Discrimination is Generally a Good Thing 3/24/99 You know what I'm getting sick of? Hearing the word "discrimination" used as a synonym for "prejudice." Wrong-o. Prejudice means to pre-judge. To judge something or someone before you have any relevant facts. For instance, if I meet a guy who has an extremely large belt-buckle, and I judge him to be untrustworthy based on that irrelevant detail, then that is an example of prejudice. Prejudice is *always* bad. It's judging *before* you have any information upon which to judge. Judgment *without* data. Discrimination, on the other hand, has no reference to time. It means simply to make a judgment. To choose. Not *necessarily* to pre-judge. It isn't the same as prejudice. If you need to hire a brick-layer, and there are two applicants, and one has 10 years experience bricklaying, and the other is a 14 year old quadriplegic with an IQ of 55, whom are you going to hire? The bricklayer! Is that discrimination? You bet! Is that prejudice? Not at all. It is discrimination, based on *relevant* data. A person with no functional limbs cannot lay bricks. It doesn't make him a bad person, it just means he can't do the job. A person with an IQ of 55 and no experience won't do as good a job as a person with normal intelligence and 10 years experience. It is that simple. You make a rational judgment based on relevant data. Experience, intelligence, physical ability, these are all relevant criteria, for THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION. In other situations, those criteria wouldn't be relevant, and any discrimination based on them *then* would be prejudice. Understand? Prejudice is bad. It stinks. And furthermore, it is stupid. I mean, it is really dumb to make decisions based on stuff you *don't* know. But discrimination is not bad. It *can* be bad, certainly. If you hire someone using the criteria of skin colour, for instance, that is bad. It is discrimination based on an *irrelevant* criterion, not a relevant one. Thus, it is prejudice. See the difference? Prejudice is always bad. Discrimination is neither good nor bad except in reference to the *criteria* and the *situation*. And if the criteria are irrelevant, then the discrimination is also prejudice. Discrimination: general term. Prejudice: specific term. You can only go one way, from general to specific. Example: Flower is general, Rose is specific. A Rose is a Flower. But all flowers are not roses! Prejudice is discrimination, a special sort. But all discrimination is not prejudice! So there is *NO* reason to use the word discrimination when you mean prejudice. Unless you just want to appear like you have a bigger vocabulary, I guess. If you *are* going to use the word discrimination when speaking of prejudice, you *have* to, you *must* include the *reference*. For instance, "I hate discrimination based on race." Good. "I hate discrimination." Bad! You discriminate every day! When you order one thing at a restaurant instead of another, you're discriminating on taste, a relevant characteristic in that situation. We all discriminate. At least we had better. But there is no excuse for prejudice. I hope this is clear.