Libertarians and Social Oppression.

January 28, 2011

11:00 PM

Radley Balko tells the story of Belmont University, a soccer coach, and the power of private action to fight prejudice and discrimination:

It all began last month, when the private Christian college Belmont University fired women’s soccer coach Lisa Howe shortly after Howe revealed to her players that she and her same-sex partner were expecting a child. Belmont has maintained that Howe was not fired for her orientation, and resigned on her own. But no one in town really believes that. Howe’s players say she told them she was pressured to resign because of her orientation.

Belmont is a very conservative school. All faculty members are required to sign a declaration of faith before they’re hired. Until 2007, the school was officially affiliated with the Tennessee Baptist Convention. And as a private institution, Belmont was well within its legal rights to fire Howe. Tennessee’s anti-discrimination law does not include sexual-orientation, but even if it did, such regulations often include exemptions for religious institutions.
But that doesn’t mean Belmont is immune from criticism and pressure from outside the government. And in the following weeks, a curious thing happened. Belmont students held protests in support of Howe. Faculty members spoke out on her behalf. The Faculty Senate passed a resolution in support of the school’s gay employees, and demanded that school administrators sponsor an open discussion about Belmont’s discrimination policy. Belmont benefactor, trustee, and Nashville music baron Mike Curb threatened to withhold his financial support for the school, and wrote a public letter praising the faculty for speaking out on what he called a “basic civil rights issue.”
[...]
The payoff: Belmont trustees announced just today that they are adding sexual orientation to their non-discrimination policy.

Balko concludes, "Again, this is just one example. But it’s a pretty compelling one. This conservative, Christian school in the buckle of the Bible Belt was convinced by private actors to explicitly protect homosexuals from discrimination in hiring, promotion, and firing decisions. And all without the threat of force stemming from a law or regulation."

So, here's my question. What about the teacher who doesn't have a community willing to stand up for her? What happens in a town where social and economic forces are arrayed against minorities and anyone who would dare to help them? Many gays live in towns where culture and custom forbids open homosexuality. If they were fired for their orientation, would they say anything? It's one thing to fight back in a place where tolerance is valued; it's very different when you risk isolation, contempt, and derision for taking a stand on behalf of the "other."

I respect Balko and his work, but I'm not sure if he understands the full, pervasive force of social and cultural power, especially when it serves an agenda of prejudice and discrimination. Yes, states had Jim Crow laws, but Jim Crow drew its real force from social conventions and the white majority's willingness to enforce them with violence. Blacks could be beaten if they refused to answer to "boy," or declined to step aside for the white child as he walked down the sidewalk. They could be tortured and killed for looking the "wrong way" at a white woman, or -- frankly -- they could be tortured and killed for sport, as something to pass the time.

Obviously, most gays don't face that nightmare.The point is just to emphasize the extent to which custom can be as oppressive as any totalitarian regime. This might be a blind spot -- it might be an ideological tick -- but libertarians have a hard time seeing this fact, and to me at least, it's the main thing that distinguishes them from liberals. We both want to see individual flourishing, but libertarians understand that as an economic matter, impeded by the government. Liberals -- to our credit, I think -- understand this as having much broader implications.

-- Jamelle Bouie