American employers have come to understand that customers come in all religions, genders, races and sexual orientations, and so growing numbers of them have adopted employment policies intended to say "welcome" in whatever language or tradition will open those customers’ pocketbooks. And globalization of business has meant more interaction and familiarity with people who are different from, say, the folks back in Kansas. All this–I once naively believed–would eventually issue in a sort of "Star Trek" era of goodwill, where people of all sorts (eventually, perhaps, even species of all sorts) would live and work together in harmony. Kumbaya and all that.
It is getting harder and harder to cling to the beliefs that once sustained me through periods of political and/or social stupidity.
For example, for many years, I truly believed that enlightened self-interest would eventually crowd out bigotry. And there is some evidence to support that theory: in my own lifetime, city and country clubs that would never have allowed a Jew inside the door, let alone welcomed a Jewish member, re-thought that position as memberships and revenues dwindled. Suddenly, Jewish dollars didn’t look all that different from Christian ones, and I could join. More recently, African-Americans have welcomed into private clubs that wanted to retain the benefits of hosting political or business events or national tournaments against the costs of persisting in their all-whiteness.
American employers have come to understand that customers come in all religions, genders, races and sexual orientations, and so growing numbers of them have adopted employment policies intended to say “welcome” in whatever language or tradition will open those customers’ pocketbooks. And globalization of business has meant more interaction and familiarity with people who are different from, say, the folks back in Kansas.
All this—I once naively believed—would eventually issue in a sort of “Star Trek” era of goodwill, where people of all sorts (eventually, perhaps, even species of all sorts) would live and work together in harmony. Kumbaya and all that.
Silly me.
Right now, the United States faces a threat from terrorists. Unlike much of the disinformation dished out by the current Administration, the terrorist threat is a very real one. One of our most pressing needs is an increase in the number of persons in the armed forces who can speak the languages of those terrorists—Arabic, certainly, but also Korean and other tongues spoken by those who are most likely to strike out at us. The Army has made a big deal of its efforts to recruit linguists, and the difficulty of that task in a nation not given to multi-lingualism. (“Not given to multi-lingualism” is actually kind. I teach, and I can attest that a sizable portion of our population can’t manage English, let alone another language.)
So what would you expect the mental calculus would be when the Army discovered that seven of these important, rare language specialists were gay? Would you not assume that self-interest would trump bigotry? Let’s see—on one hand, we have seven people who can help us stay alive. They were hard to find and recruit. We have already spent a lot of money training them, and we will lose that investment if we throw them out. On the other hand, they are gay. Whoa! We’d rather lose money and die than be saved by them.
If you think this is an aberration, think again. Another case in point: medical information inconsistent with extremist religious ideology is being expunged from government websites. Information about the importance of condoms in preventing transmittal of HIV; studies disproving a connection between abortion and breast cancer; and evidence casting doubt on the efficacy of “abstinence-only” sex education have all been removed by HHS officials during the past year or so.
Self-interest would suggest that we pursue public policies based upon accurate science, in order to keep people safe from HIV and unwanted pregnancies. But evidently not—not if that accurate science conflicts with stubborn, unscientific and uninformed beliefs. Better to die of a dread disease, better that children have unwanted children of their own.
My Webster’s defines “sane” as “mentally healthy, rational, sound, sensible.” Someone who consistently acts in ways that are detrimental to his own well-being is not being rational.
Firing people you desperately need for behaviors totally unrelated to their work is not rational. Ignoring accurate medical science because it is at odds with your religious beliefs is unsound. These policies are insane by definition. But not only are they insane, they are profoundly un-American.
The American motto, as we all know, is E Pluribus Unum. Out of the many, one. How do we hear that motto today, at the beginning of a multicultural 21st Century? What is our framework for civic action, our animating vision for a national culture that nourishes both our differences and our common civic values?
E Pluribus Unum should not require that we give up who we are in exchange for a place at the American table. It should require that each of us bring our different gifts, perspectives and talents to a common table, a communal table where everyone will be welcomed and heard.
If I can stretch an overworked metaphor even farther, America was meant to be a smorgasbord, a pitch-in dinner featuring both exotic and familiar cuisines, a picnic where a great big banner over the table reads “Y’all come. Everybody’s welcome.”
Just like Star Trek. Kumbaya.
A jaundiced look at the world we live in.