|
|
This chapter reviews some of the most important arguments used to support civil rights policies.
Although these arguments haven't changed much over the last few years, they may have by the time you read this. Make sure you talk to others who've recently worked on similar policies, and take the time to develop your arguments.
The argument which has been most effective so far in persuading people focuses on what the policy would actually do if enacted -- prohibit discrimination, in jobs, housing, services, etc., -- and calls on people to support it regardless of how they may feel about LGBT people in general. In a society where individuals must work to survive, the argument goes an employer can't be allowed to get rid of someone who does a job well just because the employer disapproves of her or him as a person. Employment in a multicultural society where people are responsible for themselves has to be based on ability and willingness to work. If it isn't, given all the kinds of personal prejudice we have -- racial, religious, etc. -- people simply won't be able to take care of themselves.
The argument does not admit that any kind of intolerance is right; just that it is a pervasive fact of life, and that it can not be allowed to dictate whether or not a person has a job.
The argument goes on to say that the function of civil rights laws is to return the system to its focus on merit once it becomes clear that some people are losing jobs for reasons that have nothing to do with merit. Similar arguments can be put together for housing policies, accommodations policies, etc.
This is a remedial argument. It says things are happening which should not happen, and the policy is designed to stop them. There is an important prevention/protection variation on it. In this form, the argument says that since it is wrong to take away a job for reasons unrelated to ability, the aim of the policy is to prevent discrimination regardless of whether it is happening. The prevention version is usually offered as a secondary theme. However, it can serve as a primary theme if resource limitations prevent you from showing that discrimination exists, and the institution is strongly committed to the idea that discrimination is wrong.
There may also be some institutions and places where all you need to succeed is a prevention argument. Still, even where approval seems a foregone conclusion, careful organizers use the remedial argument as a secondary theme and are ready to support it with proof.
Anti-gay/anti-trans violence is probably the most important secondary theme today. For some board members, testimony about violence without more is enough, because it shows how serious homophobia and transphobia is. For others, you'll need to draw a connection to the anti-discrimination policy. You may be able to get law enforcement witnesses to help.
You can use testimony about violence at hearings on a nondiscrimination policy. You may want to consider making a hate crimes policy part of your effort, or a first step.
Showing that nondiscrimination policy is a trend is another useful secondary theme. Diversity is also an important secondary theme. Boards often assume that most gay people are white men, and that white men are least likely to need protection from discrimination. While proof, for example, that white men can loose jobs for being gay is one answer to that, proof of diversity is also very helpful.
It is the almost universal experience of organizers that making analogies to discrimination based on race, religion and gender is a mistake. That shouldn't be surprising. Making the comparison implies that you understand what race or gender discrimination is like. People who have experienced it naturally resent that presumption, just as most gay and trans people resent it when heterosexuals claim they know what it is like to grow up different in America. Even when the analogy is drawn by someone who has experienced both kinds of discrimination, racial and religious minorities are more apt to take offense than be persuaded.
People are most apt to take exception to claims that not adopting a nondiscrimination policy is somehow akin to the holocaust or to slavery. But putting aside the most outlandish claims, discrimination against different groups is just different in important ways. But there is also a difference between claiming that sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination is "the same" as race discrimination, and allowing people to see that some discriminatory policies and some of the motivations for discrimination are quite similar. Simply allowing similarities to appear can bring you one of the most powerful arguments for a policy; the argument based on similarities works best when made by respected members of the minority groups you are trying to persuade.
At most, you can gently point out similarities between specific discriminatory policies or arguments, but you should always be ready to disclaim the argument that one type of discrimination is identical to another. When you do point out this type of similarity, make sure you have the historical proof you need to make your point.
>> Next: 2. Proving the Need
|
|
