Finally! A statewide conversation about job discrimination

We had to wait until 2011, but Tennessee is finally having a statewide conversation about job discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people.

Rough week for the Governor: Every day this week the national and local media have hit Governor Bill Haslam hard for signing SB632/HB600, the Special Access to Discriminate law that overturns Metro's Contract Accountability Non-Discrimination Ordinance, prevents any city or county from adopting a similar law, and redefines "sex" in the Tennessee code to the detriment of transgender people. The number of national stories is staggering--Forbes, Business Week, and the Wall Street Journal included. But the real zingers have come out of Tennessee. Yesterday's Nashville Scene was blistering. This piece in today's Knoxville News Sentinel hits many of the same notes.

Conversation continues: Senator Jim Kyle's revelation that he has filed a bill to repeal SB632/HB600 guarantees that the conversation will continue over the summer. In fact, that seems to have been his idea, according to the Tennessean: “It keeps the discussion going,” he said. “It seems like the business community was late to the party. To me, it merits a second look.”

And then there's the court challenge. Abby Rubenfeld confirmed on Monday that there's going to be one. There will be coverage once it gets filed and each step of the way.

What kind of conversation?: So it's pretty clear that some kind of conversation is going to continue for at least the near future, but what kind? It's important that we don't lose the fact that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity occurs in Tennessee, affects real people, and is unjust. The remedies of Sen. Kyle's bill and the lawsuit are designed to address real wrongs. The loss of local control in our cities and counties is one of them. But the original point was and is that people endure discrimination that hurts them and their families and serves no business purpose. Maybe now that the business community has done a 180-degree turn, we can end the pretend debate about the "burdens" to business and focus on the real burdens to people trying to make a living.

-Chris Sanders

TEP calls on Belmont Board to change policy, for statewide dialogue on amending TN Human Rights Act

Many of you have heard about the termination of Lisa Howe, Belmont University's women's soccer coach. Some reports say she resigned, others that she was fired after she revealed to university officials that she and her partner are going to have a child. Students at Belmont, including members of the women's soccer team, have stated publicly that Coach Howe was asked to resign or fired. Adding to the confusion, Belmont's own statements on the matter have changed in light of the public outcry.

As the law stands, Belmont has the right to take any of these actions. But having the legal right to do something doesn't make it right or prudent. Belmont's actions are embarrassing for Tennessee. They do not express a true commitment to diversity and they fall short of the marks of an institution of higher learning. Discrimination shows a reckless disregard for the lives of those it affects. It is particularly cruel and repugnant to terminate a talented, winning coach who has earned the loyalty of her players when she is about to start a family at a time when jobs are scarce.

Therefore, we call on the Belmont University board of trustees to reconsider these actions and to amend their policies to protect staff, faculty, and students from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

This incident is also a painful reminder that the Tennessee Human Rights Act lacks protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender persons. The people of our state need to begin a serious dialogue about amending the Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Many leading employers in Tennessee have already added these protections to their policies including the following: the University of Tennessee, Vanderbilt University, the Tennessee Board of Regents schools, Metro Nashville Public Schools, the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Volkswagen, AT&T, Bank of America, SunTrust, Dell, OfficeMax, FedEx, Caterpillar, UPS, etc.

Tennessee can only move forward when we truly value the merit and talent of our workforce. That won't happen until employees can work without fearing discrimination and that includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Thank you,

H.G. Stovall
President

Leftovers Edition: Davis says, "Repulsive." Oak Ridge drops gay bomb

Whether you're still sluggish from feasting or you got up at the crack of dawn (or before) for Black Friday deals or you're working today, the effects of Thanksgiving have a way of hanging on. I know I'll be eating leftovers for a couple of days at my place.

There are leftovers from Election Day, too. Let's take a look:

Fear and Loathing among the Blue Dogs: Michael Collins took a look at why Congressman Jim Cooper survived this election when so many white male Blue Dog Democrats didn't. We're glad he did because he's been a great supporter on hate crimes legislation, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. But the money quote belongs to outgoing Congressman Lincoln Davis who lost his reelection bid:

"When you champion moral issues that are repulsive to Southern Baptists or to devout Catholics, it's hard to convince them they ought to vote for you."

I'm not sure which issues that Congressman Davis has in mind. He either didn't say or the piece didn't see the need to print the answer. But my guess is that he's either talking about abortion or equality issues or both. Debates have gone on endlessly since the election about why Democrats lost the House in such numbers. There can be little doubt that Davis's district is more socially conservative than Cooper's. But Tennessee voters will surprise you. They may not want gay people to get married, but a big chunk of them like the idea of protecting our community from job discrimination and that brings us to...

Oak Ridge's silent gay bomb went off: I like to think I keep up with news items affecting the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community in Tennessee, but I totally missed this one. On Election Day voters in the City of Oak Ridge voted to amend their charter to prohibit discrimination against city employees based on sexual orientation. (Note: The ballot measure does not include gender identity and on that basis TEP would not have supported it in its present form.)

The sample ballot gives the wording of the question here (see question 7 on p. 2 upper right of the pdf) and the election results (page 3 of the pdf) show that 2/3 of those who voted on that item supported it. There doesn't appear to have been much coverage leading up to the ballot measure. It is mentioned in this August Oak Ridger piece. But it is not singled out as being any more a source of controversy or "acrimonious study" than any of the others.

Despite the fact that the charter amendment is severely deficient in not including gender identity, what happened is pretty amazing. An East TN city's voters decided to make a change in their government's hiring policy to include gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. The conventional wisdom is that these rights shouldn't be put to popular vote and that voters will be far less likely than elected bodies to approve them. But I take it as one small indication that the November election in Tennessee was not about social issues.

I only wish we had had the chance to add gender identity to that charter amendment. That really would have been the Bomb!

Happy Leftovers Day!

-Chris Sanders

Small in size, but packing a powerful punch: A lesson from unions

Today's Tennessean includes a detailed piece on the role of unions in Tennessee and Nashville politics. It has helped me extend my thinking in a previous post about the need for Tennessee's GLBT community to get more involved in electoral politics. Even though their numbers are declining, unions are adapting and stepping up their political activity. As the piece points out:

A survey of campaign finance records show unions have contributed at least $120,000 to campaigns this election cycle, including to the House and Senate Democratic caucuses; many Middle Tennessee Democratic legislative candidates; Democratic gubernatorial nominee Mike McWherter; and Dean, Nashville's Democratic mayor, who is running for re-election next year.

And what's the motivation? It will sound familiar to many members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community. According to SEIU's Doug Collier:

"I think we all need to grow out of necessity," he said. "Tennessee is a right-to-work, at-will state. If people don't have a voice on the job, there are many stories across this state of people showing up to work and being terminated or sent home for no reason."

So just to make the connection perfectly clear: Unions are a small group of people in Tennessee concerned about protecting their jobs. In fact, the percentage of Tennessee workers represented by unions in collective bargaining is 6.6 according to the same Tennessean piece. Tennessee's gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender population is small but growing and growing significantly in urban areas like Nashville, according to Williams Institute analysis of census data. And like unions, our community is concerned about job protections. There are no federal, state, or local laws in Tennessee protecting workers in the private sector from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Some public employers like Shelby Co government, Metro Nashville government, Metro Nashville Public Schools, the Tennessee Board of Regents, and the University of Tennessee offer these protections to their own employees. But even the vast majority of state and local government employees in Tennessee lack these protections.

Put your money where your mouth is (going to be): Unions put into practice something the Tennessee GLBT community doesn't yet do. They give large amounts of money collectively to help elect candidates who can represent their interests in the Legislature and in local government. Such activity obviously helps amplify their voice when they come to lobby officials on their issues. Since November our community has bundled about $11,000 for state and local candidates. It's a good start, but given the growth of our community and our need for job protections, to say nothing of the need for defeating bad legislation, we've got more work to do.

-Chris Sanders

Jobs Agenda, Equality Agenda

Marriage grabs all the headlines when it comes to so-called "gay rights" in the mainstream media. It's understandable. Relationships matter. Legally sanctioned relationships confer protections, rights, responsibilities, benefits, etc. They connect us deeply and that's why the symbolic warfare around them is so intense.

What doesn't get covered nearly often enough is the jobs agenda of the equality movement. Can you remember any story in a major Tennessee newspaper about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the last year? But there are some real opportunities to connect with moderate and even conservative Tennesseans on workplace equality.

Jobs are #1 for Tennesseans: The Tennessee Newspaper Network hired Mason-Dixon to conduct a poll on the priorities of the state's voters. The number one priority is jobs/economy. Only one percent of those responding saw family values, "gay rights," and the like as the most important issue. Because "gay rights" is so often defined as marriage, the majority of Tennesseans are going to continue either to oppose "gay rights" or to place our equality really far down the scale.

Dead letter until the courts get involved: Maybe it's just my opinion, but marriage equality is a dead letter in Tennessee until the courts get involved. We've got a state statute and a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman. Given the proclivity of our state's GLBT community to send more money out of state to fight for equality than to invest it in Tennessee's fight, I don't see how it would be possible to raise enough PAC money and organize to repeal the constitutional amendment and the statute.

Straight voters and elected officials see a distinction: When given the opportunity, many straight voters and elected officials who may not support (or publicly support) marriage equality can support workplace protections from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. When TEP was working on the Metro Nashville non-discrimination ordinance, our opponents tried to make the issue about marriage. They even put stick figures holding hands on the stickers they wore into the Council hearings on the bill. But Council Members and the majority of the citizens in Nashville didn't buy it.

In fact, the justification for job protections rolls easily off the tongue. Consider what Memphis City Council Member Janis Fullilove said in an interview about the Memphis non-discrimination ordinance: "Every person has a right to make a living for his or her family or for themselves." We think that's a phrase that needs to roll off the tongues of more elected officials in Tennessee. We look forward to giving them that opportunity as we pursue more non-discrimination measures around the state.

Economic Development and Workplace Equality: Changing the law at the local, state, and federal levels to enshrine workplace protections is essential to any jobs agenda worth its salt, but it's not the only piece of the puzzle. Until we can get everyone in Tennessee and throughout the country covered, the GLBT community should take more of an interest in the economic development of our state. By recruiting Volkwagen to Chattanooga, Governor Bredesen may have done more for equality in Southeast Tennesssee than anyone ever has. Volkswagen scores a 100% on the Human Rights Campaign's 2010 Corporate Equality Index. Good paying jobs where you can be yourself and have benefits for your family are nothing short of a God-send in this very socially conservative part of Tennessee. Attracting these kinds of companies to Tennessee will help pave the way for lasting structural equality in our state.

A jobs agenda can be a winning equality agenda for Tennessee.

-Chris Sanders

Two kinds of incrementalism in advocating job protections

First, let me say that incrementalism has become a bad word in the GLBT blogosphere. I don't say that's necessarily a universally shared view. But it's important to acknowledge at the outset that incrementalism with much justification is a bad word. Perhaps the most progressive president and Congress ever were elected in 2008, and the GLBT community's expectations were high after the election. Incrementalism was swept away as a necessary evil, a relic of the Bush-II years. Impatience is the order of the day.

TYPE 1--One meaning of incrementalism from the Bush years is particularly onerous--the effort in 2007 to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) without gender identity. Saying it that way is too clinical, though. What it meant was that transgender people, a sector of the population most susceptible to job discrimination and violence, would be left behind. The transgender community and allies have every reason to be on the lookout for this kind of incrementalism in current discussions of ENDA. Some voices in the GLBT community, not many of them saying so in public, continue to think that it would be sensible to go for ENDA with sexual orientation only and come back for gender identity later. As ENDA continues to be delayed, it may be that more of those voices will emerge from the shadows in an attempt to get something passed.

My first reaction is a philosophical NO. I can't see the justification for leaving behind a class of people who need these protections. I don't think that statement needs an elaborate "proof." I know it's not self-evident to everyone, but it is for me. It's probably not too persuasive, though, to certain kinds of incrementalists. They see themselves as practical people who want to move the ball forward...granted it's usually for themselves. But they see themselves that way nonetheless.

The most persuasive argument against that type of incrementalism is that it wouldn't move enough people to matter. The same people who are screaming about the imagined dangers of transgender people in restrooms (where's the evidence on this?) are completely opposed to any job protections based on sexual orientation. They are onto and completely opposed to ANY incremental approach. The Traditional Values Coalition is just one example. The fire fueling the opposition to ENDA in any form burns just as hot no matter how much of our community is included. I assure you that the Religious Right will not back down against a truncated ENDA.

So I say we just need to stand and fight.

TYPE 2--Despite my opposition to that type of incrementalism, there is another type that I completely support. The closest example I can draw on is the 2009 Metro non-discrimination ordinance. I don't believe we could have gotten half the support for an ordinance that would have applied to the private sector. Since no law (although there was a resolution in Shelby County and a Metro Schools policy) had ever been passed granting job protections in TN based on sexual orientation and gender identity, the territory was just too new. That's a sad statement on the state of equality in Tennessee, but it's where we are. Although the ordinance only applies to Metro government employees, it includes both sexual orientation AND gender identity. We wouldn't compromise on that point. There was an attempt to run a bill without gender identity, but it got amended to be inclusive. We were clear on this point from the beginning and our Council allies stood firm. No one was left behind. There was no question about coming back for anyone. Everyone took that small but important step together. It's a gain we can let sink in and build upon.

So until ENDA passes, TEP and others will continue to advance non-discrimination measures at the state and local levels in Tennessee. I believe we have an obligation to protect as many people as we can, protect them inclusively, and protect them with measures that can actually get the votes.

Maybe that's not philosophically consistent. I don't know. But from a practical point of view I would respond to the naysayers with this argument. My guess is that most of the members of Congress who support ENDA represent districts with at least one city that has some kind of non-discrimination ordinance. I believe that passing local ordinances makes it safer for members of Congress to support ENDA. I wouldn't say it's the definitive factor in their support, but it's a part of the puzzle. So I don't see that kind of incrementalism as a hindrance to achieving the larger goal of passing ENDA. If anything, it's a boost because it educates people in that congressional district about the issue of job discrimination.

-Chris Sanders

"Quarantined," says VA Attorney General

If you've followed recent events in Virginia, then you know that Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has issued an opinion that Virginia public colleges and universities can't expand their non-discrimination policies beyond the categories passed by the General Assembly. That means, according to the Attorney General, that they can't add sexual orientation and gender identity. The state's higher education community is in an uproar and fighting back, which prompted the governor to issue and executive directive, which does not have the force of law and is less authoritative than an executive order, that says that there is to be no discrimination including on the basis of sexual orientation; he left out gender identity--something that is happening quite a bit in the discussion, I might add. TIME helps catch you up if you're just now hearing about this.

Despite the fact that governor blinked a little and shifted positions a tad, the attorney general's favorite song must be "I Won't Back Down" because he is standing behind his opinion and he's using a disturbing image in his justification, according to the Washington Post:

"What I said in my March 4 letter was accurate advice under Virginia law, and it still stands," Cuccinelli said in brief comments to reporters after addressing lawmakers on an unrelated issue.

Universities, he said, "don't have any more authority than the General Assembly gives them, which is a similar position as the localities. And until the General Assembly gives them more authority, they're quarantined by what they've got."

That's right; he used the "Q" word. Google the phrase "quarantine homosexuals" and you'll see what kind of trash comes up. Normally, I'm not much on these kinds of subconscious/psychoanalytical readings of politics, but I have to say the word "quarantine" was a bit arresting. Substantively, of course, what is disturbing is that he persists in denying protection to all students, staff, and faculty of Virginia's public colleges and universities.

The whole fiasco has one up-shot, though. It has done more than any other recent news story to drive home the point that our community lacks and needs job protections. Let's hope something positive comes from it.

-Chris Sanders

ENDA, the role of the federal government, and Kerry Roberts

In light of the Obama administration's recent directives on barring discrimination against federal employees based on gender identity (sexual orientation is already covered) and recent talk that there may be movement on Don't Ask Don't Tell, I asked the question on Twitter, "...will that give them enough moral authority to move on ENDA [Employment Non-Discrimination Act]? I followed that with: "In other words, does fedgov need to be able to say, 'We've put our own house in order before moving into the private sector?'"

Much to my surprise, 6th District congressional candidate Kerry Roberts responded:

RT @tnequality Does fedgov need to be able to say, "We've put own house in order b4 moving n2 private sector?" // Fed should never b there.

I'm not wild about the content of the response, but I'll get to that in a minute. First, I should note that his position on ENDA won't differ much from current 6th District Congressman Bart Gordon's, although we may get the chance to find out otherwise if the House votes on ENDA in March. Second, I have to commend Mr. Roberts for responding, especially since I wasn't directing the question at him in particular. It's a refreshing sign of engagement.

Now for the substance of the response. I understand the anti-government perspective and I know that it's the kind of talking point that plays well with a huge chunk of his voters. But I followed up with questions that in all fairness he hasn't had time to answer. I asked whether he believes the federal government has a role to play in protecting people from racial and religious discrimination in the workplace. To the first, the conservative line used to be "No quotas." But getting beyond that and the now almost unreflective anti-government response, what's a conservative to say in such a situation? Would Roberts really say he favors dismantling existing employment protections? And even if he said he did, would he really act on those convictions?

I doubt it. But I hope I find out. And considering he was willing to reach out in the first place, who knows? I just might.