[309] in peace2
Re: [bostonrnr] Supreme Court Upholds Discrimination Against Gays
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (danah boyd)
Sat Jul 1 21:29:21 2000
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 21:28:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: danah boyd <danah@media.mit.edu>
Reply-To: danah@acm.org
To: Roni Gold <iamroni@hotmail.com>
cc: bostonrnr@egroups.com, peace-list@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <20000630235730.43634.qmail@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.05.10007012002190.11003-100000@ml.media.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Although you site Aimee on your request, I am assuming that you are
opening it up to all by your CCing, so I would like to offer my thoughts
on the matter.
First, hello... I am a new member of these lists as I will be starting
graduate school at MIT in the fall and want to get involved in the
activist community early to ease the transition.
As an out and loud ultra-liberal queer woman, I received at least 20
emails on this matter within the first 24 hours of the announcement. I
was expected to be outraged, but my initial opinion was quite the
opposite. I am still waiting for someone to convince me to be outraged.
As I watched the Boy Scout case unfold in both conservative and liberal
press, the attention was on the "gay issue". Even the stance of the Boy
Scouts was focused with that concern in mind. As they professed their
descrimination of women in their charters, they were exempt from being
charged on that (even if the ERA never passed...). They claimed that the
same was true for gays (even if their is a dispute that "straight and
moral" really can be said to be actively discriminating against gays.)
Everyone turned to the Irish Day Parade, stating that we have a permission
to discriminate against gays because of moral disagreement. As I see it,
the Supreme Court moved beyond the question of gays vs. Christian morality
and into a larger question - does a private organization have the right to
choose its members? And I have to believe that the answer is "yes".
Scarily enough, I actually agree with Rehnquist that by not allowing the
BS to discriminate, they are failing to protect "freedom to assemble."
It does sadden me that the BS choose to actively discriminate. (Although,
I knew that even before this incident, remembering when I tried to join
and was not allowed or when my brother tried to join but was forced to
leave due to an intolerance for his visual handicap.) Frankly, I think
that the world knowing that the organization is one based on hatred is a
good thing. But with all this in mind, I don't believe that our goverment
has the right to force a private organizing to accept members that they
don't want. I think that that is a dangerous path to follow. But! I
also believe that any organization or institution that fails to abide by
the gov't non-discrimination policies does not have the right to receive
_any_ form of subsidation (including the US military....). I also believe
that this eliminates the organization's right to recruit through publicly
funded mandatory institutions (such as schools). This is a form of forced
acceptance for discrimination, not that different from the Texas football
game prayer sitch.
What actively angers me about the BS situation has nothing to do with the
court decision. I am angered by the premise of it, by the belief that
child molestation would be increased by permitting gay leaders. From
everything that I have ever heard, most child molesters are straight.
This is a travesty to me, the increasing of this inaccurate belief.
Ok.. I have rambled and I am going to stop now... the short of it is that
as of now, I believe that the Court made a wise decision concerning the
overriding, larger issue. For the protection of private rights, I think
that we need to allow for groups to make their own decisions about
membership, based on whatever factors they decide. I know that this has
the potential to increase the privileges of the privileged few, but it
also has the ability to protect the minority from requiring the majority
to join. (i.e. a women-only space or a queer-only space). Besides,
forcing acceptance does not force tolerance. I believe it is our
responsibility to teach tolerance and then acceptance will follow.
Exclusive organizations, regardless of what the exclude have a wide
variety of reasoning for excluding but when that exclusion is based on
hatred or fear, it is only through education that the exclusivity can be
broken down. Force will only increase hatred.
And that is my humble opinion; I would love to hear differing ones.
Danah
------------
d a n a h science chases money, and money chases its tail,
b o y d and the best minds of my generation can't make bail.
and i'm wondering what it would take for my country to rise
first we admit our mistakes then we open our eyes
On Fri, 30 Jun 2000, Roni Gold wrote:
>
> aimee,
> i am unsure of your stance on the issue through this email and am curious to
> know it.
> do you think the supreme court was wrong in its decision? if yes or no, why?
> i for one think it was the correct decision as the right to individual
> privacy, be it a person or an organization, has a high level of importance
> and criticalness that i believe and hope should be obvious to anyone and
> everyone.
> i would much like to read your opinion on the issue, and any dissenters or
> supporters opinion as the topic intrigues me much.
> roni
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
