Oh, boy, am I going to raise some hackles with this one. Well, guess I should stop putting it off and get down to it.

I have never quite understood integration lawsuits. Not the desire of black Americans for equality, that I understand. And I always got the Booker T. Washington school of thought, the "we will prove we're as good as anyone else or better, and then they will accept us" theory. What I don't understand are the lawsuit type of integrations, the national guard forcing their way into a school integration.

Now, don't get me wrong, I think those who judge others based on race are wrong, and I would be quite happy to live in a world where race mattered as little as eye color. But, as long as racism is a reality, at least is still a belief held by certain individuals, I just do not get the whole concept of forced integration.

Let me offer an example or two.

Let us suppose you are a black man seeking a job and you think a boss did not hire you because you are black, or a woman who was not hired because you are a woman. Whatever the discrimination, I just do not understand the motive in starting legal proceedings to force that person to employ you. Obviously, if this practice is taking place, not just the person doing the interview, but the company as a whole, is fine with discrimination. In addition, as the company must be doing well enough to be hiring new employees, it appears that whatever customers they deal with also have no objections to discrimination. So, if you should win your lawsuit, you would be putting yourself into an environment where no one wants you, with the added hostility generated by the knowledge that you are only there because of the lawsuit. I suppose some people may thrive in such environments, but I don't see it. I know I would be miserable were I to find myself in such a situation.

It gets even worse when you think of the suits that are not related to employment. Would anyone want to spend time at a country club where everyone hated you? Where you were only admitted because of legal intervention?

Obviously, such suits are not intended to achieve their stated purpose. No one would really want to work for the racist they are suing, or golf at the racist country club. These suits are filed simply to prove a point, to force those who hold the wrong ideas to act differently.

And that is my problem with such suits. They are based on finding those who hold the wrong beliefs and forcing them to change their behavior. That seems to be a concept alien to the nation envisioned in the Constitution. As I understand the Bill of Rights, it exists entirely to protect the right to hold such unpopular views. The freedom of speech, of assembly, of religion, these are all written in precisely to protect those who hold beliefs that the state or the majority of citizens find unacceptable. Yet, now, because "racism" or "sexism" have been deemed beyond the pale, such protections no longer apply.

I know I will make no friends saying it, but I believe that racists have the right to continue being racists. Of course everyone else has the right to shun and criticize them, but not to sue them. If a man wants to hire only men, or a club wants to admit only Catholics, or a woman wants to hire only left handed lesbians, all of those are fine with me, and should be perfectly legal. You would not say that the state has the right to tell you you need to date a diverse group, or diversify your dinner party, so why does the state have the right to meddle in your private affairs once they become "commercial"? Just because you don't charge people to come to your dinner party makes it in no way different from a restaurant. Both are your private assembly on your private party, and should be protected from state intervention.

Only when it comes to the state should racism, sexist, and all other irrelevant biases be outlawed. The state should be prohibited from taking cognizance of any factors other than those relevant to the matter at hand. But that is the only area where discrimination should be outlawed. In all private matters, it is the individual's right to associate as he chooses, regardless of whether anyone approves.

Now some will respond that what I am proposing would mean that racism would never end. And I guess, in a technical sense that is true, or possibly true. We may never be rid of a few individuals who espouse racism. But that is also true of the system we have now. No matter what we do, short of extermination of wrong thinkers, there may remain a few inveterate racists. And we should not worry about that, as there are a handful of people who believe in any crazy theory, we just cannot worry about every little gathering of cranks.

On the other hand, I think returning to respecting the rights of the individual, we may actually see more racial healing rather than less. Perhaps it would not have worked in the past, when racism was much stronger in some regions, but in today's climate, I think my suggestion will work better than today's system.

Why?

Most whites today are simply not racist. And most men are not sexist. Or at least not to a degree that matters. Whites may still have a few stereotypes about blacks, and men may make some assumptions about women, but that does not matter. What does matter is that most men will happily hire women, and most whites will happily employ blacks. Nor will most businesses reject customers based on race or sex. And, even more important, most people will not tolerate racism and sexism from others.

So, if we allow freedom in hiring, in renting, in choosing clients and customers, we will see that very little will change. Perhaps a few bigots will put their biased beliefs into practice, but they will learn quickly that the rest of the public does not agree. If a business develops a reputation of being racist or sexist, odds are good they will see a drop off in business rather rapidly.

But, even if they did not, simply by placing race or sex above the main focus of hiring the best employee, or getting the greatest number of customers, these businesses will slowly, but surely see their position weaken relative to their more tolerant competitors. Unless one is prepared to argue that women and blacks are so incompetent that excluding them will do no financial harm, it is inevitable that irrational discrimination in hiring will cause losses and eventually force either a repeal of the discriminatory policies, or eventually drive the company from business.

And what is the alternative? What happens if we continue with the policy we have today?

Today's policy does not really help. By creating tokenism and grievance driven lawsuits, it serves only to enshrine old grievances and create new ones.  Because of affirmative action, the credentials of every minority are suspect. It is impossible not to ask if a black or female was hired because of their qualifications or quotas, whether they graduated because of talent or quotas. And, on the other side, every time a white or male is denied a job or not admitted to college, he has to ask if he really didn't make the cut, or was excluded because of race or sex. The system simply keeps those questions alive. Once quotas are established, it is inevitable that these questions arise.

It is not so much a choice of which solution will best end racism, I do not think today's system can end racism. So long as we continue with quotas and discrimination suits we will have racism, and it will only get worse. If we want to end racism, we have to stop recognizing race.

But, questions of practicality aside, there is a much more simple and stronger argument for my position.

If we accept that the rights of free speech, assembly, religion, property, and all the other rights guaranteed int he Constitution can be waived to allow the state to fight for racial and sexual equality, then why not waive them for other compelling reasons? And, while some may agree, because they see the state fighting only for causes in which they believe, I would remind them we have an elective government. For all those who think we should waive protections to fight for gay rights, for example, I would remind them that someone else could waive them to create mandatory Christianity. The waiving of rights is a two-edged sword. And unless you are sure the one wielding that sword will always agree with you, we are better off not allowing it to be drawn at all.

Once we start allowing the state to ignore our rights, there is no end to it.