Gay Rights, Race, Religion, Caste & Affirmative Action

jim blair:

Yes, I did have a  "gay rights" referendum confused with an 
"affirmative action" one in Houston.  I confused them because 
I see them as similar: the government creates different classes 
of people and then passes laws that deal with people
differently depending on the class that they are considered 
to be in.

OCWC (a.k.a. Daniel in DC):

>So I'm correct in interpreting this as you being for letting gays into
>the military?

Hi,

Yes. 

But I will expand on this.  It is not exactly that I favor "letting
gays into the military". It is that I oppose the government creating
"gays" as a legal classification in the first place.  Without the
category of "gays", there could not be any laws either prohibiting
gays in the military or requiring a quota or any special benefits
for "gays".

This is a different issue from the question of the prohibition
of sodomy as a part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Or of permitting same sex marriage, which I favor.

In the case of the military and "sexual orientation": how does your 
view of people being discriminated against by the military because 
of their "sexual orientation" fit with the currently announced 
policy of "don't ask, don't tell"?


>The current policy just says you won't be kicked out as long as we don't
>find out you're gay. The only real change is that a gay person who is very
>reluctant to lie about their sexual orientation is now safer. But they're
>still history if they're found out.

Who are they going to lie to, if the policy is "don't ask"?

But at any rate I think laws and policies should deal with people
according to what they DO, not according to what they ARE, in so
far as possible.  That is, in the case of sex, this is a reality
based in biology.  There may be some differences in the laws for
men and women.  But categories like "race" and "sexual orientation"
are different, and need not be given legal status.

When the government creates different "races" of people, there 
are usually some visible features which permit other people to 
at least make a good guess as to which "race" a particular 
individual is considered to "be".   But in the case of "sexual 
orientation" we have created a class with no visible means
of knowing who "is" what.  

As an aside, just how many "sexual orientations" are there?
Two?  Three?  Four?  Is "bisexual" one?  How about "asexual"? 
Or "pedophile"?


The prohibition (at least when I was in the Navy Reserve) was 
not against "being gay" but against engaging in the act of 
sodomy.   Has this changed?


>Not that I am aware of. Nevertheless, it is not always the case there is
>an outward visible characteristic. Take religion. You can't legally deny most
>forms of employment because of someone's religion, and there's often no
>outward sign that a given person is of one particular religion or another.
>And frankly, I can't see any importance to whether or not they're always
>plainly visible for what they are vis a vis whether or not their should be
>some form of legal protection against discrimination aimed at them. Do you?
> Daniel in D.C.

I agree that religion is a good illustration.  Should the government 
classify people according to their religion? Include it on the
passport for example?  Many countries have.  And then pass laws that
apply differently to people of different religions?  (We seem to be
heading in that direction :-(  Survey employers to insure that they
are not discriminating against people of certain religions?

Maybe a study would conclude that Mormons are "over-represented" in
colleges, and that Fundamentalist Christians are "under-represented"
(especially in science and technology institutes). So "affirmative
action" programs could be set up to admit Fundamentalist Christians
with lower SAT scores, and keep out Mormons unless they had SAT's
that are well above the average of other applicants.  Patterned on
the  affirmative action programs that let in low SAT "Hispanics" 
and "African Americans" and keep out higher SAT "Asians"?

TWO DIFFERENT VIEWS

I want to follow up on your phrase "legal protection against 
discrimination", since I think this is the key to understanding
the difference between the way we view this.  I think the 
government (Federal, State, and local) should not classify people
according to race or religion or sexual orientation. And thus
not favor or hinder people based on any of these.  This would
include (for example) the federal government prohibiting individual
states from passing "Jim Crow" of the type common in the US South
before the 1960's.  But it would also mean not establishing any
race based affirmative action programs at state universities or
in state contracting.

However private universities should be able to admit students on 
any basis they choose : all male or all female. All Indian
or Moslem etc.  The operators of a Chinese restaurant should 
be able to hire only Chinese (or "Chinese looking") staff if 
they want to project an authentic atmosphere.  etc.
People should even be able to date or marry people of their
own race or religion (or sex!) if they want to. Of course this
all is "permitting individual people to discriminate" against 
people based on race, sex, religion or whatever.  Individual
people but not governments or government agencies.

And even government agencies (including the military) should
be able to reject employing people whose actions are not
consistent with the goals of the organization. People who
will not work on Sunday (or Saturday) for example, and who 
apply for a job that require this.

You seem to want the government to "protect" people in various
legally created classes from private discrimination.  

As an example of the difference in concept: in Madison a year
or so ago, a local "gay rights" group demanded that the stores
on State Street provide a list of their employees and the
"sexual orientation" of each. They wanted to insure that the
stores were not discriminating against "gays".  And without
such records, how could anyone document whether or not this
discrimination was taking place?  Each store would need to
prove that they had hired "gays" in proportion to their 
representation in the Madison area, whatever THAT is.
(some say 10%, others claim only 1%, and no one really 
knows)


Is that the world you want?

REPLY:

Daniel in DC:

>And are you in favor of allowing people who are known to sodomize 
>each other (in private, on their own time) into the military?

Hi,

Not an easy one to answer.  I think the "worst case" is 
submarine duty.  Very close quarters. Surface ships are
next.  I don't know the situation in the Army, but hear
that it is not that much different from the Navy except
for the chance to get away from base is easier than 
leaving a ship that is 4 months at sea.  For these 
situations I think it clear that the "no sodomy" law is
justified.  People are never really "in private" or "off
duty": they are just sometimes "off watch".

The military situation that is closest to civilian life
is the Air Force.  During the Gulf War and the Kosovo
War air crews could get up wake up in the US, go to a 
plane, fly to the other side of the world, bomb targets, 
and return for dinner at home.  Almost like a civilian
job.

Note that a "conservative" supporter of "gays in the
military" was Barry Goldwater, a jet pilot.  His military
experience was Arizona Air National guard.

Question: but aren't the morale problems of sex the same
(or as bad) by having women and men in the same ships,
foxholes, or military units as of having homosexual men?

Answer: Yes. I think the US is just beginning to "discover"
the problems of women and men serving together, and the
"leadership" is in denial on this.  Remember the Sargent
Major Gene C.  McKinney case?

Or recall during the Gulf War when a battleship arrived on
station and half of the women sailors on board were pregnant.
The war ended before the Navy was faced with the prospect of
mothers nursing infants as they loaded guns or rockets.
Do you think we need or nurseries or daycare centers in
submarines or aircraft carriers?

It may be that "gays in the military" will be less of a 
problem than women in the military in integrated units.

Perhaps "segregated ships" for straight men, gay men. and
women?

.....

But at any rate I think laws and policies should deal with people
according to what they DO, not according to what they ARE, in so
far as possible.  That is, in the case of sex, this is a reality
based in biology.

>As there is in race. I mean, isn't their increased supply of 
>mellanin (sp?) a "biologically based reality?"

But the melanin level in differend individuals is a continuum 
ranging from none in an albino to jet black, and it is not the
determining factor in "race".  There are even albino "blacks".

On the question "do races exist in biology and the law just
recognizes them, or do laws create races?": while there is a lot
of debate, I think the answer is the latter.  

For some discussion of this point, see (where I have tried to
present both sides of the issue)

http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/aa.htm

Note especially the J. Philipe Rushton essay and my Reply

....

There may be some differences in the laws for men and women. 
But categories like "race" and "sexual orientation"
are different, and need not be given legal status.


>I still don't see why it matters whether people are being denied housing
>on the basis of some feature that is biological or not. And if some
>scientists are right, then there is even a biological basis for sexual
>orientation. I'm not sure I believe it. I am sure that I don't see why 
>it matters.

 When the government creates different "races" of people, there
 are usually some visible features which permit other people to
 at least make a good guess as to which "race" a particular
 individual is considered to "be".   But in the case of "sexual
 orientation" we have created a class with no visible means
 of knowing who "is" what.

And what I mean by this is that I can understand a black man
who can't get a cab in a big city while white people do get
them.  But when a "gay" man claims that someone (the bank, a cab
driver, a landlord) is discriminating against him because of his
"sexual orientation", I wonder just how people know what his
"sexual orientation" is?

 As an aside, just how many "sexual orientations" are there?
 Two?  Three?  Four?

>The ultimate number is irrelevant. If you are going to protect people
>from being denied housing or employment on this basis, then identify as many
>as are apparent, and then if more become apparent later, add them to the
>list.

What about the right to free association?  What if I want to rent
out a room in my house. But not to just anyone?  I may want someone
of my religion. Or my 'sexual orientation'.  Suppose the Boy Scouts
or a day care center does not want to hire a self professed 
pedophile (one of the many kinds or "sexual orientations?)?
Should a Chinese Restaurant be able to hire only "chinese looking"
waiters?

>Nevertheless, it is not always the case there is
>an outward visible characteristic. Take religion. You can't legally deny
most
>forms of employment because of someone's religion, and there's often no
>outward sign that a given person is of one particular religion or another.

My "solution": don't ask, don't tell.  Small companies should be able
to hire whoever they please, and large companies could be required to
ask only questions that are relevent to the job. I mean a Catholic
school should not be required to hire an atheist teacher if they
don't want to.

>And frankly, I can't see any importance to whether or not they're always
>plainly visible for what they are vis a vis whether or not their should be
>some form of legal protection against discrimination aimed at them. Do
you?
>> Daniel in D.C.


I agree that religion is a good illustration.  Should the government
classify people according to their religion? Include it on the
passport for example?  Many countries have.  And then pass laws that
apply differently to people of different religions?  (We seem to be
heading in that direction :-(  Survey employers to insure that they
are not discriminating against people of certain religions?

Maybe a study would conclude that Mormons are "over-represented" in
colleges, and that Fundamentalist Christians are "under-represented"
(especially in science and technology institutes). So "affirmative
action" programs could be set up to admit Fundamentalist Christians
with lower SAT scores, and keep out Mormons unless they had SAT's
that are well above the average of other applicants.  Patterned on
the  affirmative action programs that let in low SAT "Hispanics"
and keep out higher SAT "Asians"?


>Jim, you're mixing the wrongs of preferntial policies with the act of
>acknowledging that there are different races. The latter is necessary to
>protect people from being denied housing and employment on the basis of
>things like race and religion, but doing so doesn't mean you have to engage
>in quotas. You start out condemning one, but then end up describing the
>latter.

There are only different "races" if the government creates them.
And there are as many different "races" as the government creates.
Which is why different countries have different "races" and the
same person will be classified differently in different countries.

What I am trying to say here is that the problems created by the
creation of different races and classes of people are greater and
more destructive than the problems of not doing so.


> But you're leaving out the third case where you don't allow Jim Crow
>laws, don't allow housing and employment discrimination in general, but
>don't create quotas either. That's what I'm calling for.

I don't think it possible to classify people according to race or
class or sexual orientation (or whatever) to insure that no private
citized ever discriminates against any of the catagories created, 
and then not have quotas.

...
You seem to want the government to "protect" people in various
legally created classes from private discrimination.

As an example of the difference in concept: in Madison a year
or so ago, a local "gay rights" group demanded that the stores
on State Street provide a list of their employees and the
"sexual orientation" of each. They wanted to insure that the
stores were not discriminating against "gays".  And without
such records, how could anyone document whether or not this
discrimination was taking place?  Each store would need to
prove that they had hired "gays" in proportion to their
representation in the Madison area, etc.
Is that the world you want?


>No. I've said nothing about people have to keep records to "prove" that
>they aren't discriminating. Let the burden of proof be on those claiming
>they were discriminated against.

>Daniel in D.C.

But the main evidence used to prove discrimination is the pattern
of past hiring.  The employer must show that they have not been
guilty if they are accused.  But how can either side make a case
that either they did not discriminate (or that they were 
discriminated against) without records showing the relative number
of the "group" that were hired or not hired in the past?  To 
compare with the fraction of that "group" that is in the general
population (or that applied for jobs at that company).

To support my point that we can't have legally recognized 'groups'
without quotas for them, consider that it was only a few years
in the late 1960's between the end of Jim Crow laws and restrictive
covenants in housing (don't sell to THEM), and the start of 
Affirmative Action and quotas.  The US has never tried doing it
my way.  But from the various 'anti-affirmative action' ballot
initiatives that have passed, I think a  lot of people want to
give it a try.


ROUND II

Affirmative Action & Caste in India

Hi,

I was looking over some old correspondence and had another
idea on an old discussion.  Remember this?

Daniel in D.C.:

> But you're leaving out the third case where you don't allow Jim Crow
>laws, don't allow housing and employment discrimination in general, but
>don't create quotas either. That's what I'm calling for.

jeb:

I don't thik it possible to classify people according to race or
class or sexual orientation (or whatever) to insure that no private
citized ever discriminates against any of the catagories created, 
and then not have quotas.

...
You seem to want the government to "protect" people in various
legally created classes from private discrimination.

I came across an article about the caste system in India and the
debate over how to end it.  (all parties want to end it). India
has a complex system of many (about 7?) different casts that
people are born into and that they cannot change. The main concern
of the reformers is with the lowest cast, the "untouchables", and
how to keep other people from discriminating against them.

The options debated are the same as we were debating: one group
says stop classifying people by caste, and stop keeping records
of which caste everyone belongs to.  Eventually caste will
disappear, especially as more people move from rural villages
to the cities.  (basically my position)

But the opposing view is that this provides no way to prove that
people are not discriminating against the untouchables.  They say
that everyone should have their caste recorded on their various
documents and that India should celebrate the diversity of the
casts.  There is a movement to instill pride in one's caste and
there should be cast based quotas for jobs and university
admissions. (the Daniel in DC plan?).  The "untouchables" are
now called "dalits".

It looks like this is the winning plan.  See for example:

http://www.pcsadvt.com/dlet/


                     ,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
                       (_)
jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time 
call:   http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834