The distance to empathy
Often when some branch of the federal government takes action in the United States a number of people may raise the question of whether the issues addressed by the federal government is a prerogative of the individual states of the United States or the federal government of the United States.
It is interesting that this question has often arisen when the concern is related to:
Overt and covert Jim Crow laws existed in the United States for many years. Separate but equal was, by many considered to be consistent with both the Preamble and the constitution of the United States. I recall very vividly attempting to eat at a restaurant in Northern Virginia which was and is a suburb of Washington, DC and being told that they would not serve me and my black colleague. This would have been in the early 1960ies and was still a long time prior to the Martin Luther King “I have a dream” speech and subsequent federal mandates of one nation for all the citizens including the black citizens.
Prohibition of “Interracial marriage” was not lifted in the United States until 1967 by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Love versus Virginal case.
The don’t ask, don’t tell policy was lifted in 2010 by a federal appeals court judge but did not become effective until 2011.
We have yet in the United States to adopt an equal rights amendment to include women in the United States.
The ruling of the supreme court confirming that the right of same sex couples in all the States of these United States was in June 2016. That right was illegal in many states of the United States until then. The attorney general of the state of Florida in which I am now living had vigorously opposed same sex marriage.
One of the Presidential Candidates has gained international attention for his promise to, “for a time”, outlaw the immigration of all Muslims into the United States.
Given the above and many other examples which one could list it should not come as any surprise that the May 13, 2016 decision by the federal Education Department of the United States informing the nation’s schools that they must immediately begin allowing students to use the bathrooms, locker rooms and showers of the student’s choosing or risk have title IX-linked funding withdrawn should result in such a strong, emotional reaction by the government of many states. Eleven states have now banned together to sue the Obama Administration. These states include my former home state of Oklahoma. The attorney general of Oklahoma, Scott Pruitt, has an article in the Wednesday, June 1, 2016, page A15, Wall Street Journal defending the suit. The article is entitled “Why We’re Suing over Obama’s Transgender Power Play.” Mr. Pruitt very cogently argues that:
Many, if not most, of us grew up being taught that sex was determined by the number of X and Y chromosomes at birth, that same sex relationship was sinful, that women (not we males who were expected to sow our wild oats with females who had to remain virgins)were expected to be virgins when they got married, that the Pope had to be male or God would be offended, that there was one true religion (ours), that males waged war, and blacks were okay on their side of the tracks. We also grew up believing that some people were destined to make a lot of money and that a penis determined the head of the household. Changing these beliefs or, worse yet, coming out with our truth “that these truths did not define us”, was enormously uncomfortable.
We are still coming to terms with thefact that we are sexual beings, that we, as a whole, may be fluid in our sexual desires, and that not all of us are born with the the sex that is consistent with who we identify with. We are still coming to terms with the fact that we are not a Christian, Caucasian nation. We are an ever increasing brown nation of browns, yellows, chocolates, yellows and everything in between. Increasingly, we are going to elect people who are more representative of our diversity. It is my considered opinion that diversity is a nice fit with both the preamble and the constitution of theses United States.
The Preamble reads:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The road to true empathic acceptance of our diversity is going to be a very uncomfortable one for many of us. Comfort cannot be our primary guide for determining what is ethical, fair or just. Empathy does demand that we extend support to each other while we learn to listen to each other truths, and challenge each other to grow.
One of the rules in my office has always been that we give each other a lot of respectful support, but do not give patronizing pats on the back. In other words we recognize that change can be painful but acknowledge that we are strong enough to make the changes which will lead to healthier individuals, families and communities.
Written June 1, 2016
Often when some branch of the federal government takes action in the United States a number of people may raise the question of whether the issues addressed by the federal government is a prerogative of the individual states of the United States or the federal government of the United States.
It is interesting that this question has often arisen when the concern is related to:
- The rights of a few versus the rights of the majority.
- A history of a group of people being systematically mistreated.
- The power to determine the morality or ethics for the Nation.
Overt and covert Jim Crow laws existed in the United States for many years. Separate but equal was, by many considered to be consistent with both the Preamble and the constitution of the United States. I recall very vividly attempting to eat at a restaurant in Northern Virginia which was and is a suburb of Washington, DC and being told that they would not serve me and my black colleague. This would have been in the early 1960ies and was still a long time prior to the Martin Luther King “I have a dream” speech and subsequent federal mandates of one nation for all the citizens including the black citizens.
Prohibition of “Interracial marriage” was not lifted in the United States until 1967 by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Love versus Virginal case.
The don’t ask, don’t tell policy was lifted in 2010 by a federal appeals court judge but did not become effective until 2011.
We have yet in the United States to adopt an equal rights amendment to include women in the United States.
The ruling of the supreme court confirming that the right of same sex couples in all the States of these United States was in June 2016. That right was illegal in many states of the United States until then. The attorney general of the state of Florida in which I am now living had vigorously opposed same sex marriage.
One of the Presidential Candidates has gained international attention for his promise to, “for a time”, outlaw the immigration of all Muslims into the United States.
Given the above and many other examples which one could list it should not come as any surprise that the May 13, 2016 decision by the federal Education Department of the United States informing the nation’s schools that they must immediately begin allowing students to use the bathrooms, locker rooms and showers of the student’s choosing or risk have title IX-linked funding withdrawn should result in such a strong, emotional reaction by the government of many states. Eleven states have now banned together to sue the Obama Administration. These states include my former home state of Oklahoma. The attorney general of Oklahoma, Scott Pruitt, has an article in the Wednesday, June 1, 2016, page A15, Wall Street Journal defending the suit. The article is entitled “Why We’re Suing over Obama’s Transgender Power Play.” Mr. Pruitt very cogently argues that:
- “…the Obama administration failed to follow even the basic legal procedures for altering agency rules –procedures that are meant to inject into the Byzantine rule-making process some democratic participation.
- “..a transgender student’s discomfort must always be accommodated, but if another student feels similar discomfort, those concerns must always be ignored because the administration has preemptively deemed all “others’ discomfort” unjustified.”
Many, if not most, of us grew up being taught that sex was determined by the number of X and Y chromosomes at birth, that same sex relationship was sinful, that women (not we males who were expected to sow our wild oats with females who had to remain virgins)were expected to be virgins when they got married, that the Pope had to be male or God would be offended, that there was one true religion (ours), that males waged war, and blacks were okay on their side of the tracks. We also grew up believing that some people were destined to make a lot of money and that a penis determined the head of the household. Changing these beliefs or, worse yet, coming out with our truth “that these truths did not define us”, was enormously uncomfortable.
We are still coming to terms with thefact that we are sexual beings, that we, as a whole, may be fluid in our sexual desires, and that not all of us are born with the the sex that is consistent with who we identify with. We are still coming to terms with the fact that we are not a Christian, Caucasian nation. We are an ever increasing brown nation of browns, yellows, chocolates, yellows and everything in between. Increasingly, we are going to elect people who are more representative of our diversity. It is my considered opinion that diversity is a nice fit with both the preamble and the constitution of theses United States.
The Preamble reads:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The road to true empathic acceptance of our diversity is going to be a very uncomfortable one for many of us. Comfort cannot be our primary guide for determining what is ethical, fair or just. Empathy does demand that we extend support to each other while we learn to listen to each other truths, and challenge each other to grow.
One of the rules in my office has always been that we give each other a lot of respectful support, but do not give patronizing pats on the back. In other words we recognize that change can be painful but acknowledge that we are strong enough to make the changes which will lead to healthier individuals, families and communities.
Written June 1, 2016
RSS Feed