A couple decades ago my bother and four of our friends took a cross country road trip. They stopped at a restaurant and were seated. They proceeded to receive extremely bad service. For example, others who arrived after them were served beverages and food before them; one of their party received his deli sandwich, ordered with the others, at about the time his companions were almost finished with their pizzas.
The travelers all happened to have a skin color differing from the other patrons and individuals working in the restaurant. They also believed strongly that this was the motivation for the apparent discrimination since the server or manager never offered an explanation or apology for their anomalous treatment.
Considering the recent thread about Dennis Prager's taxi and mailman rumination and the commentary in Mr. Prager's response, what would have been the best exercise of property rights by the restaurant's manager, owner, or staff?
To aid in this consideration here are some questions, which may be treated as rhetorical:
- Would a sign have been appropriate?
- Might the manager or owner have advised the travelers that they would be served poorly because of their race so they might choose to leave the establishment rather than suffer a small humiliation?
- Did the restaurant's staff adequately express and protect their property rights so that there was actually no problem with the treatment of my brother and his friends?
- Were the travelers fools for remaining to eat and pay?
This happened. It is not a thought experiment or other artifice. The brother referenced is a Ricochet member.
Furthermore, this is an utterly serious issue which, I hope, some of the champions of 'property rights' will deign to answer.
- Answer (3)
- · Comment (2)
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Answer by Tom Lindholtz
This unhappy story is a perfect illustration of the limitations of government when attempting to address social issues. Government is ineffective, inefficient, and incompetent to fully address such matters.
Racism is a noxious characteristic regardless of where it is found, or in whom. Period. Government can pass laws to prohibit overt, blatant discrimination; inequality of opportunity in housing, education, work environment, etc. But that is only the most superficial locus of racism. The truly serious racism resides in the human heart and no government decree can erase it.
The government banned discrimination. That was a very good thing. But the story demonstrates that the government cannot eliminate it. Ironically, before the government outlawed discrimination a business owner could, and many did, post signs indicating who they would or would not serve. That allowed people, if they were so inclined, to make their economic choices based on the owner's openness or lack thereof to racial equality. But the government's action in outlawing discrimination made that illegal. It didn't eliminate racism, it a) drove it underground, b) justified it in the eyes of those inclined to racism, and c) diffused it throughout the population.
The government's action in outlawing discrimination take away the property rights of the owners, and with it the ability of customers to make purchasing decisions thereby. So the first three questions have been co-opted by the government. Only a business with an insane desire to have the government intrude would do any of the first three.
Re: Were the travelers fools for remaining to eat and pay? If they waited an inordinate time to even get seated, a menu, the initial visit by a waiter, yes. I have left restaurants for that reason...almost did this evening, in fact. Once they placed an order, then, at some point, there is a line of no return and they could potentially find themselves on the wrong side of the law if they fail to pay. But they could leave a one penny tip. I have done that for poor service in order to insure that everyone understood my intent and message.
Bottom line, for me: How I react to everything that happens to me is MY choice. It is not imposed on me by any situation, no matter how infuriating. I choose my reactions. I do not let other people determine my outlook or attitude. If someone treats me poorly, I recognize that they are poor miserable cretins too ignorant to know better and undeserving of my further emotional focus. Whenever the incident recurs in memory I intentionally reject the thought and re-focus my attention on positive things.
For the record, I cannot recall ever being the subject of racial bias, but I have been the subject of gender bias on a number of occasions, including times when it operated to my serious financial detriment. Life isn't perfect or fair and I refuse to let foolish notions ruin my life.
Furius Camillus: If we were to assume a world of perfect property rights, would it then be permissible - not legally, morally and ethically - to put up a sign or verbally advise individuals that they were unwanted for racial reasons, for example?
Edited on July 10, 2012 at 8:30am- #1
- · July 10, 2012 at 8:29am
- · LikeUnlike (0)
Tom Lindholtz: It would, indeed, be permissible. Back in the day, Rotary Club might have had a sign, "Men Only." Feminism took care of that. Still today, the gym, Curves, might have a sign, "Women Only." If a business owner wants to limit his potential market in order to provide a unique service or environment he should be allowed to do so.
- #2
- · July 11, 2012 at 8:07pm
- · LikeUnlike (0)
Join Ricochet or Sign In to add your comment.
Answer by John Murdoch
I think people are wise to consider a wide range of possible causes before leaping to the conclusion of racism. I think that's particularly true if one has suffered an affront from a traditional victim of discrimination: a white getting poor service from a black waitress; a presumably heterosexual man getting rude service from a confrontationally "out-and-proud" barista; a Westerner being providing a tablespoon in a Japanese restaurant, when the nihonjin are provided chopsticks.
And even when one is convinced that the affront was intentional--that it was specifically done for the express purpose of "hitting back"--it's best to walk away.
In 1981 I interviewed for a management position with the food concessionaire at Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport. The interview was successful, I came back for a second interview, I spent half a day walking around all of the terminal facilities, and was delighted to receive an offer.
A few days later, the offer was rescinded. Because I was white.
The concessionaire was, explicitly, a minority contractor. The company was owned by a black man; I'd be working for a black man; the overwhelming majority of the people I'd be supervising were black. But the optics of the white manager walking into each restaurant, telling the (black) staff what to do, "caused concern." They were embarrassed. They hoped I'd understand.
I did. I still do. I found another job.
Because one specific instance of race-based rudeness--even explicit discrimination--is not the same thing as a lifetime of racism.
When you're confronted by somebody who is dead-set on demonstrating a little racial prejudice of his or her own, you can either try to "out-victim" the jerk, or you can demonstrate some humility, some patience, and some dignity--and walk away. You won't likely change the mind of the jerk--you may well make an impression on others who see what happened.
Did your brother get his sandwich a bit late? Oh, well. If your brother is ever in the position to perform a service for a similar-looking person, he can bend over backward to be as gracious, as courteous, as helpful as he can possibly be--and congratulate himself for making the world a better place.
Be the bigger man.
Furius Camillus: The situation was racism.
or you can demonstrate some humility, some patience, and some dignity--and walk away
Based on this, your opinion is they should have left the restaurant?
you can either try to "out-victim"
The tale, recounted upon their return, was told with surprise and good humor.
- #1
- · July 10, 2012 at 8:20am
- · LikeUnlike (0)
John Murdoch: FC: If you are being confronted--yes, leave. If you're just getting poor service, decide how to respond. I've never walked out of a restaurant for poor service (or, for that matter, for any other reason) in my life. Perhaps my standards are not so exacting as yours.
- #2
- · July 11, 2012 at 11:51pm
- · LikeUnlike (0)
Join Ricochet or Sign In to add your comment.
Answer by J. D. Fitzpatrick
"what would have been the best exercise of property rights"
I think the use of "best" here is a little off-putting, as the term can conflate "most appropriate" and "morally right." Simply put, there's no "best" way to be a jerk and break the golden rule.
But I think I understand the spirit of your question, so I'll give it a go.
- Would a sign have been appropriate?
- Yes, perhaps a coded one. More below.
- Might the manager or owner have advised the travelers that they would be served poorly because of their race so they might choose to leave the establishment rather than suffer a small humiliation?
- Yes, assuming that at the time there was no law against being a racist jerk on your property. (I personally would have found being turned away in this manner a small humiliation as well.)
- Did the restaurant's staff adequately express and protect their property rights so that there was actually no problem with the treatment of my brother and his friends?
- "no problem" in what sense? See my point above about the golden rule. A behavior can be legal without being ethical.
- Were the travelers fools for remaining to eat and pay?
- I would have phrased this question thus: "Should the travelers have taken a hint and left?" But this isn't really a question about property rights. In a society where there aren't explicit provisions against racism, yes, I think it would be wise to leave in such circumstances. Of course, I also think it's brave to stay and show that you're the bigger man. Again, we're getting well away from the question of property rights here.
On the matter of signage: in Germany, foreigners quickly learn to stay away from pubs that sport the "Schultheiss" placard. You can go in and order, and you will be served, but conversation will come to a halt and everyone will stare at you until you go. That, at least, is how one set of establishments handles its hostility to what it perceives as outsiders. I don't have a problem with that approach, but I was never trying to make a living there.
Furius Camillus: Mr. Lindholtz' response indicated the absence of an important caveat:
In the question above, please consider the best means of communicating the business' property rights without concern for the various laws and regulations which might now interfere.
Jim Swift: "In the question above, please consider the best means of communicating the business' property rights without concern for the various laws and regulations which might now interfere." That is caveat big enough to drive a semi through.
Join Ricochet or Sign In to add your comment.