Hmmm, perhaps. Though ultimately the question we'd have to ask is under what conditions is the persecution of minorities most effectively minimized? We obviously can't eliminate it entirely, but we can certainly implement measures to counteract it and provide avenues of justice for those who have been victimized.

To me, saying that we should have no legal measures in place to deal with discrimination is essentially like saying we should throw open the floodgates to allow all the ignorant and narrow-minded bigots the freedom to persecute and abuse whomever they please, which to me just doesn't seem it would be in keeping with the principle that all men are created equal, nor would it contribute towards the development of a fair and just society.

Of course we could debate the potential philosophical impacts of any decision forever, but in the end, public policy should based upon empirical evidence, and not ideological speculation.

"apparently, women were left out of the awareness "

Thank God.

Alright, but that raises the question: how do you ensure that people are only ever judged by their merit alone, and what do you do when bias and prejudice can be irrefutably proven?

That's a totally different definition of the word "discrimination." Yes, discrimination can mean to use discerning judgement, but it can also mean to use prejudiced and biased judgement. In this circumstance, we're using the second definition.

No... the opposite of "discrimination" would be "confusion". To discriminate is to be able to understand the differences between two things. One can discriminate *between* an apple and a banana, for example.

The opposite of "privilege" however would be "obligation".

If you have one group that is identified for what they are, say, businessmen, then one is discriminating between businessmen and non-businessmen. No privilege or obligation is attributed to either.

If you have a group that is persecuted for what they are, say, businessmen, that doesn't mean that everyone else who is not a businessman is being granted any kind of privilege or being exalted.

Let's use a fairy tale metaphor. Suppose you're an evil wizard, and you have two prisoners.
You go down to your dungeon, look at your bullwhip and your cat o'nine tails, and weigh the differences between the two whips. That's discriminating between the two whips.
You choose the cat o'nine tails, and beat the prisoner on the left. While he might be considered discriminated against, the one not-whipped is not also privileged, since not-being-whipped is the default state for both prisoners.

In other words, having my rights protected is the default state. If your rights are not protected, you may be discriminated against, but I certainly am NOT being privileged, since the default state is to have rights protected.

Merriam-Webster online - "the state of being kept distinct <in her mind there did not exist a discrimination between the imaginary and the real>"

"Privilege" really just means the opposite of discrimination. That is, if you've got one group of people who are condemned for who they are, and another group who are exalted for who they are, then the first group would be discriminated against, while the second group would be privileged.

Really it's just looking at the issue of discrimination from a new perspective by putting the emphasis on the group who isn't persecuted rather than on the group who is.

White people get plenty of scholarships... >.>

Though I was really asking what Thomas Sowell said about the issue.

"this is what Thomas Sowell is talking about"
---
What did Thomas Sowell say about white privilege?