Quote:
Originally Posted by cbale2000
Not that I would encourage this, but I'm pretty sure if the parents were to sue the library they would win easily. Assuming this is a public library, this is a clear case of gender discrimination by a government entity. A good lawyer would have a field day with a case like this.
Just saying.
|
So, what you're implying is that every business who markets to a target demographic is racist/sexist/whateverist and should be punished. Sounds accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur
|
It's discrimination, but is it an attack on social equity? No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur
Anytime you exclude a group, you are discriminating.
|
This statement is misleading. Was every team at a regional that didn't get picked excluded from elims? Yes. Am I discriminating by selecting specific teams? Yes. Am I attacking those I didn't pick? No. Is there a social justice battle to be fought? No.
Frankly, the quoted justification for an all-boys program sounds fabricated, whether that be by the parent or the librarian. The statement on cognitive decay in boys, even if it is true (I honestly don't know if it is), is weak reasoning for an all-boys STEM program. I have a feeling that either the librarian didn't know what to say to an unnecessarily angry parent, or the unnecessarily angry parent is demonizing the librarian.
In fact, if you actually read it, the librarian offers a reasonable compromise in allowing the student to waitlist. It's an all-boys program, and the librarian gave her an opportunity to join despite that. I respect the librarian's decision, and he/she has obviously been demonized in this situation. I'll vote for STEM for girls, but I don't support the idea that we should be trying to cleanse society of anything one person finds offensive for rash, unjustified reasons.
Target audiences are discrimination, but they aren't an example of social ignorance. An example of social ignorance would have been if the librarian explained that girls couldn't do STEM. An example of social ignorance would be to not develop an understanding before developing an opinion. The information provided in the petition is obviously one-sided and leaves out some vital details, including a proper dialogue and an explanation of the program itself. These holes, when filled, may allow us to develop a stronger understanding of the issue. Until then, we can fill those holes any way we want, but any opinion will be founded on vague, biased information.