has been due to a misunderstanding of the word "discriminate." Although I had seen the same types of arguments before, two students' papers, one for competition, the other for coercion, had narrowly applied discrimination to actions based on racial or ethnic prejudice. My curiosity piqued, I decided to test the waters for economic insight.
As part of the follow-up discussion to this assignment, I wrote the following question on the blackboard: "What does u2018discriminate' mean?" At first there was silence. My students appeared dumbfounded, nervously shifting in their seats waiting for someone to offer something sensible. I then clarified my written request by asking for a synonym for discriminate. Someone offered "biased." I shook my head and once again asked for a definition, not a perception of discrimination. In response, I got "racism," "anti-Semitism," and even "to minoritize." According to the student who offered that last option, it refers to the process of categorizing minorities into a condition of inferiority. The dictionary I consulted either disagreed with her or had gone to publication before this term was added to the lexicon.
Exasperated, I asked my original question again. I got more puzzled looks and variations of the same descriptors. Trying another approach, I asked a different question: "How often do we discriminate?" Silence followed again. I clued them to think in daily and economic terms. "All the time, all day," chimed one young man. Okay, then based on those parameters, what other definitions can be offered for discrimination? "To make distinctions," said a young lady. Good. "What else?" More silence. I could almost see smoke coming out of their ears at this point. How about "to distinguish" and "to differentiate" (definitions right out of the dictionary)? Some students nodded sheepishly. After about ten minutes of probing and prying, we had reached an agreement on the definition of discriminate.
But wait a minute: what happened to the original notion of discrimination as implying racial or ethnic prejudice? Well, through the mildly painful process of thinking, we had climbed out of the institutional box that had been placed around the word "discriminate." Now that we were free of those constraints, I posed the question, "Is it okay to discriminate?" No, was the quick response. Back into the box we went.
It was time for a real-world example to put discrimination in its proper perspective as a legitimate and frequent part of life. "What about choosing a spouse. Isn't that done through a process of discrimination?" I could see the resistance in their faces. "What do men and women look for in potential spouses?" The responses were quick: physical appearance, personality, social status, common religious beliefs, compatibility. "So, if I select a spouse for a variety of those reasons, am I not discriminating, making distinctions, distinguishing, and differentiating from among the pool of potential spouses?" Yes. We had reached agreement that the process of finding a spouse was based on discrimination and that it was effective and necessary for satisfaction and happiness.
It was time to tweak the discussion. I asked, "Can I discriminate in how I use my private property?" Of course, was the reply. It's your property, my students pointed out; you can do with it as you please. Okay. Let's test how consistent that belief is, I thought. I also realized that soon I would be expounding unpopular and politically incorrect views.
"If I own a restaurant, can I exclude smokers from entering my restaurant?" No. "No? But isn't the restaurant my private property?" Sure, they tell me, but smoking is still legal. "So what? If smokers want to smoke in a restaurant, why can't they find one that allows smoking, or, why can't they open their own restaurant for smokers only? Then they can discriminate on their property against non-smokers." Makes sense. I thought we were making progress, but then I slammed into a brick wall. "What if I refused to allow blacks to be served in my restaurant, my property?" Nope, can't do that. "How is this any different, in principle, from denying smokers access to my property?" Because, as one young man argued, smoking is a condition that can be changed; being black isn't. True, but how does that alter the earlier professed belief in the exclusive right to use private property as one sees fit?
We had traveled a circuitous route in trying to define the word "discriminate." Despite all the effort made to break down the term into alternate definitions more accurate in describing the frequent, harmless, and essential realities associated with the word discriminate, we had arrived back at a definition that consigns discrimination to the world of racial and ethnic bias and prejudice.
My current crop of students are just like so many that I have had in the past. To a point, many defend competition, free market principles, and the use of private property until some mystical line of "unfairness," "injustice," and "immorality" is crossed and then they abandon all that's essential to preserve liberty. Seemingly on cue, they morph into irrational and sometimes hysterical defenders of plunder. After all their years of schooling, it turns out they never learned how to properly discriminate. Interesting. I guess they've spent too much time in an institutional box.
March 5, 2005
