It’s generally asserted that discrimination is any slight, mistreatment, offense, exclusion, or restriction against a person or group based on any specific trait – be it ethnicity, language, looks, wealth, beliefs, sexual preferences, or even abilities. Sounds terribly comprehensive, doesn’t it?
Table of contents
Prologue
Our esteemed, albeit fictitious, British professor, possessing a firm grasp of the tenets of common sense, has done it again rendering our column concerning discrimination into his own beautiful tongue (all thanks to Gemini).
Introduction
Right, chaps, let’s tackle a rather thorny issue today: discrimination.
The problem, you see, isn’t that we don’t talkabout it – we do, ad nauseam, often with more heat than light. The real bugbear is that our usual definitions are about as clear as a London fog. So, for our intellectual edification, I propose we sharpen this rather blunt instrument.
First, let’s cast a critical eye on the old guard, the standard definition you’ll find bandied about.
It generally asserts that discrimination is any slight, mistreatment, offense, exclusion, or restriction against a person or group based on any specific trait – be it ethnicity, language, looks, wealth, beliefs, sexual preferences, or even abilities. Sounds terribly comprehensive, doesn’t it?
However, the devil, as always, is in the details. This all-encompassing approach has a significant flaw: it’s so incredibly vague it renders itself utterly useless.
If merely correcting someone’s art history (saying El Greco, not Goya, bless their cotton socks) could be labelled «discrimination» simply because they happen to be from a certain nationality, then we’re truly in a pickle, aren’t we?
Such broad strokes allow nearly any isolated, accidental, or even unintentional act to be branded as discriminatory, which, quite frankly, dilutes the very seriousness of the concept. It’s like calling a slightly grumpy shopkeeper a «discriminator» rather than just «someone having a bad day.»
A More Robust Definition for Discerning Minds
So, how do we fix this intellectual sloppiness? My proposal for a superior definition of discrimination is as follows:
📌 Discrimination is a set of voluntary and repeated actions, forming a clear pattern of conduct by one or more identifiable individuals against one or more identifiable persons, who are directly mistreated or excluded for reasons unrelated to the inherent or natural demands of the situation they are in.
Let’s unpack that, shall we?
Voluntary and Repeated Actions: We’re looking for intent here, a consistent pattern over time. This isn’t about an isolated faux pas or an accidental bump. We’re talking about deliberate, persistent behaviour. This neatly dismisses those «oops, did I do that?» moments.
Clear Pattern of Conduct: It’s not a one-off. There must be observable, recurring acts that clearly demonstrate a consistent modus operandi. A reasonable third party should be able to spot it.
By Identifiable Individuals: No vague accusations against «the system» or «society.» We need to pinpoint who exactly is doing the discriminating. This grounds the accusation in reality and avoids the murky waters of illusory perceptions.
Against Identifiable Persons: Similarly, the victims must be clearly identifiable. This isn’t about general grievances but specific harm within a discernable relationship.
Directly Mistreated or Excluded: The harm must be a direct consequence of this pattern of intentional actions. And that harm should be unmistakably clear, whether it’s personal mistreatment or deliberate exclusion.
For Causes Unrelated to the Situation’s Natural Demands: This is where the rubber meets the road. In life, we make choices, and those choices often involve selecting some people and, by default, excluding others.
Is it discrimination if someone with a prosthetic leg isn’t chosen for a professional football team? Of course not – their exclusion relates directly to the physical demands of the sport.
Similarly, a gruff professor who’s rude to everyone isn’t discriminating; they’re just, well, ill-mannered. It only becomes discrimination if their rudeness is exclusively directed at a specific group for reasons that have nothing to do with their qualifications or the situation’s requirements.
«Whenever we depart from the principle of equal treatment, we are on a very slippery slope.»
— Thomas Sowell
In Conclusion: Precision for a Serious Concept
What I’ve attempted to do here is bring a modicum of precision to a concept that often suffers from rhetorical inflation.
When any minor perceived slight can be labelled «discrimination,» we risk trivializing a truly serious issue.
My aim is to provide a more rigorous framework that allows us to identify and address genuine instances of discrimination with fewer doubts and more clarity. We may not have solved all the world’s problems, but at least we’ve taken a jolly good step towards defining one of its trickier ones!
More from our distiguished scholar and translator: Division of political power: beyond Montesquieu.
Last revision:
