what is "discrimination"?
THIS IS TOO FUNNY.
THIS IS THE FULL TRANSCRIPT OF AN EMAIL "DISCUSSION" ON THE SUBJECT OF "DISCRIMINATION" AMONGST NUS FACULTY.
JUST NOTE THAT ALL NAMES WERE REMOVED BY ME.
---------------------------------
(1) From XYZ's message, the notice seems to be "No access for contractors Fine $500" This essentially prohibits contractors, but not the workers from using the toilet. I am surprised that the contractors want to prohibit themselves from using public toilets. Perhaps what they mean to say is "No access for foreign contract workers Fine $500" "
(2) If the NUS/FASS administration does not permit contractors to put up the sign ""No access for foreign contract workers Fine $500", they would not be able to do so. So I assume that the contractions have the implicit permission of NUS/FASS administration.
(3) Any discrimination against the underprivileged can be justified on the basis of statements like "They are dirty, "They are not quite human", "They are not rational", "They have no aptitude for science and math", and so on. The folks who denied voting privileges to women and (as XYZ points out) didn't want blacks to dirty their buses and pools had their reasons. They believed that women are not equal to men in their intellectual capacity, and that blacks were not quite human.
(4) Assume for the moment foreign workers do dirty the toilets. Assume also that Singaporeans from low income groups also dirty toilets. (This may not be an unreasonable assumption.) Would that justify movie house owners putting up notices like "No access for people whose annual income is below $5000. Fine $500" , with the provision for separate dirty toilets for the low income groups?
(5) A prohibition like ""No access for females. Fine $500" in the NUS toilets would indeed be discriminatory if if turns out that (a) women's toilets, unlike men's toilets, are cleaned only once a week, and (b) women prefer using men's toilets while men do not want to use women's toilets (For the purposes of this point, I incorrectly assume that men do not want to peep.) But if men's toilets do not have any special privileges, and the majority of women want separate toilets, I don't see why having separate women's toilets is discriminatory. And if we do allow separate women's toilets, and a significant number of men are embarassed (rather than thrilled) by having women around when they pee, I don't see why having separate men's toilets is discriminatory either.
ABC
-----Original Message-----
From: REMOVED
Sent: Fri 7/17/2009 5:49 PM
To: REMOVED
Cc: REMOVED
Subject: RE: Against Discrimination
Hey XYZ don't get your jockeys in a knot. I am sympathetic to your call. Just pointing out that the contractor has a practical reason for the sign, and that the sign is not put up by NUS. Plus, that there are issues of discrimination that are then likewise open for attack. I would be all in favour for making toilets unisex for instance.
Of course, foreign worker discrimination is so rampant that this instance appears to be one too.
Cheers, 123.
_____________________________________________
From: REMOVED
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 5:42 PM
To: REMOVED
Cc: REMOVED
Subject: RE: Against Discrimination
Dear 123,
The blacks have their swimming pools and seats at the back of public buses too.
Best,
XYZ
_____________________________________________
From: REMOVED
Sent: 2009?7?17? 17:39
To: REMOVED
Cc: REMOVED
Subject: RE: Against Discrimination
Hi REMOVED,
Such signs have been there as long as I can remember (I've been in NUS 7 years now) when there is any contracting work done. I was shocked initially as well, until I realized that the workers have their own toilet cabins nearby, and that the sign is put up by the contractor because they don't want to make the toilets dirty with mud, wet concrete, and paint etc.
Of course it's 'discrimination', but likewise, having male-only or female-only toilets is effectively also discrimination, no?
Cheers, 123.
_____________________________________________
From: REMOVED
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 5:21 PM
To: REMOVED
Dear REMOVED,
My colleague XYZ has forwarded the message below to me and like him, I feel very disgusted. We should take this matter very seriously and send someone to remove the notice IMMEDIATELY. Then we should issue a warning to the people who put up the notice.
Best
REMOVED
_____________________________________________
From: XYZ
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 5:00 PM
To: REMOVED
Subject: FW: Against Discrimination
FYI
______________________________________________
From: REMOVED
Sent: 2009?7?17? 12:42
To: XYZ
Cc: REMOVED
Subject: RE: Against Discrimination
Thanks XYZ for your feedback.
It is likely that the notices are put up by the main Contractor or its sub-contractors. I understand that the workers have their own designated toilet. It could be the case that the contractors/sub-contractors wish to limit the boundaries of their operations, so that they do not have to spend too much time in cleaning up or clearing up the sites daily. Or it could be part of their agreements not to dirty the surrounding place with mud from their boots, or concerns of liability issues related to cleanliness etc.
Our faculty does not put up such notices. I will ask my colleague, REMOVED to convey your concerns to the Project Manager from Office of Estate & Development (OED).
Best Regards,
REMOVED
_____________________________________________
From: XYZ
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 10:46 AM
To: REMOVED
Cc: REMOVED
Subject: Against Discrimination
Dear REMOVED,
I read with disbelief, if not horror, of two notices posted at the entrance of the male toilet (AS1-03-MALE2) outside LT9 in two languages. The notices say that:
"No access for contractors Fine $500" or in Chinese "???? ?????? ????$500.00 "
I am not sure whether are these notices posted by our faculty. If so, I do have a few questions:
1, Is it legal to bar any group of people to use the toilet?
2, Is there really a legal basis that empower us to fine them?
Legal questions aside, we are after all the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. We, of all people, should know that no form of discrimination should be tolerated, and this should be one of the core values that we teach our students.
I can imagine some of the logistic reasons for banning the contractors/workers from using the toilet, but I am sure there are other more humane ways of dealing with it then this convenient ban.
If the notices are not posted by our faculty, we should let whoever that is responsible for that know that discrimination is not tolerated here!
The same notices are also posted outside AS1-01-MALE, and I have no idea at how many more places.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Yours,
XYZ
THIS IS THE FULL TRANSCRIPT OF AN EMAIL "DISCUSSION" ON THE SUBJECT OF "DISCRIMINATION" AMONGST NUS FACULTY.
JUST NOTE THAT ALL NAMES WERE REMOVED BY ME.
---------------------------------
(1) From XYZ's message, the notice seems to be "No access for contractors Fine $500" This essentially prohibits contractors, but not the workers from using the toilet. I am surprised that the contractors want to prohibit themselves from using public toilets. Perhaps what they mean to say is "No access for foreign contract workers Fine $500" "
(2) If the NUS/FASS administration does not permit contractors to put up the sign ""No access for foreign contract workers Fine $500", they would not be able to do so. So I assume that the contractions have the implicit permission of NUS/FASS administration.
(3) Any discrimination against the underprivileged can be justified on the basis of statements like "They are dirty, "They are not quite human", "They are not rational", "They have no aptitude for science and math", and so on. The folks who denied voting privileges to women and (as XYZ points out) didn't want blacks to dirty their buses and pools had their reasons. They believed that women are not equal to men in their intellectual capacity, and that blacks were not quite human.
(4) Assume for the moment foreign workers do dirty the toilets. Assume also that Singaporeans from low income groups also dirty toilets. (This may not be an unreasonable assumption.) Would that justify movie house owners putting up notices like "No access for people whose annual income is below $5000. Fine $500" , with the provision for separate dirty toilets for the low income groups?
(5) A prohibition like ""No access for females. Fine $500" in the NUS toilets would indeed be discriminatory if if turns out that (a) women's toilets, unlike men's toilets, are cleaned only once a week, and (b) women prefer using men's toilets while men do not want to use women's toilets (For the purposes of this point, I incorrectly assume that men do not want to peep.) But if men's toilets do not have any special privileges, and the majority of women want separate toilets, I don't see why having separate women's toilets is discriminatory. And if we do allow separate women's toilets, and a significant number of men are embarassed (rather than thrilled) by having women around when they pee, I don't see why having separate men's toilets is discriminatory either.
ABC
-----Original Message-----
From: REMOVED
Sent: Fri 7/17/2009 5:49 PM
To: REMOVED
Cc: REMOVED
Subject: RE: Against Discrimination
Hey XYZ don't get your jockeys in a knot. I am sympathetic to your call. Just pointing out that the contractor has a practical reason for the sign, and that the sign is not put up by NUS. Plus, that there are issues of discrimination that are then likewise open for attack. I would be all in favour for making toilets unisex for instance.
Of course, foreign worker discrimination is so rampant that this instance appears to be one too.
Cheers, 123.
_____________________________________________
From: REMOVED
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 5:42 PM
To: REMOVED
Cc: REMOVED
Subject: RE: Against Discrimination
Dear 123,
The blacks have their swimming pools and seats at the back of public buses too.
Best,
XYZ
_____________________________________________
From: REMOVED
Sent: 2009?7?17? 17:39
To: REMOVED
Cc: REMOVED
Subject: RE: Against Discrimination
Hi REMOVED,
Such signs have been there as long as I can remember (I've been in NUS 7 years now) when there is any contracting work done. I was shocked initially as well, until I realized that the workers have their own toilet cabins nearby, and that the sign is put up by the contractor because they don't want to make the toilets dirty with mud, wet concrete, and paint etc.
Of course it's 'discrimination', but likewise, having male-only or female-only toilets is effectively also discrimination, no?
Cheers, 123.
_____________________________________________
From: REMOVED
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 5:21 PM
To: REMOVED
Dear REMOVED,
My colleague XYZ has forwarded the message below to me and like him, I feel very disgusted. We should take this matter very seriously and send someone to remove the notice IMMEDIATELY. Then we should issue a warning to the people who put up the notice.
Best
REMOVED
_____________________________________________
From: XYZ
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 5:00 PM
To: REMOVED
Subject: FW: Against Discrimination
FYI
______________________________________________
From: REMOVED
Sent: 2009?7?17? 12:42
To: XYZ
Cc: REMOVED
Subject: RE: Against Discrimination
Thanks XYZ for your feedback.
It is likely that the notices are put up by the main Contractor or its sub-contractors. I understand that the workers have their own designated toilet. It could be the case that the contractors/sub-contractors wish to limit the boundaries of their operations, so that they do not have to spend too much time in cleaning up or clearing up the sites daily. Or it could be part of their agreements not to dirty the surrounding place with mud from their boots, or concerns of liability issues related to cleanliness etc.
Our faculty does not put up such notices. I will ask my colleague, REMOVED to convey your concerns to the Project Manager from Office of Estate & Development (OED).
Best Regards,
REMOVED
_____________________________________________
From: XYZ
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 10:46 AM
To: REMOVED
Cc: REMOVED
Subject: Against Discrimination
Dear REMOVED,
I read with disbelief, if not horror, of two notices posted at the entrance of the male toilet (AS1-03-MALE2) outside LT9 in two languages. The notices say that:
"No access for contractors Fine $500" or in Chinese "???? ?????? ????$500.00 "
I am not sure whether are these notices posted by our faculty. If so, I do have a few questions:
1, Is it legal to bar any group of people to use the toilet?
2, Is there really a legal basis that empower us to fine them?
Legal questions aside, we are after all the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. We, of all people, should know that no form of discrimination should be tolerated, and this should be one of the core values that we teach our students.
I can imagine some of the logistic reasons for banning the contractors/workers from using the toilet, but I am sure there are other more humane ways of dealing with it then this convenient ban.
If the notices are not posted by our faculty, we should let whoever that is responsible for that know that discrimination is not tolerated here!
The same notices are also posted outside AS1-01-MALE, and I have no idea at how many more places.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Yours,
XYZ
Comments
At the end of the day, it does boil down to practicality and simple cost and logistic feasibility. Just take a little exercise with your imagination. Perhaps you would not sweat it if the university allows foreign workers into the washrooms and then hikes tuition fees on grounds of "increased maintenance costs"...
But I daresay the students, the majority of the population, do.