Classification and Public Policy

Would classifying individuals help or hurt society?
© 2013 Pixabay - Public Domain Images

One of our country’s mantras is that “all men are created equal,” yet political wars and cultural differences have made us isolated and disparate individuals. This increasing isolation of cultures leads to inappropriately classifying people into groups. Could adopting a policy at the state level that would prohibit classifying people into groups be a good idea?

To classify something is to place it in a group or category. This group shares common characteristics either physically or inherently. For example, a beach ball may be placed in the same category as a soccer ball – they not only share physical attributes, but are also used for similar purposes, such as athletic activities. Although placing inanimate objects into categories is easy, it is ill-fitted to apply these techniques to human beings. Despite being a singular species, human beings are varied and complex. Attempting to classify them into groups leads to the proliferation of stereotypes and generalizations. Adopting a policy to prevent this would inhibit the unfair treatment of others. 

In addition, classifying people is inherently wrong. It suggests that all people are not getting equal respect or protection under the law. We shouldn’t need laws that prohibit this, but having laws that protect these rights is an unfortunate necessity. Similar policies already exist today, namely the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. We are all the same and should not be treated differently, regardless of any of the aforementioned differences. One group of people is not inferior to another and shouldn’t feel so.


Willena Rogers

It Depends on the Classification

In her essay, Willena claims that “classifying people is inherently wrong.” However, careful consideration shows that she provides insufficient evidence to support her argument. Comparing humans to objects is like the old cliché--comparing apples to oranges. The question is not whether classifying people into groups is a good or bad idea, but rather what classifications justify that individual being placed into a group? Labeling people by anything other than sex and nationality is flawed.

America is the only country that separates an individual by skin tone. If this is what Willena was implying, then she does have a valid point about “stereotypes and generalizations.” Distinguishing people by race, color and ethnicity contradicts the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It gives employers and colleges the opportunity to hire, accept, or deny a person based on these characteristics, hence discriminating because of these attributes. Also, being able to classify people by these traits negates the declaration that “all men are created equal.”

I do not support grouping people by race, color, or ethnicity; however, I do believe that grouping people by national origin is warranted. For example, Americans and Asians are raised speaking different languages. Furthermore, these two groups share different origins, traditions, and religions. Classifying these people by nationality does not “suggest that all people are not getting equal respect,” but instead actually gives them an identity. When I visit other countries, they view me as an “American.” They have no interest in whether I am black or white. Although the law prohibits discrimination, the evidence is on college and job applications. Until this flaw is corrected, we will be forever branded.

Lemuel A. Way