Discrimination is the arbitrary denial of an individual's ability to succeed based upon a perception of a group's inferiority. Restated, it is the perceived superiority of one group over others that is at the core of

discrimination. To discriminate on the basis of physical characteristic runs counter to most Americans sense of justice since it violates the basic belief that everyone given the opportunity can succeed. We all recognize that once we begin accepting reasons to discriminate, then who decides what reason is acceptable and who will be discriminated against? No one wants to be on the receiving end of discriminatory behavior. We maintain that the standard of conduct we expect toward ourselves is the same standard to

be applied toward all others. So why should we give anyone, let alone the government the excuse to discriminate? Our collective distaste for arbitrary treatment of our own persons is the basis of American society and therefore law. The law is a representation of our society and as such reflects society's standard of conduct. That standard of conduct regulates our relationship with each other.

Any exceptions allowed to discriminate would undo our society as a whole by creating a privileged class, a superior class. The superior class will always disadvantage all other classes by virtue of its having more rights. The problem of more rights for one class is that it must come by taking those rights from someone else. Who decides who will have more rights than others? Who decides who has less rights? Who would give anyone the power to take away their rights? Has any group asked or given their permission to be second class? A society of equals can not accept different classes, a superior class and an inferior class, therefore equality can never be achieved through discrimination.

However, when the excuses to discriminate using stereotypes are made in such a way as to claim the victimization of a group not allowing it to succeed, we tend to loose sight of the inherent dangers of accepting those excuses. It should be evident to all when an excuse is offered to treat people differently based on their physical characteristic, it is an excuse, not a reason. The subtle difference between excuse and reason is attributed to perception versus fact. A person makes an excuse based on their perception according to their worldview. Stereotypes are the vehicles for that perception. A reason is based on the facts not perception. This is a very important distinction since a just or impartial administration of Law is based on fact, not perception. The sum of the facts define the truth, and when we deny some of the facts, we deny the truth. Without truth there can be no Justice. When judges and other law enforcement personnel use perception to administer the Law we cease to have justice and frequently find discrimination. A recent example of this was traffic stops by police using profiling as a justification to conduct narcotics searches. Even though African Americans do not abuse drugs more than any other group as whole, the police profile was that of an African American male driving an expensive car. The statue of Justice, has a blindfold over her eyes for good reason, it is not to see who is accused or who is the accuser.

Up until the 1960's America (we) accepted the excuse that blacks should drink from different water fountains, use separate bathrooms and sit at the back of the bus based on the claim that whites "felt uncomfortable". We made the excuse that black children should learn in separate schools for their socialization for them to feel comfortable in a familiar environment to be more conducive for learning. Blacks were routinely convicted of crimes without the benefit of fair trials to find the facts but instead on

In the 1980's a new trend began based on the claim of victimization. Specifically, women claiming to be dominated by men. Due to the sensitivity of society at the time to the discrimination issue regarding

blacks, much leeway was given to women's groups and their claims. Some claims to be sure were justified, however, in giving leeway to women's claims we began to accept the notion of political expediency as with blacks that some reverse-discrimination was necessary to offset past discrimination. We called it affirmative action. Judge's created a new class called a "protected class". The problem then became at what point do you stop reverse-discrimination? At what point is there enough reverse-discrimination to overcome the past? How many people and who should be disadvantaged, that is, prevented from succeeding? We gave the excuse to government, namely the court system, that is was reasonable to discriminate on the basis of the past. We accepted the faulty notion that two wrongs make a right. We opened the proverbial Pandora's Box allowing government to decide when discrimination was acceptable and who should be discriminated against. We gave the government the right to create a class in order to disadvantage all other classes, the protected class became the euphemism for a privileged class.

Today we have reaped that harvest of discriminatory conduct by the government and specifically by the court system. When we look at domestic violence, the perception of the legal system is that men are the prime perpetrators contrary to the facts that domestic abuse is equally perpetrated by both genders, and as a result the vast majority of domestic abuse findings are against men. The behavior of the judges towards men as a group is no different than that of the police when stopping African Americans in traffic stops. Domestic violence charges are routinely dropped against women where men are making the accusation. False accusations, where evidence exists of perjury is never prosecuted in domestic violence cases, lest we chill the environment for women to come forward. Child Custody decisions are routinely awarded a majority of the time to women on the perception that women are better single parents, contrary to the facts that children are much better off with shared custody by both parents and that the majority of child abuse is perpetrated by women. Use & Possession orders fall mainly to women in divorce on the basis of child custody and economic disadvantage, contrary to the notion of equal treatment and individual responsibility of one's actions. The nightmare of discrimination has once again gripped us with the full force of the government enforcing it, just as in the pre-1960's.

Our legal system has been corrupted by the perception of justified excuses. We have ceased to have a system of Law based on the facts but now it operates on the perception of political expediency. Instead of overcoming the past discrimination against blacks and women we have now traded it for discrimination against men and any other group we feel insecure about. Facts have been replaced by perception and now we are at the mercy of a legal system without social conscience or respect for society's standards

of conduct. No judge would subject themselves to the standards they have set for us, in fact, laws were passed to precisely insulate them from any charge of misconduct in regards to their actions while carrying out the politically correct perceptions. Instead of basing decisions on the sum of the facts, judges have ignored the facts of many studies, and accepted only the partial facts presented to them during the course of lawyers "arguments" when presenting the case. Justice is found in reviewing the sum of the facts, the reasons to discriminate are found by only reviewing some of the facts. The statue of Justice has a blindfold over her eyes, but now the reason has been reinterpreted to discriminate, the blindfold is about denial of the facts.

How much longer this will nightmare continue? When we, like Martin Luther King stand up and start saying "No" vocally, frequently, insistently and reject all stereotypes used as excuses to discriminate.