Posts Tagged ‘non-discrimination’

“Sleeping Giant” of Student Protests Awakes in VA — McDonnell (Sort of) Backs Down

March 10th, 2010 No comments

As regular readers of this blog know, I’ve been following the story of how the Virginia Governor, Bob McDonnell, and his Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, have been working overtime to set the clock back on anti-gay discrimination. First, McDonnell issued an Executive Order that conspicuously omitted “sexual orientation” from the list of classes that the Executive Branch wouldn’t discriminate against (the former two governors had expressly included the category). Then Cuccinelli took the unprecedented step of writing a needless letter to the state’s universities, informing them that their policies against sexual orientation discrimination were in violation of state law. I responded to the first story here, and the second here.)

I’ve been quite gratified by the response over the past couple of days. Yesterday, Taylor Reveley, the President of William and Mary (my alma mater), issued a pitch-perfect letter in response. After noting that the process of reviewing the AG’s letter had just begun, he went into high dudgeon:

For now, let’s be clear that William & Mary neither discriminates against people nor tolerates discrimination on our campus.  Those of us at W&M insist that members of our campus community be people of integrity who have both the capacity to meet their responsibilities to the university and the willingness to engage others with civility and respect.  We do not insist, however, that members of our community possess any other particular characteristics, whether denominated in race, religion, nationality, sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other of the myriad personal characteristics that differentiate human beings.  We certainly do not discriminate against people on such grounds, or tolerate discrimination against them.  This is the way we live our lives together at William & Mary, because we believe this is the way we should live our lives together. This is not going to change (emphasis added).

Then, today’s Richmond Times-Dispatch reported on the protest against these changes by about 1,000 students at Virginia Commonwealth University. (Here’s a link to the accompanying video, which for some evil reason won’t embed.) I’ll confess that I felt somewhat vindicated after I’d gotten into an argument with another W&M alum over at the school newspaper’s website over whether people would actually care enough to protest. (As Marge Simpson once said when seeking confirmation that gloating was wrong: “See?”) Go, VCU!

McDonnell is now channeling one of those cartoon characters that retreats in a panic by running through a succession of doors, leaving cut-out imprints of himself in each ex-door. Just a few hours ago, he issued something called an “Executive Directive” — not the same thing as an “Executive Order”, although the differences between the two are obscure. But the Directive is pretty good, even if it seems to have opened up a fissure between McDonnell and Cuccinelli. From the Directive:

Employment discrimination of any kind will not be tolerated by this Administration. The Virginia Human Rights Act recognizes the unlawfulness of conduct that violates any Virginia or federal statute or regulation governing discrimination against certain enumerated classes of persons. The Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits discrimination without a rational basis against any class of persons. Discrimination based on factors such as one’s sexual orientation or parental status violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Therefore, discrimination against enumerated classes of persons set forth in the Virginia Human Rights Act or discrimination against any class of persons without a rational basis is prohibited.

Consistent with state and federal law, and the Virginia and United States Constitutions, I hereby direct that the hiring, promotion, compensation, treatment, discipline, and termination of state employees shall be based on an individual’s job qualifications, merit and performance…. Any cabinet member, agency head, manager, supervisor or employee who discriminates against a state employee or prospective employee in violation of the law or this standard of conduct shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action, ranging from reprimand to termination.

[C]ivility, fair treatment, and mutual respect shall be the standard of conduct expected in state employment.

McDonnell went as far as he could being true to his long-standing, social conservative convictions; convictions that he downplayed during his campaign. But when Cuccinelli’s letter caused people to take to the streets, the President of one of the state’s flagship schools to write a letter in opposition, and a Board member from another (George Mason) to declare the actions “reprehensible,” McDonnell realizes that what he’d unleashed might stand in the way of his political future, which is commonly thought to be extremely bright (and ambitious). So he’s backed down, bailed out, and run.

And really, I don’t care much about his reasons for doing so. I’m just warmed by the political heat that made this go away — at least for now. If the universities are wise, they’ll issue some generic statement in support of McDonnell’s Directive, declare that their anti-discrimination policies are in conformance with it, and essentially ignore Cuccinelli. And then figure out how to survive in a state that doesn’t financially support what they’re doing.

“I’m Convinced that Lesbians Can Be Made”

June 29th, 2009 1 comment

Late last week, Delaware concluded a decade-long struggle, finally enacting the most basic anti-discrimination protection for gays and lesbians (but not the transgendered). The Governor is expected to sign the measure soon, thereby making Joe Biden’s home state the 21st state to offer workplace protection. The legislation also protects against discrimination in housing, public accommodations, and insurance.

The bill sailed through both chambers with broad, bipartisan support. This would have happened years ago had the measure been permitted to come to the floor of the State Senate for a vote. But one state senator had been able to kill the bill in committee again and again. It took his death to get the bill assigned to a different committee, where it was unanimously  voted forward to the full Senate.

It’s probably too easy to see the senator’s death as a metaphor for the passing of the kind of view that would deny basic workplace protection to gays and lesbians, but there’s something to it. Yet we need a few more celestial bodies to slam into the earth to vanquish all of the dinosaurs: Think about the fact that in a majority of states, one can still be fired or denied housing simply because of one’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

While the levers of power are tough to move, the vox populi is well past this issue. Overwhelming majorities of Americans support such non-discrimination laws. In large part, this support comes from the relatively recent recognition that sexual orientation is either genetically determined or so foundational to personal identity that it can’t or shouldn’t be changed. The ex-gay movement is all but an ex-movement by now, as more and more people live or work with openly gay men and lesbians, and understand that sexual orientation is as deeply rooted for them as for the straight majority.

Not state senator Robert Venables, though, who uttered the imperishable line that I’ve used for the title of this post. What “convinces” him that “lesbians can be made”? And does he think the same of gay men? Who cares? And even if he’s right(!), what difference should that make? He and the tiny minority of “no” voters represent the selvage of a view that was ascendant just a generation ago.

In desperation, opponents attempted to tack on several amendments, including one that would have effectively eviscerated the legislation by allowing reasons of belief or conscience to trump the anti-discrimination protection. This went nowhere.

As I prepare a series of posts on the new push to affix religious exemptions to marriage equality legislation, here’s a teaser: If we’re going to allow a broad religious exemption to allow discrimination against gay couples in connection with their wedding ceremony and surrounding events, why stop there? Why not allow religion to trump equality in the broader society? Thus far, there’s been little effort at systematically addressing this important issue by those who favor these broad religious exemptions. But the question can’t be avoided.