The City of Fairmont just passed a “Human Rights Commission” ordinance, which has gathered lots of press and discussion on social media attention.
The HRC Ordinance is extraordinarily weak. It lacks any sort of real power. It’s sole strength is moral suasion, and what is called “Jawboning,” or convincing people to do what other’s think they should do. That goes back to President Hoover. President Johnson loved the term and used it.
The question was - and is - (1) do we need a Human Rights Commission on a local level and (2) will it be effective.
If you expect a definitive answer in these Dispatches, sorry, you’re looking in the wrong place. MY answer is (1) to create, what the heck, we might as well try it, because it would be tough to screw up human dignity any more than we’re doing and (2) whether effective, not in any appreciable fashion over the short term.
Had I continued on the Fairmont City Council, I would have had to have voted on it. I probably would have voted Yes. It’s not often that you can vote on something that the downside is that what you’re trying will merely be useless. [See Note 1 for my story of the shortest political career in Fairmont history.]
Let’s start with the Mission assigned to the HRC: “. . . [T]o encourage and endeavor to bring about mutual understanding and respect among all persons and encourage and endeavor to safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to be free from all forms of discrimination[,] whether by virtue of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, blindness or handicap.”
WOW. That’s some goal. It’s a worthy meal, like serving a tiger steak. The catch is, first you have to catch the tiger.
The HRC’s mission is what God, Jehovah, Allah, Zeus, Odin, Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, The Force, The Universe, and Congress have been trying to do since the beginning of time. (OK, Congress wasn’t really trying - They realized that it was very unlikely. Instead, they adopted the Viking Motto: “I’ve got mine.”)
The fact that so far, amity and understanding has never worked doesn’t mean that it’s stupid or invalid, just that it’s unlikely to happen to humans. But, didn’t Robert Browning say (in Andrea del Sarto,) “Ah, a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?”
Oh, a “Man’s reach”? Oops. [See Note 2.]
In 1978, I became the Chairman of the first Fairmont Human Rights Commission. The first HRC stopped working in the 1990's, perhaps because that ordinance was unwieldy, full of twists and turns, and didn’t apply to lots of people. Oh, and in retrospect, some of the provisions (e.g., exclusiveness of the remedies - if you went with the original HRC and they ruled against you, you were done) are unconstitutional. It also could have secret hearings and could handily escape Freedom of Information requests. But it could convene hearings and make weighty pronouncements. Harrumph, harrumph.
Oddly, “human rights” was in style in 1978, and it received almost no press. Social media did not yet exist, so discussion was limited to word-of-mouth and the press. That didn’t that a few folks didn’t like it. The City Manager at the time (I forget his name) called the first HRC “a bunch of bomb-throwers.”
So why bother with it now?
Look, we discriminate all the time. There are four restaurants within easy walking distance of the Courthouse. If I go out for lunch, I’ll eat at Moe’s, hands down. He makes a good bowl of chili. I discriminate against the vanilla diner, the Mexican place and the Chinese place. Is that because I’m repulsed by Americanism, Mexicans and Chinese? Or is it because I favor the sons (and daughters) of Italy. (I knew Moe’s father - He was an immigrant from Italy and established a thriving law practice in Barbour County.) To some people, I’m obviously a pro-Italian bigot. No one will EVER convince them otherwise. Some people just cannot handle that I like chili, Moe’s style.
We discriminate in what cars we drive, what town we live in, what colors we wear, what tattoos we get, ad nauseum. Some of the time, we choose stuff which MAY be based on race, religion, etc. If I get a Confederate Battle Flag tattoo, first it’s my business, not yours. I can be driven by racism, a celebration of history or because I think it’s a nice flag. If I tell you were to tell you WHY, you will not believe me because that’s the sort of thing you - and everyone else - has already made up her mind about. (By the way, my only tattoo is Christian. Like any symbol, that’s driven by the First Amendment.)
But we as a society DO discriminate partly on the wrong reasons, on illogical reasons. But that discrimination (1) is hard to prove and (2) won’t change until people’s minds change. The mind has to DECIDE that the barber’s sexual preference doesn’t affect how she can cut hair and national origin doesn’t (usually) mean that you blow stuff up. And then we need to differentiate amongst rational discrimination based on classification from silly reasons. Foreigners who talk jihad shouldn’t get in the country. A blind person shouldn’t get a pilot’s license.
As with everything, the devil’s in the details. If we try to make up rules for everything, the day after tomorrow a situation will arise not covered by the rules. Common sense will take a vacation and everyone will try to fit it within a rule that doesn’t apply.
It seems to take some sort of moral elevation or evolution to discriminate rationally. We’re far from that.
So, will this little city HRC be effective?
Oddly enough, it’s strength is that the ordinance renders it powerless. The new HRC cannot force anyone to do anything. The only affirmative duty it imposes is that the City cannot contract with someone who discriminates based on race, blah, blah, but that already illegal under a host of other laws.
Hmmmm - I’ve just come upon a personal example of the power of thinking things through. As I started this post, I would have said, nope, the HRC won’t be effective. Now, an hour later, I’m not so sure. It depends on who is appointed to the HRC. I’m really not sure who to appoint.
But I have an opinion about who NOT to appoint:
- People who already know exactly what the problems are.
- People who know the answers and cannot believe that we don’t see it.
- People who hide their feeling behind the cover of political correctness.
- People who hide their feelings behind the delusion of political INcorrectness.
- Most people who say, hey, I’d be a good member (as opposed to a faithful member or a thoughtful member).
- People who think it will be easy.
The new HRC’s strength is it’s powerlessness. The members can talk. They can advertise. They can cajole. In other words, they can join the public discussion. In doing so, they can be a part of the solution. Or part of the problem - It’s their choice what messages they deliver and how effective the message will be.
Were I on the commission, I would start by patiently listening. Patience is necessary because everyone needs to get stupid ideas off his chest to make room for thoughtful ideas. If you think that American society will live or die based on what bathroom people use or whether we fly the “Stars & Bars,” that’s a stupid idea. But people have stupid ideas and they need to utter them a while before they will start thinking. In fact, I’d be prepared to patiently listen for a couple of years before thought kicks in.
Then, we MIGHT be prepared to discard what we already “know” and start to think rationally. Oh, and the members will be made up of the larger pitiful group called “humanity,” so they’ll have to spout stupid stuff, too.
Then, the commission needs to be ready to make lots of mistakes, go down lots of dead ends and learn from them. Ideally, what will the answer be? Beats me. Maybe I could qualify as dumb enough to be a faithful or thoughtful commissioner, but if I said I was qualified, I’d automatically (by my rules) disqualify myself.
But this I do know: What the members of the new commission cannot do is bring about an instant change in the human heart. So be ready for the long haul or be ready to be disappointed.
Mizpah!
Note 1: Yes, I was an active member of the City Council in Fairmont - for less than 5 hours. I was appointed on a Tuesday night about 6:30 PM. I was feeling great. At 11:00 that night, I had a stroke and was unable to return to work for three months. So my political career is a mere speck in the dustbin of history, far less than identifying who was president under the Article of Confederation.
Oh, I recovered great from the stroke. I can fight twice my weight in wildcats now.
Note 2: I wonder what the supporters of the HRC would say about Browning. The poem is quite sexist. It included the lines, “Your soft hand is a woman of itself / And mine the man’s bared breast shw crawls inside.” Does that render any helpful opinion void? Does the fact that he lived in a sexist time count? Should we ignore everything that George Washington or Thomas Jefferson said because they were sexist slaveholders? You decide. And lots of luck.
No comments:
Post a Comment