Racism and the Reverse

In the 1950s, a decision by the Supreme Court declared segregation in schools illegal. The case Brown v. Board of Education is probably the most famous court case in the United States. But, the Supreme Court based its unanimous decision on the fact that separate was inherently unequal. Thus it did not simply declare de jure (by law) segregation illegal, it declared de facto (in fact) segregation illegal as well.

This is the reason busing was used. Communities were typically divided by race. Thus, the school districts were also divided by race, and would now be illegal.

Here, it is necessary to know a little about the difference between criminal and civil cases. That link is useful though somewhat biased. Basically, to have a criminal case one needs to break a law that was passed by a legislature and can go to prison, whereas in a civil case, one only needs to hurt another, but cannot go to prison. So, when I say illegal, I do not mean that this is criminal, but doing so would make them lose civil cases.

Since then, the idea of forced desegregation has spread from the schools, to the universities, and even the workplace. Many people reject this notion of forced desegregation. Some call it reverse racism. Some go so far as to say that it is unnecessary because racism no longer exist. But that is simply not true as numerous studies show.

I will defend the current approach to dealing with racism. First, there is the fact that people are racist. Some even unconsciously so. Second, the system may be racist in itself (such as a biased test). Thus giving a boost to minorities does not necessarily let in people of a lower caliber.

Third, there is a simple situation to show why even someone that's not racist would make a bias against minorities. Suppose you have two resumes in front of you. They are functionally equivalent, except one person is white, the other is black. Which one do you pick? There are two reasons to pick the white person over the black one, even if you're not racist. First, you'd realize that some people are racist, which means that by having to make them deal with a black person, you could be losing customers. The second reason, though a misuse of statistics, is that a black person is more likely to be a criminal. Thus, you would hire the white person as good business practice.

So, there are at least the three ways above that minorities get discriminated against on a regular basis. What's wrong with giving the minorities a boost to counter these ways?

One counterargument goes like this: Racism exists and it is bad. But it is even worse when the government starts being racist to correct it. The way to end racism is not more racism. This seems like a valid point, but I believe history has shown it to be untrue, though this is hardly undisputed. This brings me back to Brown v. Board of Education. During the late fifties and early sixties the government forced different races to interact and mix together, and although it is impossible to trace the cause of the improved race relations today, I would say that the government actions had a hand in it.

Another counterargument is that the government should not be involved in such things in the first place. This is a harder belief to refute and perhaps has some validity. But I would like to point out that the government is not as involved as is commonly believed. The days of affirmative action are largely in the past. The government does not actively seek out racists and racist companies. Instead people who feel wronged sue the company or university that acted racists towards them in a civil case. And often, they lose. No one goes to prison for being racist. Moreover, many of the "reverse racism" policies are issued by the government only when it acts as an employer. Things that private employers would be able to do, if you believe the government shouldn't interfere. And many private employers, and universities, use these policies even though no one is forcing them to.

I think that our current system of dealing with racism works fairly well, and that the "reverse racism" policies are fair because, well, quite simply, if we don't have reverse racism, we will have only plain racism.

MPAA Movie Ratings: NC-17 Movies

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has a de facto monopoly on movie ratings in the United States. The MPAA rating system was started in 1968 after rising complaints over the presence of sexual content, graphic violence, and profanity in some films. The system ensured that the federal government would not create their own movie rating system which would have allowed a de jure monopoly on movie ratings.

The MPAA's rating system has acquired quite a bit of fire from critics. Most of the controversy that surrounds the MPAA ratings is due to the NC-17 rating. Nearly all major theaters follow the MPAA rating system. Movie theaters that follow this system will not allow minors into movies with an NC-17 rating even if a parent accompanies them.

Movies with an NC-17 rating are shunned in the United States. Many movie theaters will not even play NC-17 rated movies. Movie producers do not want their movies rated NC-17 because of this bias. Movies that receive an NC-17 rating are usually edited and resubmitted until they receive an R rating.

According to my count, over 90 out of the 157 NC-17-rated movies were appealed or re-edited until they received an R rating. This bias against NC-17 rated films effectively creates nation-wide movie censorship. The censorship created by this system may be more the fault of misconceptions of the American public than the fault of the MPAA. Regardless to whose fault this censorship is, it is still a problem.

Fortunately, many edited movies are being released in an "Unrated" form on DVD, allowing movie buyers to see the movie in its original form. This allows for an alternative to the censored release version of the movie but it does not act as a solution to this problem. The MPAA should revise the current movie rating system or theater owners should adopt multiple rating systems, allowing for competition and hopefully encouraging less censorship.

Industrial Hemp: A Dead Cash Crop

The cannabis plant is often associated with the drug marijuana, which is harvested from strains of cannabis that have high levels of THC. Industrial hemp is a strain of the cannabis plant that has low levels of THC, rendering it useless as a drug. Cannabis plants are illegal to grow in the United States, regardless of their THC content, because some strains of cannabis can be harvested to produce the drug marijuana. Since hemp is a strain of cannabis, industrial hemp is illegal to grow in the United States.

Hemp is a very useful resource and has numerous uses. Before hemp was outlawed in the United States it was seen as valuable cash crop. The U.S. Department of Agriculture actually released a film called "Hemp for Victory" in 1942 in order to promote the production of the hemp plant to support the war effort. Industrial hemp plants produce very strong fibers and, along with cotton and flax, are one of the most useful natural fibers known to man.

There is a theory that cannabis plants were originally outlawed in the US in order to stop hemp from taking business away from many other industries. This theory is fairly widely accepted by advocates of industrial hemp. Of course, some consider this theory to be inaccurate. Regardless of whether or not there was a well-planned conspiracy to outlaw the production of industrial hemp, the fact still stands that industrial hemp is outlawed in the United States.

There are no good arguments for keeping industrial hemp illegal. One common argument against industrial hemp is that it would be too hard to tell industrial hemp apart crops from medical cannabis crops. This is not true. It is fairly easy to tell industrial hemp crops and medical cannabis crops apart based on appearance, the way in which they are grown, and the time of year they are ready for harvesting. David P. West's Hemp and Marijuana: Myth's & Realities sheds some light on the truths about industrial hemp.

Legalizing industrial hemp is not a lost cause. Organizations such as Vote Hemp are trying to legalize industrial hemp in the United States. The U.S. Department of Agriculture published a study on hemp in 2000. Ron Paul introduced the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2005 and the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007 to Congress. A wealth of information is available on industrial hemp. Hopefully U.S. politicians will wake up and see the light soon.