2008 Woodie Awards
Changes in University non-discrimination policy could spark ambiguity in future interpretations
Morgan Hardy
Issue date: 10/12/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
There are certain pieces of legislation action that are political anathema to oppose. If you're against a child's health insurance plan, you're considered a baby-killer, regardless of your reasons for doing so. If you're against lowering taxes, you're a big-government money hat.
The recent movement to change the University's non-discrimination policy to include "sexual orientation" is one of those things. If you oppose it, you're thought as a homophobe. People with political interests, such as anyone on the Board of Regents or in Murray State administration, can't afford to be labeled a homophobe.
Yet there are some compelling arguments against the inclusion of this language that don't involve bigotry, arguments you'll never see printed in this paper from the people who have a lot to lose. I'm not among them, and even though I'm fully in support of workplace diversity, sexual and otherwise, I don't feel this is a good idea.
First of all, it's important to remember that Murray State's policy is in full compliance with state and federal law. It meets the standard and goes no further. This is vital because when an organization exceeds federal and state law in its policies, a dangerous game can result.
Let's remember that "sexual orientation," the desired language for inclusion in the policy, is a very vague stroke. There is no strict legal definition of it, a problem in and of itself. The American Psychological Association states it is "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual or affectional attraction toward others." Thus, the term is both limiting and scarily broad in scope. Including the language would not necessarily include transvestite or transgender individuals, and it could include polygamy and pedophilia. I'm not trying to scaremonger - the odds of a pedophile suing the University under this language are very remote - but the language leaves the possibility open.
Even if we were to include transgender and transvestite in the verbiage, we open a nasty Pandora's box. The transvestite practice is essentially a sexual practice, which means we endorse one practice of sexuality above others. It opens the door for justified claims from practitioners of BDSM (Bondage, Domination, Sado- and Masochism) among literally hundreds of other practices, to request inclusion.
The recent movement to change the University's non-discrimination policy to include "sexual orientation" is one of those things. If you oppose it, you're thought as a homophobe. People with political interests, such as anyone on the Board of Regents or in Murray State administration, can't afford to be labeled a homophobe.
Yet there are some compelling arguments against the inclusion of this language that don't involve bigotry, arguments you'll never see printed in this paper from the people who have a lot to lose. I'm not among them, and even though I'm fully in support of workplace diversity, sexual and otherwise, I don't feel this is a good idea.
First of all, it's important to remember that Murray State's policy is in full compliance with state and federal law. It meets the standard and goes no further. This is vital because when an organization exceeds federal and state law in its policies, a dangerous game can result.
Let's remember that "sexual orientation," the desired language for inclusion in the policy, is a very vague stroke. There is no strict legal definition of it, a problem in and of itself. The American Psychological Association states it is "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual or affectional attraction toward others." Thus, the term is both limiting and scarily broad in scope. Including the language would not necessarily include transvestite or transgender individuals, and it could include polygamy and pedophilia. I'm not trying to scaremonger - the odds of a pedophile suing the University under this language are very remote - but the language leaves the possibility open.
Even if we were to include transgender and transvestite in the verbiage, we open a nasty Pandora's box. The transvestite practice is essentially a sexual practice, which means we endorse one practice of sexuality above others. It opens the door for justified claims from practitioners of BDSM (Bondage, Domination, Sado- and Masochism) among literally hundreds of other practices, to request inclusion.
Viewing Comments 1 - 5 of 6
Ty Bonds
posted 10/13/07 @ 7:39 AM CST
I disagree that there is a need for a non-discrimination policy in this area. There can be language that protect people from danger, but in terms of any sexual practices that are legal, (i. (Continued…)
ShatteredSoul
posted 10/14/07 @ 8:56 PM CST
First of all, it keeps being said that homosexuality is not about sex. You are very wrong. By nearly every definition (with perhaps 2 or 3 exceptions). (Continued…)
Harper
posted 10/16/07 @ 12:28 PM CST
Whatever the merits of protecting individuals involved in BDSM or other outre sexual practices from discrimination, this will *not* result from including the term "sexual orientation" in a discrimination policy. (Continued…)
Voice Of Reason
posted 10/16/07 @ 10:49 PM CST
I cannot help but notice that whenever non-discrimination language is being discussed in an effort to extend protection to a population that has experienced terrible prejudice and mal-treatment over the years, that people seem to automatically respond with a knee jerk reaction that belies their true lack of wisdom and understanding in the matter. (Continued…)
Teresa Ray
posted 10/18/07 @ 2:23 PM CST
Morgan's article is disturbing to me as a grandparent, a student, and a christian.
I disagree with children raised to believe in acceptable cruelty, isolation, and demonization of the marginalized. (Continued…)
Post a Comment