Virginia: Through The Looking Glass

[skunk]

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/CUCCGAT05_20100305-182601/328592/
AG says public colleges can’t prohibit bias against gays

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says Virginia’s colleges and universities cannot prohibit discrimination against gays because the General Assembly has not authorized them to do so.
In a letter Thursday to the presidents, rectors and boards of visitors of Virginia public colleges, Cuccinelli said: the law and public policy of Virginia “prohibit a college or university from including ‘sexual orientation’, ‘gender identity’, ‘gender expression’ or like classification, as a protected class within its non-discrimination policy, absent specific authorization from the General Assembly.“
He said the recipients must consider the letter “as the opinion and advice” of the office of Attorney General.
And the recently elected Attorney General said those colleges or universities that have included sexual orientation in their policies acted without proper authority and those policies are invalid.
Tucker Martin, Gov. Bob McDonnell’s director of communications, noted that “the legal analysis . . . is consistent with all prior opinions from the Office of the Attorney General over the last 25 years on the subject.“
But Martin added: “The governor will appoint board members based solely on their ability and on their strong commitment to educational excellence in Virginia. The governor expects that no Virginia college or university, or any other state agency, will engage in discrimination of any kind.“
The official written employment policy for the office of the governor expressly forbids discrimination on any basis other than qualification and merit, he added.
Most of the state’s public universities have policies prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. Today they were exploring how to react to Cuccinelli’s letter.
“Our policy covers some things the attorney general says it can’t,“ said University of Mary Washington Rector Nanalou Sauder. She said the board and UMW administrators will need to discuss what action the university can take.
“We expect that there’s going to be significant reaction from the university community as they learn about it,“ said Virginia Commonwealth University spokeswoman Pam Lepley.
College of William and Mary spokesman Brian Whitson said the letter would need to be closely reviewed before the college can determine how to proceed.
“William and Mary has had a long tradition of inclusion and diversity,“ he said.
The University of Virginia had no comment. “The university received a letter—marked privileged and confidential—from the attorney general. Any questions about the letter will need to be addressed to the attorney general or his office,“ spokeswoman Carol Wood said in a statement.
Jon Blair, chief executive officer of Equality Virginia, criticized Cuccinelli’s opinion.
“Attorney General Cuccinelli clearly doesn’t understand that his radical actions are putting Virginia at risk of losing both top students and faculty, and discouraging prospective ones from coming here,“ he said.
Ashley Mitchell, youth programs coordinator for ROSMY, called the letter “a huge step backwards.“
Colleges and universities have done “a fantastic job” ensuring the rights of sexual minority youths and this will be a huge challenge for them, she said.
Cuccinelli said the General Assembly has defined protected classes on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth, age, marital status or disability, but “on numerous occasions considered and rejected creating a protected class on the basis of sexual orientation.

This is very bizarre. What are Virginia's colleges supposed to do now? Introduce mandatory discrimination?

[leekohler]

OMG. :eek: I'm speechless.

[Queso]

Just when you think you've heard it all. Lee, I'm beginning to think the only way forward for your country is for it to collapse and become part of Canada.

[bobber205]

Just when you think you've heard it all. Lee, I'm beginning to think the only way forward for your country is for it to collapse and become part of Canada.

^^
This please. :D

[CaptMurdock]

^I, for one, welcome our new Canadian overlords, eh?

Seriously, I do not see this surviving a legal challenge on Fourteenth Amendment grounds...of course, I've said this about bans on same-sex marriage.

[abijnk]

Canada, eh? I'm game.

Seriously, this is ******* crazy.

[leekohler]

Just when you think you've heard it all. Lee, I'm beginning to think the only way forward for your country is for it to collapse and become part of Canada.

It already is collapsing. No one is going to be able to fix it as long as BS like this goes on.

[yg17]

Sadly, I'm not surprised. And I think that's the worst part of it, that in this day and age, I'm still not surprised when people do **** like this. We have not come very far as a nation. We need the military of the 1950s and the civil rights of the 2010s, not the other way around.

Just when you think you've heard it all. Lee, I'm beginning to think the only way forward for your country is for it to collapse and become part of Canada.

Can I request a Tim Hortons in my backyard? There's ample room.

[Xavier]

At least with Canada, we'd have universal health care

[Queso]

A quick update on this story. Following public refusals to comply and declarations of disgust from the higher education establishments themselves, over a thousand students taking to the State's Senate House in protest, and the lobbying of business interests to consider moving from Virginia due to "concerns about the political climate" the AG has basically been told to keep his mouth shut. The Governor's Office has issued an Executive Directive stating that anti-gay discrimination is still prohibited under the State's law and that any employer who is found to discriminate could face fines.

Not quite the full protection under the law that other forms of discrimination in the state receive, but considering Virginia's Governor is Regent University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regent_University) alumni Bob McDonnell this is possibly as good as it's going to get in the short term.

[leekohler]

I'm glad people are standing up to this nonsense.

[Queso]

Academics don't take kindly to being told what they can and cannot do on their own campus. Chuck in the taint of bigotry and this was the only response the AG could have expected, which makes it all the more bizarre that this was attempted in the first place.

[184550]

Cuccinelli said the General Assembly has defined protected classes on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth, age, marital status or disability, but “on numerous occasions considered and rejected creating a protected class on the basis of sexual orientation.

I can understand where the argument comes from. All of the above listed are very easily proven with the exception of religion. How would one prove that they are gay?

Having said that, I know most of you will flip out and ignore my point and call me a homophobe.

[Queso]

How would one prove that they are gay?
Short of making out with someone of the same-sex in front of everyone it's going to be difficult. Somehow I think that wouldn't go down too well in Virginia though.

[skunk]

I can understand where the argument comes from. All of the above listed are very easily proven with the exception of religion. How would one prove that they are gay?Your list includes another exception, so why would you say "all of the above"?

[184550]

Your list includes another exception, so why would you say "all of the above"?

Do you have anything of substance to say? Or are we playing the technicality game tonight?

[skunk]

Do you have anything of substance to say? Or are we playing the technicality game tonight?I am simply asking why you are posting self-evident bollocks. That's reasonable, isn't it?

[184550]

I am simply asking why you are posting self-evident bollocks. That's reasonable, isn't it?

Yet if I pulled a stunt like this several people who have already posted in this thread would have torn my head off and have told me to stay on topic regardless of any technicalities.

Ah, double standards...

[skunk]

Ah, double standards...The point surely is that, as with all the other cited forms of discrimination, the "victim"'s actual characteristics do not need to be proved, only that any discrimination was based on a perception or presumption of such characteristics, whether accurate or not.

[Gelfin]

I can understand where the argument comes from. All of the above listed are very easily proven with the exception of religion. How would one prove that they are gay?

Having said that, I know most of you will flip out and ignore my point and call me a homophobe.

Don't take it personally, but I am not so much ignoring your point as totally not seeing it. You mention understanding an argument, but the section you quote does not contain an argument. It's just an observation about the behavior of the General Assembly. You go on to say something about proving people are gay, but there is nothing about that in the section you quoted, or, unless I've overlooked it, in the entire original article.

I think you might be seeing something that is going to require some explanation for the rest of us to see what you're getting at.

[leekohler]

The point surely is that, as with all the other cited forms of discrimination, the "victim"'s actual characteristics do not need to be proved, only that any discrimination was based on a perception or presumption of such characteristics, whether accurate or not.

This. That's all that's needed.

[184550]

Don't take it personally, but I am not so much ignoring your point as totally not seeing it. You mention understanding an argument, but the section you quote does not contain an argument. It's just an observation about the behavior of the General Assembly. You go on to say something about proving people are gay, but there is nothing about that in the section you quoted, or, unless I've overlooked it, in the entire original article.

I think you might be seeing something that is going to require some explanation for the rest of us to see what you're getting at.

My understanding of the issue presented above is that the VA AG says that Gays cannot be a protected class in the VA higher education system because they lack any defineable characteristics needed to make them a protected class from discrimination. Take for example skin color. I can easily tell if someone is black or white.

[leekohler]

My understanding of the issue presented above is that the VA AG says that Gays cannot be a protected class in the VA higher education system because they lack any defineable characteristics needed to make them a protected class from discrimination. Take for example skin color. I can easily tell if someone is black or white.

What tangible characteristic makes someone Jewish? Yet we still prohibit discrimination based on religion.

[184550]

What tangible characteristic makes someone Jewish? Yet we still prohibit discrimination based on religion.

Did you not read post 13?

[leekohler]

Did you not read post 13?

Yes, I did. And you still have no point. If a distinguishing characteristic is not needed to prohibit discrimination based on religion, then why is there one need for sexual orientation?

[obeygiant]

What tangible characteristic makes someone Jewish?

Hasidic and Modern Orthodox Jews accept only matrilineal descent or Orthodox converts.
Conservative/Masorti Jews also only accept matrilineal descent or Conservative or Orthodox Converts.
Reform and Reconstructionist Jews accept both matrilineal and patrilineal descent, but patrilineal descent is only accepted if the child was raised Jewish. Reform and Reconstructionist Jews also accept converts from all the movements within mainstream Rabbinical Judaism.

but this is WAY OT.

[184550]

Yes, I did. And you still have no point. If a distinguishing characteristic is not needed to prohibit discrimination based on religion, then why is there one need for sexual orientation?

Then why would you ask this question when I've already stated that I don't understand the logic behind it either?

:confused:

I mean, I enjoy arguing but it's hard to argue a point we seem to be agreeing on.

[leekohler]

Then why would you ask this question when I've already stated that I don't understand the logic behind it either?

:confused:

I mean, I enjoy arguing but it's hard to argue a point we seem to be agreeing on.

I don't think I know what point it was you were making in the first place.

If there's no distinguishing physical characteristic that identifies a person by religion, why would you understand the AG's argument for using a distinguishing characteristic for being gay?

[Gelfin]

My understanding of the issue presented above is that the VA AG says that Gays cannot be a protected class in the VA higher education system because they lack any defineable characteristics needed to make them a protected class from discrimination. Take for example skin color. I can easily tell if someone is black or white.

How have you come to that understanding? Do you have any specific example of the AG saying that? Because it seems an odd thing to say. I am still not sure what the AG would mean by that.

Obviously people can tell the difference, or there wouldn't be discrimination at all. Moreover, there are subtle ways you can tell someone is gay: I find expressing a romantic or sexual interest in someone of the same sex to be a fairly reliable indicator.

Regardless, I think I still need you to walk me through the reasoning by which the AG might think "proof" of homosexuality is relevant to protecting people from discrimination on the basis of real or imagined sexual preference. Since you've said you understand that argument, perhaps you wouldn't mind presenting it. Or offering a link to the AG making that connection himself, if you have one handy.

[skunk]

Hasidic and Modern Orthodox Jews accept only matrilineal dissent or Orthodox converts.
Conservative/Masorti Jews also only accept matrilineal dissent or Conservative or Orthodox Converts.
Reform and Reconstructionist Jews accept both matrilineal and patrilineal dissent, but patrilineal dissent is only accepted if the child was raised Jewish. Reform and Reconstructionist Jews also accept converts from all the movements within mainstream Rabbinical Judaism.

but this is WAY OT.It is also irrelevant. "Tangible characteristics" in the context in which the phrase was used means recognisable to an observer without recourse to public records. Matrilineal or other descent (I dissent from your spelling) is not visible to an observer, nor is it essential in all cases - as you yourself have pointed out.

Or are we talking about measuring facial characteristics...?

[obeygiant]

Or are we talking about measuring facial characteristics...?

If you're talking about the jewish nose, like the antique stereotype, I haven't really noticed that characteristic so much. But there is some ethnicity associated with judaism isn't there?

[Sydde]

Yet, withal, the real difficulty can come not as proof of minority status but proof of discrimination. "I chose not to include so-and-so for whatever-semi-valid-reason, not because so-and-so is a thus-and-such." Granted, patterns can be discerned over the long term, but by then, the damage has been done.

I have been assumed to be gay because my achilles tendon makes me bounce when I walk. Not to mention the fact that I like the comfort (and the smiles from the girls) of wearing a Utilikilt most of the time. In this respect, discrimination based on my perceived sexual orientation is just as relevant as if I were indeed gay (whether I am or not).

Still, I think at this point, we need some important additional information (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/racial_slur_development_not) on the general subject.

[skunk]

If you're talking about the jewish nose, like the antique stereotype, I haven't really noticed that characteristic so much. But there is some ethnicity associated with judaism isn't there?No. There are racial characteristics shared by Semitic people as a whole, but since this group includes most of the inhabitants of the Middle East irrespective of religious affiliation, it is totally irrelevant. Judaism is a religion, not a racial group.