By Dan Scott

People believe in stereotypes because it simplifies an otherwise difficult, complicated world. However, the problem comes when professionals such as judges start believing in those stereotypes instead of giving individuals a chance to act on their own decisions. Judges after all are paid professionals our society chooses to make sense of difficult complicated issues when we ourselves can not agree.

Positive stereotypes are made to justify the existence of negative stereotypes. A positive stereotype for one group by it's implication means that individuals of other groups are presumed to have the negative ability otherwise why suggest one group is better at some ability. Why say women are better at child care when you really mean men are not capable? Why say women are sensitive when by implication you really mean men are insensitive? Why, because we would faced with those uncomfortable exceptions to challenge what we assume. A stereotype requires the negation of individual choice from that of the group, all individuals of the group are assumed not to have individual choice due to genetic influence. Stereotyping is a veiled form of Eugenics.

Given the choice of every individual in the world, the probability exists at any given time an action or spoken word will occur that validates the stereotype, and therefore all stereotypes are self validating. Self validation is a form of circular reasoning and always reaches its conclusion based on the initial assumption.

Based on my short experience in civil rights advocacy, stereotypes and the double standards that go with them are not the sole province of the ignorant or uneducated but of the overzealous. When overzealous professionals and activists are faced with the "exceptions", a double standard is necessary to explain away the obvious fallacy of the stereotype they hold so dear.

Political correctness is nothing more than the stereotype elevated to the level of faith. As we know, opposition to the faith brings about a vigorous attempt to enforce the belief on everyone and vilify those who do not believe. We see this article of faith played out in Family Law especially when it comes to child custody cases, how else does one explain 90% of custody awards to women. Judges typically tell us that each individual case is being decided on its merits when in fact they use legal precedence such as possession to decide the best interest of the child. Precedence as currently practiced in Family Law is actually the euphemism for making the same choices over and over again without considering the unique circumstances of each case. Presumption, precedence, stereotype, they are all clever excuses to avoid the difficult decisions in life, which defeats the point of having a judge in the first place.

In the twenty first century we have a dream, not to have our character, our abilities and our motives be judged by our genetics but on our actions as an individual. It seems that the Family Law Courts have yet to understand Dr. King's dream let alone the directive of the U.S. Constitution's 14^th Amendment in the dispassionate administration of the Law.