Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Corvino: Diversity and discrimination
I’ve been a member of the American Philosophical Association (APA) for about fifteen years. I go to the annual meetings, I get the publications, and I peruse the frightfully scarce listings in “Jobs for Philosophers.”
Last week a colleague sent me a petition addressed to the APA. The petition notes that many universities “require faculty, students, and staff to follow certain ‘ethical’ standards which prohibit engaging in homosexual acts,” and that some of these advertise in “Jobs for Philosophers.”It goes on to point out that the APA’s anti-discrimination policy “rejects as unethical all forms of discrimination based on race, color, religion, political convictions, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identification or age, whether in graduate admissions, appointments, retention, promotion and tenure, manuscript evaluation, salary determination, [etc.].”
Philosophers hate contradictions, and the petitioners detect one here. Arguing that these anti-gay ethical codes run afoul of the APA anti-discrimination policy, they conclude:
“We, the undersigned, request that the American Philosophical Association either (1) enforce its policy and prohibit institutions that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation from advertising in ‘Jobs for Philosophers’ or (2) clearly mark institutions with these policies as institutions that violate our anti-discrimination policy.”
One would think that as a longtime openly gay philosopher, I would jump at the chance to sign this petition. But I paused.
Part of my hesitation may strike non-philosophers as nitpicky. It seems to me that there’s no contradiction in prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation while allowing it on the basis of sexual conduct. The schools mentioned don’t exclude gay people; they exclude people who engage in homosexual acts. It’s a fine line, perhaps, but philosophers like fine lines.
Generally speaking, these prohibitions are part of a more general effort to preserve the schools’ robust religious character. Schools that prohibit gay sex generally prohibit pre-marital and extramarital sex as well; some even prohibit the drinking of alcohol. (Philosophy without beer? Count me out.)
At the same time, the APA policy recognizes the special commitments of religious institutions and allows them to discriminate on the basis of religious affiliation as long as—and this is key—“the criteria for such religious affiliations do not discriminate against persons according to the other attributes listed.”
I admire the petitioners for recognizing the serious injustices that daily confront gays and lesbians and for seeking to remedy those injustices.
I also agree that, while there’s a difference between orientation and conduct, the two cannot be teased apart as easily as some religious conservatives would like. Who we are is intimately connected with what we do—especially when it comes to deep personal relationships. Those who profess to “love the sinner but hate the sin” often distort that deep connection.
So let’s grant that these schools, even if they don’t contradict the letter of the APA’s policy, violate its spirit. The APA is (or should be) saying “If you’re against gays, we’re against you.” Why not?
Some might worry that the petitioners’ stance violates freedom of association. If you want to organize a school committed to conservative Christian principles—including opposition to homosexuality—a free society ought to allow you to do so.
But no one is suggesting that such schools should be abolished. Rather, they’re suggesting that APA—a private voluntary organization—ought to be allowed to dissociate itself from such schools.
Freedom of association cuts both ways, and if individuals are free to form schools that exclude gays, other individuals should be free to form professional organizations that exclude the excluders from advertising in their publications.
Indeed, the petition even concedes that the schools might be allowed to continue their advertising, provided that they are identified as violating the APA’s policy. Given the schools’ presumed pride in their ethical commitments, they should have little objection to asterisks announcing what they’re doing.
That concession strikes me as a reasonable compromise: you can advertise here, as long as we can alert people to your policies and express our moral objection to them.
But when are asterisks insufficient? Suppose a school had “ethical” standards prohibiting interracial dating (as Bob Jones University did until 2000). If such a school should be completely excluded from our organization, why not schools that prohibit homosexual conduct?
On the merits, I think the cases are similar. But pragmatically speaking, our culture is at very different places on those two issues. Excluding schools that in 2009 prohibit homosexual conduct is not like excluding schools that in 2009 prohibit interracial dating; it’s like excluding schools that in 1950 prohibit interracial dating.
Such absolute bans have a cost, since they remove the offending schools from the kind of critical environments that might hasten a change in their policies.
In the end, I will likely sign the petition. But I will do so hoping for the “asterisk” option. It’s not because the APA needs those schools. It’s because those schools, more than most, need us.
John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.
For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, visit www.johncorvino.com.
See John at his upcoming events:
March 2: Texas Women’s University (debate) 7 pm MCL Auditorium
March 3: Everett Community College (WA) 7 pm Student Union Theater
March 10: Univ. of Nevada, Las Vegas 11 am Parks Student Union MPR
RJLigier: I find it interesting that moments after Dr. Corvino’s columns are posted, that you invariably post your bull crap!
I read Dr. Corvino’s articles for 2 reasons: I’m simply mesmerized by his astoundingly good looks; usually I like what he writes (whether or not I agree).
Now sir, just what is your reason for your habitual reading and posting comments to Corvino?
Could it be his pretty face, or are you fantasizing about the good Dr.’s anatomy?
@ RJLigier
You are, if nothing else, a masterful obfuscationist. Why, you sound just like Derrida and Bourdieu, people you probably blame for the liberal elite system that torments you so.
What institution discriminates against straight people? I’ll send you another cookie.
What article are you referring to when you mention gay-on-gay violence? Narcissism? Passive-aggressive writing?
I translate into English, my native language. As a traductologist, researcher, and editor, I know how to investigate written English for consistency, fluency, and logic. I can spot ambiguity and inconsistency with ease, it’s my job. My conclusion: Either you’re talking about some other text or you’re not linking your argument together in a way that’s clear to those you’re trying to communicate with. If you are indeed trying to communicate; sometimes I wonder if your vitriol is machine-generated.
I can’t make heads or tails of the accusations that constantly appear in your comments (leading me to think you might be using a computer program). On the off chance that you are trying to say something that readers here will understand, clarification of the following would help:
“the codification of fraud into the ALIMPC in 1955″ – what were the gay issues involved in this alleged fraud, and which prominent members of the gay community do you hold responsible for this 54 year old ‘crime’? Your follow-up substantiation for this allegation, which involves a lot of unsubstantiated name-calling, does not address the issue at hand. The issue at hand concerns job postings that run counter to an independent association’s position on discrimination.
But somehow, I don’t think that’s of great concern to you. Though you beseech the author to “present real solutions”, which you will find he does, I cannot find the basis upon which you confront him.
If your arguments are made by an anti-gay computer program that spits out postmodernist non-responses full of accusation, fear, and anger, then bravo for creating a grammatically decent program. But as for its ability to approximate human thought, it appears that AI is still a long way off. That’s great news to a translator.
Masterful expert on LGBT issues that you are, you can probably guess what I’m up to for the rest of the day… It’s time to go off and beat up some gays, get my hair done, prowl the locker rooms of a few middle schools, mix my straight-to-gay conversion powders (while looking at myself in the mirror, nekkid), adopt Christian children, teach French, and seek other ways to destroy the human race.
Gotta keep that good ol’ homosexual agenda alive and well. You betcha.
You know what the “asterik” really means? It says “We are willing to overlook our “public” stance on civil rights and equality in exchange for money”. In short, they are trying to justify selling their souls. I guess this topic hits close to home for Corvino.
As a traductologist, I enjoy Corvino’s parsing of terminology. I also happen to agree with him: if this is to be a free society, private universities ought to be allowed to discriminate (though they shouldn’t receive a penny of state or federal money – they are, after all, discriminatory institutions). As academic fields tend to organize themselves in crusty covens like Corvino’s APA, they too have a right to dictate their membership rules.
I agree wholeheartedly that a publication like Jobs for Philosophers should indicate which advertisers fall short of their criteria, and how they run afoul of the usual standards. In what is essentially a list of places of higher learning, I think it would be of great use to EVERYONE – not just gays or those affected by discriminatory policy – to know who’s a bigot and who’s not. Instead of an asterisk, why not create a separate list of “institutions that discriminate against x, y, or z”?
Why bother? Simple enough: it serves all parties’ interests: the “institutions that discriminate” will not receive applications from those who care about these issues, and those that care will know where to direct the activists who seek to remedy discrimination in all its forms.
If bigots are blacklisted, their practices will continue unnoticed by the majority in the field of philosophy. If they strut their stuff in a very useful jobs journal, efforts at changing their attitudes will be easier to focus on. After all, the Bob Jones U. interracial dating ban lasted until 2000 because it was not a prominent issue in the academic community. If discriminating institutions are regularly identified as such, there’s a good chance that their academic reputations will become focused around these issues.
The worst case scenario, of course, would be that these institutions secretly discriminate – and simply pretend to adhere to APA standards. That is not where we’d want them to be, if reform is a goal.
As for the notion of Corvino being an apologist for discrimination, I tend to disagree. He’s an advocate for full disclosure. Since we’re talking about academics and not activism, disclosure of school policy really needs to be clear. If it’s in the gay community’s interests for gay politicians, football stars, and entertainers come out of the closet, it is equally in our interests to know who is fundamentally against our ability to become a fully integrated minority. Where’s the apologism?
The lunacy of tolerating homosexuality but not tolerating homosexual activity is a no-brainer: the hypocrisy rings loud and clear. Let’s assume that anyone with a high-school degree or less could figure out what that means. But that is the chosen wording these days for anti-gay policy, so Corvino has to point out what it means. And he is right: one way for the world to see how gays are discriminated against is to use a respected academic field’s job-listings. To not include them would be a quiet acceptance of their policy: they will simply form another group for American philosophers, call it the American Society of Philosophers (or something equally innocuous and official sounding) and they won’t trumpet their goofball discriminatory practices. Blacklisting doesn’t work to our advantage here, folks. Pointing out where the problems are is a much more pragmatic way to begin the process of changing the minds are corrupted in our woefully backward nation.
Caitlyn: Attraction does not imply behavior. Nor does behavior imply attraction for that matter.
Even if I’m attracted to another woman, certain conditions need to be met before I’d consider making any moves. Firstly, I can’t already be in a relationship. Secondly, the person in question can’t already be in a relationship. And finally, there are people who are single and compatible with me, but which it would be more practical to keep as friends for other reasons.
Just as this principle is true on the individual level, it is true on the broader level. People can consciously choose to live lives of lies and self-denial because of whatever reason. (It’s called being in the closet, right?)
The reason the schools are homophobic is not that they’re necessarily opposed to gays on a personal level, but because they want gays to live unfulfilled lives.
RJLigier: What the heck are you talking about? Name a ‘liberal’ school that ‘excludes’ straight people and I’ll give you a cookie.
Liberal academia excludes straight people, what’s your beef? Corvino, it took 43 years for staight people to receive federal accomodation after them acquiescing to your community based on the codification of fraud into the ALIMPC in 1955, and only because members of your community were so arrogant as to believe that there would be no repercussions for sexual assault. For post hole digger in philosophy, you make the most duplicitous arguments. Spare us the histrionic and passive-aggressive responses and present real solutions. The narcissistically hostile and borderline confrontational behavior has always emanated from the LGBT community. Stop blaming staight people for gay on gay violence.
“It seems to me that there’s no contradiction in prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation while allowing it on the basis of sexual conduct.”
It’s discriminatory because it’s not just any sexual conduct that is being targeted but homosexual acts specifically, i.e. it’s discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Simple, see?
Mr. Corvino correctly points out how “who we are” and “what we do” are so very intimately related. I think it is reasonable to hold people to the same standard of conduct. Saying that no one should engage in sexual conduct outside of a committed relationship would be consistent. Saying that one cannot engage in homosexual conduct even within the confines of a committed relationship is in fact discriminates against the the person on the basis of orientation.
John: You are starting to confuse me. Your sense of direction is wandering widely almost like a drunken sailor. Your advocacy is to be admired but I think your vision of purpose is becoming blurred. I am 46 years old and just came to realize that I needed to take a time-out from my work (22 years as a funeral director) to regain a new a fresh perspective. It has helped and I see much more clearly now. You have worked tirelessly for your cause but maybe an intermission is in order. Just my thoughts.
Sometimes smart people think too much. Perhaps, you can not see the forest for the trees? Ordinary LGBT people would have just signed the darned thing.
This is the last of Mr. Corvino’s articles that I will bother to read.
Between his on and off fascination with Glenn Stanton, and now his vacillation over the appropriateness of standing up for non-discrimination within the APA, he is clearly someone too confused to warrant my patronage.
Ciao Mr. Corvino.
From: http://www.apaonline.org/publications/jfp/discrim.aspx
“…it is not inconsistent with the APA’s position against discrimination to adopt religious affiliation as a criterion in graduate admissions or employment policies when this is directly related to the school’s religious affiliation or purpose, so long as these policies are made known to members of the philosophical community and so long as the criteria for such religious affiliations do not discriminate against persons according to the other attributes listed in this statement.”
That means that religious schools can advertise for an applicant who is a practising member of a religion [for instance, a Roman Catholic private college can explicity request Roman Catholic applicants]. It does *not* mean that a religious school can explicity request “non-practising homosexuals.” Accordingly, the JFP should not be posting adverts that include language which excludes gay people. No petition needed; just a letter to JFP outlining that inconsistency, coupled with a request that they accept no more job ads which contain anti-gay wording.
While I agree with Corvino that discriminating schools “need” to be in a critical environment in order to stimulate them to change. But being allowed to advertise with the APA doesn’t put them in that environment, any more than advertising in the yellow pages is gonna shift my beliefs into those of the phone company.
Mr. Corvino’s thinly vieled apologist stance seen here is not different from others including his ability to accept a bigot as his friend.
There is no fine line here. Discriminate? Then I don’t want you associated with an organization I’m a part of. And to say banning interacial dating is not the same as banning our dating is pathetic. Just because one is more accepted than the other does not mean there is a difference in acceptability of the banning of such actions. Bigotry, both of them, plain and simple.
And I take it one step further. The religious schools that Mr. Corvino claims are ok to discriminate due to religious affiliation are NOT OK. They get federal support in many ways: tax exemptions, research dollars and in some cases capitol improvement money. They ought not be able to discriminate over which fairy tale their employees and students believe in.
I can’t imagine why an atheist would want to be surrounded by so many brain dead religious people, but if some did they should be allowed to attend any school that is benefitting from the Federal Government due to the protection afforded us in the constitution.
And they would benefit from having people that believe real things in their midst. Might just get some converts!
These schools are clearly opposed to gays, not just ‘gay conduct’. Isn’t the very definition of being gay being attracted to others of the same sex? Doesn’t attraction imply action/behavior, however small?
Nitpicking over the fine line between conduct and orientation denies the truth of discrimination. I’d go for the second option too so the places couldn’t become so isolated that they start living entirely in their own little world, but giving them a pass is just wrong.