Clarifying my Views on Nondiscrimination policies
In his comment to my post on the University of Toledo’s decision to suspend an employee for expressing her un-PC views on gay rights, John (AverageGayJoe) asked me to square my opposition to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would prevent private employers from firing an employee because of his sexual orientation and my criticism of the University of Toledo for firing this employee with silly ideas. He asked:
Are you saying that this maxim of yours doesn’t apply when it comes to the University of Toledo? If so, why? UoT may be a public university for all I know but I do recall you rejecting ENDA-like legislation even for the public sector. Why is it that this ‘right’ to discriminate only applies to homosexuality in your eyes but not elsewhere?
First, I never said I opposed ENDA-like policies for the public sector. [Please note that five hours after posting this, I caught an error in the original version of sentence which I have since fixed. --Dan]
Second, had Ms. Dixon worked for a private institution, say Ohio’s Oberlin College, I would support its right to fire her for her silly statements. I might note the hypocrisy of an institution adopting a non-discrimination policy protecting certain individuals while firing another one for her viewpoint, but would leave it at that.
According to is website, The University of Toledo is a “public metropolitan research university . . . . one of 13 state universities in Ohio.” I believe any public institution must adhere to different standards than a private one. Please note that I expressed as much in the original post: “If the crazy ideas she expresses on her own time don’t prevent her from doing her job on the state’s time, then she should be allowed to keep her job.” (Emphasis added)
It’s the simple distinction between public and private. I believe we should allow private institutions the freedom to conduct their affairs as they see fit. The marketplace can punish a private enterprise for its discriminatory policies, but state agencies are, by and large, immune from market conditions.
State institutions, since they, by definition, serve us all, must have different standards. While I oppose nondiscrimination laws in the private sector, I favor nondiscrimination policies in the public sector, protecting gay employees from being fired because of their sexual orientation and also protecting social conservatives because of their views on sexual orientation (or other issues).
I have a lot more to say on this matter and may well address it in a subsequent post, but for the moment, will leave it at that, underscoring the difference between public and private institutions. There are many issues this issue brings up, some addressed in the comment thread following the initial post.
17 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
As I said in the other thread: Government’s duty to prevent discrimination in the official actions of its employees/institutions does not, or for the most part should not, extend to the muzzling their off-duty expressions of personal conscience.
There are going to be logical exceptions to that. It’s appropriate to forbid government employees from advocating the overthrow or destruction of the government they work for. Because of the patronage issue, it’s also appropriate to prohibit them from engaging in partisan political activities. Both of those are covered by the Hatch Act, which has been found constitutional. Did Crystal Dixon do either? Or did she violate any other law? If she did - and, if the law in question is constitutionally appropriate - THEN, and only then, she should be disciplined.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2008 @ 12:54 pm - May 13, 2008
As I indicated in the other thread, Dan, it would appear that I misunderstood your position. However, you do raise some questions in this clarification of yours:
1. “First, I never said I supported ENDA-like policies for the public sector.” - What do you mean by this when you stated support for “non-discrimination” policies in the other thread? Is the difference you are making between “policies” and acts of legislation regarding the public sector?
2. “I believe we should allow private institutions the freedom to conduct their affairs as they see fit. The marketplace can punish a private enterprise for its discriminatory policies, but state agencies are, by and large, immune from market conditions.” - Does this position of yours extend to all cases, including race, religion, etc.? IOW, are you advocating revamping the 1964 Civil Rights Act at least for the private sector?
I may not agree with your views on this, Dan, but I can respect the consistency in reasoning at least. That was the whole point. This may have been sparked by a misunderstanding of your views on this matter but I have seen far too many conservatives engage in blatant hypocrisy just like liberals screaming only when their particular axe is gored.
Comment by John — May 13, 2008 @ 1:20 pm - May 13, 2008
#2 - John makes a good point, and he also illustrates #69 of Peter’s Principle of Politics, which is as follows:
Conservatives like you for WHO you are. Libtards like you for WHAT you are.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 13, 2008 @ 2:21 pm - May 13, 2008
Frankly Peter, while I agree in general with that statement I’ve seen far too many partisans on both ends of the spectrum who’d qualify for either.
Comment by John — May 13, 2008 @ 2:49 pm - May 13, 2008
#4 - Well John, from my personal experience I’d say the race-baiters and identity politicians are all emerging from the left side of the aisle.
Just my experience.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 13, 2008 @ 2:58 pm - May 13, 2008
Well Peter, it appears that race-baiting and identity politics isn’t limited to the Left, though it does excel at it. Ms. Dixon herself has done the same thing:
“There are three issues - first of all, my right to free speech. Anyone has the freedom in this country to express their opinion as an individual. And secondly, clearly, religious discrimination, and also race discrimination at the very least.” (13ABC)
She probably has a good case for the first two, but racial discrimination? Oh my. Much better disclaimer she gave about speaking as a private citizen in this interview btw.
Comment by John — May 13, 2008 @ 3:16 pm - May 13, 2008
I started to make a comment here that I agree with you, Dan, that the university was wrong to suspend the employee for expressing personal opinions away from her place of employment. Then I decided I’d better go back to your original post. I’m glad I did, because I did not fully understand the circumstances.
Having read the additional information that’s available in your original post, I have to take the university’s side. Had it been said on a blog I would agree the university is wrong; might even lean that way if her opinions had been stated in a letter to the editor. So I am greatly influenced by the means she used to express her opinion; the op-ed page certainly raised the stakes for the university community when tied to the next issue (her job at the university).
More importantly, much more importantly, is the woman’s position at the university. If, for example, she were an English professor, I wouldn’t consider this an issue worthy of the attention it’s obviously getting. But she’s an administrator in human resources.
She has made it clear that because of her personal (religious) views she has “issues” with gays at the university. Because (I assume) she has the authority to make hiring decisions and might have a role in evaluating employees, the university’s chief executive and the state’s policy makers (regents or trustees) have to worry that the university could be sitting on a ticking time bomb.
I want to shift gears a little.
As a businessman I don’t care for a lot of the regulatory burden placed on my business by the federal and state governments and I’d be delighted if the Congress and my state legislature occasionally took a few months off and occasionally didn’t introduce any new legislation for an entire year.
But while I treat my 1,400 employees as our companies’ most valuable assets, it’s obvious, especially to those of us in business, that many, many employers do not respect their employees.
Yes, it’s true, as you’ve pointed out several times in recent months, that most of the Fortune 500 companies have voluntarily broadened their anti-discrimination policies to include sexual orientation.
But the last time I checked most Americans are employed in small businesses, where owners and managers may not be so enlightened.
Let me tell a story.
I know a man in his early 40s who’s an excellent and dependable worker (I’d hire him myself but he has neither the skills nor education our companies require). He drifted through a number of jobs until two years ago when he found one where he could use his hands as well as take on some supervisory responsibility on the production line — a perfect fit for him. He was well-liked by both his peers and his supervisors. He received outstanding evaluations and pay raises every six months. In addition to a substantiial bonus shortly after his first anniversary, he was told he’d be getting a promotion.
His gayness was not an issue. He hadn’t seen any reason to “come out” to fellow employees so no “Joe Six Packs” had any reason to be uncomfortable around Tony in the restroom or locker room.
Last October the plant manager and Tony’s immediate supervisor took him aside and said he’d get his promotion at the end of the month and he’d be working with new hires as a trainer.
A week later a woman who knew Tony “way back when” started working at the plant. Within a day or two everyone at the plant knew Tony’s gay. Less than a week after the woman’s arrival, Tony’s supervisor called him into his office at the end of a day’s work and told Tony to clean out his locker and vacate the premises; the company would mail his final paycheck to him. The supervisor refused to discuss with Tony why he’d been fired and the plant manager refused to see him.
Like I said, I’m a free enterprise guy, but I favor ENDA. Employers who judge employees not on the basis of the work they do and the work they are capable of dooing but on the basis of an employee’s race, color, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, etc., should lose a little of his freedom to run his business as he chooses.
Comment by Trace Phelps — May 13, 2008 @ 3:17 pm - May 13, 2008
Is there any evidence that Ms. Dixon has shown an anti-gay bias in hiring or evaluating subordinates or is this just assumed because her views differ? Then again, what if she had made similiar statements about race? Would that change matters here?
Comment by John — May 13, 2008 @ 3:21 pm - May 13, 2008
#7 - Trace, that’s a moving story. Unfortunately, this guy is not a “protected minority” per the Fourteenth Amendment (read: woman or person of color), so his chances of winning a civil rights lawsuit is nil.
Hubby had a similar experience: he works in the public hospital system and made a seemingly innocuous comment to a man he met in the elevator (like “you look really handsome” or something to that effect). The man, an Indian male in his late 20s, filed a grievance based on same-sex harrassment.
I kid you not.
When we consulted our gay conservative attorney, he basically told us that because Hubby is not a woman or minority, he didn’t have a case. Even a civil lawsuit would not carry much weight here in Harris County, Texas because of the ethnic makeup of the jury (read: blacks and Hispanics), most of whom are violently anti-gay.
Sidenote: remember that the next time someone says that all straight white males are homophobic. In the 2006 state referendum of DOMA, 95% of blacks and 82% of Hispanics in Texas voted in favor of it. Only 68% of whites did. And guess who mobilized the DOMA GOTV? That’s right - black preachers (hello, Rev Wright). But I digress.
I hesitate to say I support ENDA because like you, Trace, I am a free-market guy who does not want the government telling me who I can and cannot hire, because one day it will backfire and an employer will be stuck with a slacker whom he cannot fire because of a pending lawsuit.
However, if I had been in your friend’s spot, I would have immediately alerted the media and told my story, thereby letting the public judge whether or not it was fair or not. Surely, there has to be at least one sympathetic reporter in the MSM who wants a little exposure for a juicy story like that. (SARC)
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 13, 2008 @ 3:33 pm - May 13, 2008
Employers who judge employees not on the basis of the work they do and the work they are capable of dooing but on the basis of an employee’s race, color, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, etc., should lose a little of his freedom to run his business as he chooses.
Well, Trace, I’m sure we can find former employees of your business who are willing to argue that they were fired despite excellent performance because their manager was a bigot.
Does that mean I can arbitrarily demand that you put your business under government control and lose your freedoms?
Seriously, did you talk to the plant manager? Did you talk to the business owner? Or did you only talk to Tony and just assume that he was right and that everyone else was a bigot?
Meanwhile, you are guilty of exactly what you accuse Dixon of doing. You have no evidence that she hasn’t done her job, or that she has violated university policy. All you have is an op-ed that you disagree with in the local paper.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 13, 2008 @ 5:23 pm - May 13, 2008
In terms of that being a reference to Ms. Dixon, I would beg to differ. I could be wrong of course, but I would take a bet of dollars to donuts that Ms. Dixon is a Democrat and considers herself a liberal. Liberals can align themselves with conservatives on some special issue, just as the reverse. That may confuse the labels, but the point is - and, as Jonah Goldberg just wrote an entire book about - identity politics and race-baiting are characteristic of Left politics, not Right.
Take the Nazis, as the ultimate in identity politics and race-baiting. They were of the Left. That is, they were socialists, and shared a great deal of theory with contemporary American and European eugenics thinkers who were also on the political Left. (Secular, pushing for socialism, etc.)
In American history, the populist, Left party (Democratic) has always stood for racial thinking: first slavery and the “three fifths” compromise, then Jim Crow, and in today’s world, racial quotas.
She did. That’s the part we should all really be offended about. Here’s what she said:
First of all, there is no “black race”. Just as there is no “white race”. None. Science shows that ethnic groups barely have meaning, and alleged “races” (super-groupings of ethnic groups) have no meaning. Next, she said:
Sub-text: Let’s re-distribute income on racial groupings. That is, again, characteristically Left politics.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2008 @ 5:44 pm - May 13, 2008
Then sorry, Trace, but you’re not a free enterprise guy. Part of being a “free enterprise” guy is saying, yeah, I’m sorry this guy lost his job, but upholding freedom of association is even more important.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2008 @ 5:52 pm - May 13, 2008
Trace, I appreciate that you make it clear by the very language you use in your final paragraph (in #7) that you believe employers should lose a little freedom.
I disagree with you here, but appreciate that you’re not being as disingenuous as some advocates of ENDA who claim this legislation promotes freedom.
My only comment at this time to your point is to ask who are you to judge? Wouldn’t an extreme social conservative say an institution should lose freedom to hire openly gay people or individuals who have sexual relationships outside marital bonds?
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 13, 2008 @ 6:47 pm - May 13, 2008
I haven’t figured out where I stand on ENDA because I haven’t done my homework yet. Shame on me.
We had a situation like this on a previous job that I had. We had an employee whom we could not fire (according to HR) because he was a minority. This was after he repeatedly skipped worked do to “illness” yet was seen partying during those sick days. Soon after, he was denied leave because he had used up all of his vacation days, yet he skipped work and left the country. Fortunately, he quit on his own because there was nothing we could do about it.
My point is that these laws are a double-edged sword. (Is that the right metaphor?) In the effort to protect the innocent, we actually do more to protect the guilty.
Comment by NaturallyGay — May 13, 2008 @ 8:21 pm - May 13, 2008
There are several comments about my comments to which I would like to respond.
First, I never accused the administrator at Toledo University of actually showing bias against gays in her capacity as a human resources administrator. I said I felt the university administration et al could view it as sitting on a ticking time bomb. I based my comment on how I would react as a CEO in a similar situation.
If I had someone in human resources management who publicly stated her issues with gays I would not want her in that slot anymore for fear of long and costly discrimination lawsuits. Even if the rejected job applicant was totally unfit for the job he could argue discrimination if he were aware of her op-ed piece about gays. My company would no doubt win but would have spent thousands in legal fees in the process.
(Our corporate headquarters is located in a state where gays have no protections in employment and housing discrimination but most of our operations and all of our subsidiaries are in cities or states with anti-discrimination laws.)
By the way, in the case of a human resource administrator having issues with gays, if she were otherwise a valuable employee I would not get rid of her because of her views, even I personally would find them totally repugnant. I would move her to a position with comparable management responsibilities and salary but with no role in the hiring or evaluation of employees.
In the case of my friend, Tony, being fired shortly after a woman outed him at work: I did not just take Tony’s word for the circumstances. One of that company’s management attends our church and at a social function at church I asked him what he knew about Tony. He admitted that “upstairs” didn’t want a gay employee and word came down to get rid of him. He could tell me the truth without fear because no federal or state laws were violated. There’s a P.S.: A month or so later I happened to find out that the owner of the company where Tony was fired and his wife are quite active in a fundamentalist church and were leaders (and fiancial backers) in a petition drive to put an anti-gay marriage, anti-civil union constitutional amendment on our state ballot.
I very much believe in the free enterprise system and when it comes to my family’s companies I happen to believe that I and the management I’ve hired know more about operating the companies than all the bureaucrats in Washington and several state capitals will ever know collectively. But I don’t believe business should be operating totally untethered. Some rules are necessary because a lot of scoundrels are in business.
I can’t let children under a certain age work around certain types of equipment. And why would I want to? But laws are needed because some owners don’t give a damn what happens. I have to limit the hours students work on school nights. I don’t mind the restriction but without having to think very hard I can name a dozen members of the local chamber of commerce who’ll cheat every chance they get.
I don’t have a problem with a 40 hour week and requirements for overtime pay. We ended sweat shops decades ago and I think the free enterprise system is better for it. I think I have an obligation to provide my employees safe worksites with good lighting, fresh air, working furnaces and AC’s. In return for loyalty, competence, dependability, etc., I feel an obligation to compensate my employees with the highest salaries we can afford, to provide them insurance coverage (’tho reality now requires that employees pay a small share of the premiums), to give them breaks each day, holidays off and vacations. As long as their personal off-the-job lifestyles don’t affect their job performances it isn’t any of my business whether they’re straight or gay, celibate or shacking up. Since my only legitimate concern is how employees do their jobs and relate to others on the job, an employee’s race, color, nationality, age,gender and sexual orientation cannot legally be any concern of mine.
Many of you, perhaps most, will disagree with me, but I believe what I’ve described is the minimum employers ought to provide employees. Unfortunately, in many instances it has become necessary for government to make sure employers are responsible.
Now, I go a little beyond that minimum and that should always be my option; it isn’t any bureaucrat’s business. For example, every one of our companies’ facilities has at least a room with gym equipment and a quiet room for reading or meditation. All of our employees get a 90-minute lunch “hour”. It’s up to each employee to divide his or her time into eating, working out, reading, taking a walk outside, etc. We’ve located all of our newer facilities on large tracts just outside towns so employees have opportunities to jog, run, ride bikes, etc., if they enjoy those activities.
We give our employees paid idays off for commonly-observed religious holidays. I don’t know if they still do it, but the Reader’s Digest Association used to require employees with children to take some summer Fridays off to take the children to baseball games, etc. We don’t require any specific activities but all of our facilities are closed the last Friday of every month (it’s something our customers have learned to live with). We encourage employees to spend the Fridays with families and friends, and if parents or grandparents don’t live too far away, to occasionally use the three-day weekends to visit those relatives.
We don’t allow employee ownership but every December we set 35 percent of our pre-tax profits aside and award them to employees as Christmas bonuses based on the number of years with the companies.
So far, those things required by local, state or federal government haven’t been a burden, either in dollar costs, the frustrations with paperwork, etc., or any feeling that we aren’t in charge of our own company. And those things we voluntarily do for our employees do cost a lot of money but over time they make money for us because we don’t have much turnover and spend very little training new employees.
Comment by Trace Phelps — May 14, 2008 @ 5:23 pm - May 14, 2008
The amusing part, Trace, is that you brag about how you “don’t have to” do all of these things — but then insist that laws to force businesses to do things are necessary because all businesses cheat and want to hurt their employees.
Furthermore, if your systems are as successful as you claim, there is business logic in not discriminating. It is also peoples’ right to do things illogically if it makes sense for them. In the case of Tony, it quite obviously made more business sense to the people involved to have him gone versus having him around. Their loss.
Meanwhile, Trace, what discrimination laws allow people to do, even those who are completely unqualified for the job, is to sue you, claim discrimination, and force you to pay the legal expenses of defending yourself — even in the absence of such op-eds.
Discrimination laws would make some modicum of sense if they could not be used in that fashion — i.e., if they were “loser pays” and people who filed frivolous lawsuits were required by law to pay the legal costs of the defendant. But, regardless of how one looks at it, they are unnecessary government intrusion into business, and they, like NaturallyGay adeptly pointed out, protect incompetent people who skate by on their minority status and cost businesses money.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 14, 2008 @ 6:51 pm - May 14, 2008
If you are still around this post, North Dallas Thirty, please cite where I said, or even implied, that “ALL” businesses cheat and want to hurt their employees. I would never make such a blanket accusation. Most business owners and managers consider their employees their most valuable assets — and many, I know, regret they can’t afford to do more for their employees. But, as is true in every sector of our society, there are people in business who bring shame to us and who, if allowed to remain in business, must be regulated.
Comment by Trace Phelps — May 15, 2008 @ 2:33 pm - May 15, 2008