In favour of (some) discrimination ... (Teaching our kids to think: Part III)

I believe that all forms of discrimination are wrong. - Ms Lara Giddings, Premier of Tasmania, 21 Sept 2011, 12:18 p.m.

With respect, Ms Giddings, is that true? Do you really believe that all forms of discrimination are wrong? For instance:

• Are we wrong to give smarter or more diligent students better grades than lazy ones (intellectual capacity)? 
• Are we wrong to provide separate toilet and change facilities for men and women at public pools (sex dscrimination)? 
• Are we wrong to condemn a sexual relationship between a 10-year-old and a 30-year-old (age discrimination)? 
• Are we wrong to prevent a convicted paedophile from working with children (sexual orientation discrimination)?

Of course not. These forms of discrimination are entirely appropriate and necessary in our society.

But what is discrimination? The Macquarie dictionary defines it as (amongst other things) "the making of a difference in particular cases, as in favour of or against a person or thing". It carries implications of "noting or observing a difference". So I think a useful working definition in this debate is that of treating a person differently on the basis of some characteristic or other.

The big issue is to distinguish between wrongful discrimination and appropriate discrimination. I suspect that Ms Giddings really means "all forms of wrongful discrimination are wrong" - which of course begs the question: "How do you decide what forms of discrimination are wrongful? by what standard or criteria?"

It should be clear from this that it is not enough to claim that the current social norms of marriage are discriminatory, as if that is a reason for change. Of course they are discriminatory. They should be. With no discrimination at all, people would be free to marry multiple spouses, to marry near relatives, to marry children. No-one in the current debate is arguing for no discrimination in marriage norms and laws - the debate is about where to draw the line. The onus rests on those promoting change to present reasons and evidence for the change.

And using the word "discrimination" as magical incantation is neither evidence nor reason.


Update note: the definition paragraph was inserted after my admirable wife pointed out to me that I hadn't included one!