For the second straight day, an anti-ROTC op-ed has appeared in the pages of the Daily. This time, a student in the law school wrote in with an appeal clearly intended more for the moderates of Stanford’s population (unlike yesterday’s, which expressed a “radical queer” agenda — their words, not mine). link
As DADT fades away, this issue will only get hotter. It will shine the light on the lies the elite schools have told for so long: "We're not anti-military, we'll be happy to accept the military on our campus as soon as gays are allowed to serve openly."
Anyone else got a bridge for sale?
Update: Harvard's President continues to say that she'll bring ROTC back when gays can serve openly. Why this focus on gays? Handicapped people can't serve, either. Or fat people. You get the idea.
So, by likening gays to fat people and handicapped people, I assume you mean that being gay is a physical encumberance which prevents one from being able to perform the same tasks a straight person could do. Please correct me if I'm wrong. . .
Why do you play these reindeer games, max? You know exactly what my point is; you disagree with the current policy and choose to play word games instead of contributing anything substantive to the discussion.
1) Because discrimination is wrong.
2) Because this isn't a word game . . .not hiring someone who CAN'T perform the job duties is very different from not hiring someone who can, but you don't like them for some innate quality that you don't like, such as skin color or sexual preference. That goes way beyond semantics.
Discrimination *isn't* always wrong. For example, there may be *plenty* of people who are capable of teaching elementary school--but we discriminate against those without a college degree. *Could* people without a degree teach? In many cases, yes--and in fact used to.
You're playing a word game and are trying to dress it up in high-sounding rhetoric, but I'm not buying it.
A college degree at least signifies a minimum level of formal education, which we have set as a bar. That requirement is may be unnecessary, but IS related to the job that needs to be done. Also, someone who doesn't have a degree can go get one. Someone who is gay, except in the rarest of cases, does not have a choice in the matter.
And, you're right . . . I should have written the more specific "discrimination based on unchangeable traits not related to job performance -- is wrong." But, I didn't think we were playing word games. ;)
Post a Comment