The estimable Walter Williams defines discrimination as choice.
There’s so much confusion and emotionalism about discrimination that I thought I’d take a stab at a dispassionate analysis. Discrimination is simply the act of choice. When we choose Bordeaux wine, we discriminate against Burgundy wine. When I married Mrs. Williams, I discriminated against other women. Even though I occasionally think about equal opportunity, Mrs. Williams demands continued discrimination.
It appears from this article that Williams makes no significant distinction between discrimination against Bordeaux and discrimination against blacks.
I do. The Constitution and the laws do. And, generally (though not in Mr. Williams’s choice to marry Mrs. Williams), where they don’t, they should.
Williams conspicuously avoids any mention of religion. What does he say to starting by eliminating laws prohibiting religious discrimination? I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to show up in his next Townhall.com column.
Also, and this is off-topic, but it seems suspicious that for part of his argument Williams cites statistics for interracial marriage from 1992. While I doubt the present numbers are anything too high, my intuition is that they have measureably gone up in the past 14 years. Also, looking only at new marriages within a recent year, rather than all existing marriages, would probably be a better measurement of present attitudes. I’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but Williams no doubt has this sort of data at his fingertips.