Quote:
Originally posted by Corbin Dallas:
MN, my last message wasn't to you, unless you are also "The Researcher". I agree that there should be NO discrimination.
Kelli, I'm sure you meant no harm, but I don't appreciate words being put in my mouth. Why would I get on here, and say I think there should be no equality?
I agree that there should be equality at all aspects. By reverse-discrimination, I'm using the same definition I've heard over and over:
"Discrimination against members of a dominant group, especially such discrimination resulting from policies established to correct discrimination against members of minority groups."
This happens to be the dictionary definition I found at http://www.onelook.com/
|
Corbin, I apologize if it seemed like I was putting words into your mouth. I just wanted some clarity, which I received, thank you
.
While I firmly believe ANY discrimination is wrong, I don't agree with the term "reverse-discrimination" just like someone (I don't remember who) does not agree with the term "WGLO." If we, as a society, truly want to have equality across the board, we shouldn't create cute terms like "reverse-discrimination." I think the terms indicates that discrimination was meant, if you will, for non-WASPs and we all know that isn't true. People are wronged all across the board. Discrimination is not "different" just because a caucasian male is the victim, so why should it get a different term? (rethorical question) I think it's interesting to note though, the term "reverse discrimination" first appeared in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary in 1969 whereas "discrimination" has been in the dictionary since 1648. (rethorical statement)
No hate projected, No hate perceived.
Getting back to the original question, I can honestly say I don't have a PROBLEM with non-Black women seeking Delta nor do I have a PROBLEM with the non-Black women who are Deltas. It would be pointless for me to have an issue with the latter, because there's nothing I can do to take their letters away. If I did, the only "protesting" I can do is denounce and I find that hypocritical. If you look at it from the standpoint of a chapter of women thought she could benefit the organization just like a chapter of women though you would the organization, there really is no issue.
[This message has been edited by 12dn94dst (edited October 29, 2000).]