Classical Values :: The dreaded "D" word . . .

The dreaded "D" word . . .

In my damn-near all-white school in the 9th grade, during a vocabulary lesson, my English teacher (doubtless annoyed by the new emotional charge the word had taken on) singled out a black student by asking him the following question:

DO YOU DISCRIMINATE?"

The kid was really nervous, and I remember thinking that it was unfair to put him on the spot like this. It was, like, 1969 or 1970, and the country was steeped in debate over the evils of discrimination. It still is. No one then -- and no one now -- would ever plead guilty to the unspeakable, damnable crime of discrimination.

The kid's answer, of course, was a very nervous "no."

"Nonsense. Everybody discriminates!" the English teacher snapped.

Which everyone did -- then and now. (Any time I decide which brand of peanut butter to buy, what to write in a post, how much coffee to drink, what time to leave the house, where to eat and who to talk to when I am out and about, I engage in discrimination.) My English teacher might have been cruel (just as he'd be fired today for doing the same thing), but it was a good moral lesson, and for that matter, a good English lesson.

In a brilliant and fearless post (also a good moral English lesson), Grandstand takes a long and hard look at discrimination in the context of my previous post about Joey Vento's "Speak English" sign) and concludes that the First Amendment precludes the government from telling us that we cannot discriminate. Vento, concludes Grandstand, not only has the right to his sign, he has the right to refuse service to non-English speakers:

Not only does the property owner have a right to the sign, he has a right to refuse to do business with anyone he chooses, based on whatever opinions he wishes to put in practice. That kind of policy and exercising of speech and action may cost him customers, but it cannot violate any laws. There can be no law, which is Constitutional, which prevents the man from discriminating against anyone. THAT is protected behavior.

We have all sorts of unconstitutional laws on the books–laws which prohibit an individual or business from discriminating against someone or expressing "hate speech" against a person or group.

I'm sorry, where in the First Amendment does it have an asterisk that says "except when we find it icky"? The PURPOSE of the First Amendment is to protect that which is distasteful, hateful, horrid, and disturbing. You have a right to express your opinions, no matter how vile they might be.

Now I might boycott you for doing so, but that is in my right–that is the power that The People bring to bear to keep people in line-those are the consequences for exercising your rights. I'm choosing to discriminate against you because of the discrimination you've shown. Failing to recognize that boycotts (or even buycotts) are a form of discrimination is nuts.

So I'd get applauded by some activist for boycotting a store that put up a sign that demanded customers speak English. I'd get similar praise for refusing to do business with a company who didn't hire minorities. THAT kind of discrimination is OK and I'd get applauded for it. If, however, I recognize a store owner's right to do the same thing, even when I disagree with him, I'd be attacked.

Discriminating against people for their race, creed or religion is disturbing, but you have a right to do that. Failure to support discrimination when it makes you feel good to do so requires that you also support a person's right to discriminate when their opinions make you sick. Otherwise, you're attempting to enforce morality through the power of the government, an action not supported when it limits sexual behavior, but fully supported and applauded when it curtails the expression of bigotry. I don't have to do business with that person, but I cannot demand that the government get involved because the government is prohibited from getting involved... "Congress shall make no law..." Remember?

To suggest otherwise is hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Of course (as I said in a comment) speaking as a lawyer I can tell you that practicing your inherent right to discriminate (a right based on free association and freedom of assembly) will get you sued and probably shut down as a business owner, but we're talking about ideals here. Something in short supply, and which I tend to skip over as a pragmatist -- so I didn't devote any time to whether Mr. Vento should be allowed to discriminate (or even put up a sign saying "WHITES ONLY").

The post is a must-read -- as is Grandstand's update, which is an even better lesson in Constitutional English. And, as I am going to spend all day driving back and forth through New Jersey again today, I highly recommend them both to readers because there won't be much from me today.

It's a shame I don't have time for one of my long-winded posts here, as Grandstand's post makes me feel like examining the issue in all its permutations. But here are a couple of points I think are worth keeping in mind while reading Grandstand:

Senator Barry Goldwater (a libertarian who would be a liberal today) voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which made a crime out of discrimination by public accommodations what that is for the wrong reasons. This legislation began the creation of a now-interminable laundry list of improper, disallowed reasons beginning with race, and the list has grown over the years.

Goldwater's reason for voting against the bill? "You can't legislate morality." (Who can't?)

In Dale v. Boy Scouts of America, the right of the BSA to discriminate against gays was upheld, barely, in a 5-4 decision. While the ruling was based on the theory that the Boy Scouts were not a "public accommodation" and thus free to discriminate, I've often wondered whether the Scouts would have been permitted to discriminate based on race. I suspect not. As to why, I think the reason is obvious. It's called discrimination. Some minorities have more rights than other minorities, and if you want your name on the damned list, better make noise and crash the line. Of course, it goes without saying that if the Boy Scouts have to take gays, then the Pride Festival has to take Fred Phelps and "God Hates Fags" signs.

Everyone discriminates. It's as true now as it was when I was in the 9th grade.

And once we started making a list of people who cannot be discriminated against, what does that suggest about the people who didn't make it onto the list?

(Dare I say that they're being discriminated against?)

Comments

I remember when the Boy Scouts case came up, and I knew that no matter what happened, they were screwed. Either they were screwed in the court of public opinion, as in what happened, or they were screwed as an organization.

Let me back up a bit. I was a summer camp counselor for the Boy Scouts and while I was there I found out a couple of interesting facts. The first is that the Mormon church comprises 20-30% of the BSA membership. All adolescent boys in the Mormon faith are more or less required to take part in an acceptible youth program— which is, essentially, the Boy Scouts since they don't want to duplicate effort.

The second is that there was a flat-out statement from the religious leadership that if gays were allowed to be Boy Scout leaders, they were going to withdraw from the organization. En masse.

That's just the Mormon arm of the Boy Scouts. There are several other religious organizations that would immediately stop sponsoring troops if the decision came down.

So while other people were publicly excoriating the BSA (I was, after all, living in California), I was thinking of these two facts, and of the pedophile problems the BSA has had to deal with in the past. (I know that pedophilia and homosexuality are unrelated, but many people still associate the two.) So I knew the Boy Scouts were screwed.

Of course, I also knew of several instances where troops had gay scouts or gay leaders, but since they didn't flaunt it, everyone quietly ignored the issue...

B. Durbin · June 17, 2006 10:26 PM