From: msmorris@watsci.UWaterloo.ca (Mike Morris)
Subject: Re: Homophobia (really not about  Homeschooling)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:27:44 GMT

                               Friday, the 8th of January, 1993

Rod Williams writes at me:
  But the good citizens of Colorado, with whom you've expressed
  agreement, voted to single out inclusion in a particular
  minority group for special *exclusion* from the provisions of
  existing and future civil rights laws.

Yes, and as I've said, I would be much happier with the measure
if it had said ``Sexual Orientation'' shall not be the basis
of such laws. On the other hand, since I consider such ``future
civil rights laws'' at bottom unjust, it seems to me to be a
reasonable first step in opposing such legislation.

Regarding the possibility of government allowing employers
to discriminate in hiring actually leading to there
being little discrimination (or, say, no more discrimination
than we have today), Rod responds:
  I don't know what leads you to believe this, given ample
  historical evidence that such discrimination has flourished
  in the past -- the very reason civil rights laws were
  passed -- and is pervasive today, despite its illegality.

Well, the historical evidence is *exactly* what I point to
all of the time with Canadians (who as a rule love to
respond to just about any problem with a legislative program).
You see, Rod, there seems to be this (what I think is loony)
belief going around that making a law against some disapproved behaviour
will be enough to make the behaviour disappear. I would say rather
that the evidence is that it doesn't work this way at all. Hey,
I grew up in the 70s in white, suburban Indianapolis during the heady
days of the institution of ``busing to achieve racial integration''.
Right now, looking back on the States from Canada over the
past few years, I can't help but thinking how really bad the
problem of race *still is* in the States. Is there any evidence
that this great social experiment has actually worked to integrate
black and white society? Or even that it has worked to ameliorate
any of the problem of racial tension in the U.S.?

Why is the response when these laws don't work (cf. anti-drug
laws) always to think that we need more such laws, rather than
less? I think what it does, instead of facing the problem justly
and squarely and making it a subject for real and open debate,
by trading off ``just a wee little injustice for the social
good'' (allowing wrongful termination suits on the grounds
of minority status *does* infringe upon the employer's right
to free association), is to drive the real problem underground
where it's going to be that much harder to get at. I quite agree
that discrimination still takes place despite its illegality.

  Your position is certainly consistent, but it betrays a
  streak of smug Social Darwinism, or perhaps merely a
  foolish misunderstanding of human nature.

Liberalism, Rod, not Social Darwinism. There's a big difference.
As to my understanding of human nature, and my insistence that
individual human beings be left to exercise their Rights, the
misunderstanding that other people often have is that this promises
somehow that these individuals will necessarily choose the good.
I certainly don't believe that. I just think that individuals
need room in which to choose either good or bad, and if individuals
are denied this room, then the injustice of denying it to them is
going to manifest itself as a social pathology. In other words, I
believe that it is the left and the right who join hands in
misunderstanding human nature in this respect (in their both
being willing to deny individuals this room for moral choice, however
different their respective agendas may be).

                 Mike Morris
           (msmorris@watsci.uwaterloo.ca)