Homeowner's Associations are an enigma in my mind and always have been. We live in a society already governed by laws and rules in so many forms and yet people choose to constrain themselves under yet another set. My recent conversation with a coworker (see my previous posting here) has led me to a deeper examination of these organizations and a drive to answer the question: "Are Homeowner's Associations discriminatory?"
For those who do not know what a homeowner's association (hereafter referred to as HOAs) is, here is a quick run down... An HOA is born when a neighborhood of homeowners comes together and agree to a certain set of rules by which they all agree to live. Generally these rules are established in order for the homeowners to maintain a peaceful enjoyment of their property as well as preserving their property values by ensuring the quality of the neighborhood is maintained. Some common rules include keeping your lawn mowed, getting your exterior paint color approved before painting, and no tin foil in your windows. Not only do ALL homeowners have to agree to this association, but when new residents move in they also have a responsibility to sign on and agree to the same rules. Of course these rules are not unchangeable, there are elected officials from among the residents and plenty of voting and challenging of the rules, but that is the overall lay of the land where HOAs are concerned.
At first glance anyone with even a minimal knowledge of the civil rights movement can see how this concept goes bad quickly. In the 60s and before there were rules that created "white" neighborhoods and "black" neighborhoods. It was another extension of segregation and discrimination, and a very effective one at that.
This brings up a very important point... How were these organizations allowed to continue and in some areas thrive if they were discriminatory?
The answer is simply that they don't have to be a method of discrimination. As long as the rules are not prejudicial against any protected class and are enforced equally among all classes they are perfectly legal. For the record there are 7 federally protected classes which are: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and familial status. Some states and even counties have added their own additional classes but I doubt any of them include lawn length or house color (though our nation does have some rather ridiculous laws). As long as the nuclear white Christian family is cited for leaving their trash cans out alongside the black Islamic single mother, the Korean elderly couple, and the interracial gay couple it is perfectly legal. If there is even a suspicion of discrimination it can be brought before the courts to determine whether or not discrimination has really occurred.
That really about sums it up. We cannot see discrimination in every organization and still claim to be moving towards equality. But maybe I'm just incapable of seeing discrimination the way my coworker seems to believe. You decide...
Showing posts with label Equality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Equality. Show all posts
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Too Angry for Words... Almost
Today I was judged based on the color of my skin.
A coworker with whom I have spoken less than a dozen words prior to today made a bold assumption about my person without taking the time to actually know me. I find myself deeply offended, and not just because her assumption was wrong, but even more so because the deep understanding of discrimination she claimed to have could not have been shown to be more shallow and one sided. I also find myself bothered that I attempted to extricate myself from the discussion several times to no avail and do not feel comfortable bringing it to my superiors as I believe both of the assistant managers would side with her (being of the same race).
The most confounding thing about the whole situation is that it arose over an innocent discussion about homeowner's associations (HOAs) that devolved into debating their legality and whether or not their very existence was discriminatory (but more on that later).
The assumption my coworker made was that I didn't understand discrimination because I'm white (she's black, and from the south). She said it differently and multiple times, but in ways much more condescending than I have put here though I don't find it necessary to drag out each wound. While I can openly admit that I have not experienced discrimination in the same context or to the extent that she has that does not make me incapable of understanding what discrimination is, suffering from discrimination myself, and being able to recognize when it is happening.
If the ability to recognize (and thereby prosecute) acts of discrimination was limited to those who have been discriminated against... well that's a thought too absurd to finish. Educating people to be accepting of other peoples differences will help change our society and prevent discrimination in the future but to know equality means we must also know the converse which is inequality and that acts of hate that spring from it.
Her other big flaw is failing to recognize that discrimination does not just come in the form of white people against black. As a member of the LGBT community I know what it is to feel those pressures of discrimination, and not just from society, but from my own family which brings challenges not found in racial discrimination. I have also encountered other forms of discrimination through the treatment of close friends and family that helps me to understand through knowledge and sympathy. I do not need to feel the pain of another person to understand that they feel pain.
Overall, the whole argument today left me feeling sad because, if she labors under the self delusion that she is fighting for equality, how many more out there are fighting for a cause but hindering the overall battle for equality.
A coworker with whom I have spoken less than a dozen words prior to today made a bold assumption about my person without taking the time to actually know me. I find myself deeply offended, and not just because her assumption was wrong, but even more so because the deep understanding of discrimination she claimed to have could not have been shown to be more shallow and one sided. I also find myself bothered that I attempted to extricate myself from the discussion several times to no avail and do not feel comfortable bringing it to my superiors as I believe both of the assistant managers would side with her (being of the same race).
The most confounding thing about the whole situation is that it arose over an innocent discussion about homeowner's associations (HOAs) that devolved into debating their legality and whether or not their very existence was discriminatory (but more on that later).
The assumption my coworker made was that I didn't understand discrimination because I'm white (she's black, and from the south). She said it differently and multiple times, but in ways much more condescending than I have put here though I don't find it necessary to drag out each wound. While I can openly admit that I have not experienced discrimination in the same context or to the extent that she has that does not make me incapable of understanding what discrimination is, suffering from discrimination myself, and being able to recognize when it is happening.
If the ability to recognize (and thereby prosecute) acts of discrimination was limited to those who have been discriminated against... well that's a thought too absurd to finish. Educating people to be accepting of other peoples differences will help change our society and prevent discrimination in the future but to know equality means we must also know the converse which is inequality and that acts of hate that spring from it.
Her other big flaw is failing to recognize that discrimination does not just come in the form of white people against black. As a member of the LGBT community I know what it is to feel those pressures of discrimination, and not just from society, but from my own family which brings challenges not found in racial discrimination. I have also encountered other forms of discrimination through the treatment of close friends and family that helps me to understand through knowledge and sympathy. I do not need to feel the pain of another person to understand that they feel pain.
Overall, the whole argument today left me feeling sad because, if she labors under the self delusion that she is fighting for equality, how many more out there are fighting for a cause but hindering the overall battle for equality.
Friday, May 4, 2012
Mutually Exclusive
Today I was musing on the concepts of freedom and equality. Both are spectacular ideals that cause as many problems as they solve because they are mutually exclusive, or nearly so. To many people this may seem like a lie, but a little examination into the true meaning and consequences of each reveals it all.
First there is freedom, or liberty. By definition it means: The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. In its unadulterated form this includes every individual's right to do, say, or think anything they want. Obviously, with no restrictions freedom is dangerous because it includes actions like murder and robbery.
Equality is another matter. The definition of its root, equal, is: A person or thing considered to be the same as another in status or quality. The problem with supporting equality is that humans are not naturally equal. I mean this in the sense that we have different strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes, levels of intelligence, environmental upbringing, etc. Individuality only exists because inequality exists.
It is quite apparent that either state, with no restrictions, is a bad thing. Freedom is commonly restricted in its ideology so that you are free as long as your actions do not hinder the freedoms of another. Equality, on the other hand, is restricted to social and economic equality.
The problems begin when you start determining what actions do and do not infringe upon another person's freedom and equality. In government, laws exist that either preserve freedoms while reducing equality or reduce freedoms to enhance equality.
In economics this is readily apparent. A person who makes very little money, for example, is commonly believed to be unequal to a person who makes a lot of money. However, taking money from the rich person and giving it to the poor person takes away the freedom of the rich person. In this case freedom is often sacrificed in the name of equality, though the Occupy Movement continues to clamor for even fewer freedoms for the rich.
Another example is the case of affirmative action. In this case equality again gets the upper hand over freedom. Enforcing equality of the sexes and racial equality has reduced the freedoms of schools and businesses by dictating who they can and cannot hire. Unfortunately, before this system was in place, the tables were turned and it was freedom that had the upper hand over equality resulting in rampant discrimination.
Overall, enhancing equality reduces freedom because it determines a standard that must be adhered to, whether a person wants to or not. On the other hand, preserving freedom reduces equality because there will always be people who use their freedom to rise above others. The trick, as in all things, is moderation, but the details of how much must be determined on a case by case basis and very rarely is a consensus possible.
First there is freedom, or liberty. By definition it means: The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. In its unadulterated form this includes every individual's right to do, say, or think anything they want. Obviously, with no restrictions freedom is dangerous because it includes actions like murder and robbery.
Equality is another matter. The definition of its root, equal, is: A person or thing considered to be the same as another in status or quality. The problem with supporting equality is that humans are not naturally equal. I mean this in the sense that we have different strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes, levels of intelligence, environmental upbringing, etc. Individuality only exists because inequality exists.
It is quite apparent that either state, with no restrictions, is a bad thing. Freedom is commonly restricted in its ideology so that you are free as long as your actions do not hinder the freedoms of another. Equality, on the other hand, is restricted to social and economic equality.
The problems begin when you start determining what actions do and do not infringe upon another person's freedom and equality. In government, laws exist that either preserve freedoms while reducing equality or reduce freedoms to enhance equality.
In economics this is readily apparent. A person who makes very little money, for example, is commonly believed to be unequal to a person who makes a lot of money. However, taking money from the rich person and giving it to the poor person takes away the freedom of the rich person. In this case freedom is often sacrificed in the name of equality, though the Occupy Movement continues to clamor for even fewer freedoms for the rich.
Another example is the case of affirmative action. In this case equality again gets the upper hand over freedom. Enforcing equality of the sexes and racial equality has reduced the freedoms of schools and businesses by dictating who they can and cannot hire. Unfortunately, before this system was in place, the tables were turned and it was freedom that had the upper hand over equality resulting in rampant discrimination.
Overall, enhancing equality reduces freedom because it determines a standard that must be adhered to, whether a person wants to or not. On the other hand, preserving freedom reduces equality because there will always be people who use their freedom to rise above others. The trick, as in all things, is moderation, but the details of how much must be determined on a case by case basis and very rarely is a consensus possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)