This past Thursday, on October 5th, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Justice Department is repealing the Obama administration's workplace protections for transgender people. Sessions stated that although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited workplace discrimination between men and women, the law does not acknowledge gender identity. His memo instructed Justice Department to take up this position in "all pending and future matters."
Unfortunately, this is not the only time the Trump administration failed to recognize the rights of the LGBTQ community. Despite being less than a year into his term, Trump has already passed numerous legislations that violate the civil liberties of LGBTQ members; in February, he revoked the Obama administration law that gave transgender students equal access to school facilities; in March, he revoked the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Act and removed the questions about sexuality and gender identity from the draft of the 2020 U.S. census. Oh, and Trump tweeted about outlawing transgender people from the military. Furthermore, Jeff Sessions himself consistently acts against not just the LGBTQ community but also women and minority groups by supporting a constitutional ban on gay marriage, opposing the re authorization of the Violence Against Women Act, and making numerous racist comments in the past (including calling a black attorney "boy" and joking that the only problem he had with the KKK was their drug use).
By selecting Jeff Sessions, a man who clearly disregards the rights of anyone who isn't a straight cis white male, to become the Attorney General, is just astounding to me. Even after all the progress our society has made in terms of LGBTQ rights, culminating in the Obergeful v. Hodges case while Obama was still President, it seems like the Trump administration is set on undoing all of it. In my opinion, Sessions was deeply unjustified in removing transgender workplace protections. As with many conservative arguments, Sessions' only justification is that transgender rights aren't stated explicitly, but we all know that the Constitution also lacked many legal protections of civil liberties, and thus the federal government has been adding Amendments and making new laws since 1776 to address the Constitution's shortcomings. By oversimplifying the meaning of outdated documents, conservative leaders will always find some way to deny people their fundamental rights to safety and liberty.
Do you believe Session's interpretation of the Civil Rights Act was correct? What are the advantages and disadvantages of adhering strictly to government policy? Do you think old policies should be reformed to accommodate for shifting societal views?
Link: http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/US-seeks-to-quash-lawsuit-opposing-transgender-12256205.php
Link: https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/first-100-days-how-president-trump-has-impacted-lgbtq-rights-n750191
Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-lgbt-rights_us_58346cd9e4b030997bc1524f
3 comments:
The Trump Administration's continued denial of transgender rights is an example of Trump not carrying through with his campaign promises. When he was running for president, Trump promised that he would help uphold transgender rights, but he turned against his promise within a few months of his inauguration. I agree that while the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 do not explicitly give rights to transgender people, the laws should be interpreted according to the society's views like it always has in the past. The only people that the Constitution originally explicitly gave rights to are rich, straight, cis, white males like Jeff Sessions, but rules have been interpreted and added according to the advancements and changes in society (McCulloch v. Maryland, Brown v. Board of Education, etc). There is no reason why that shouldn't apply now.
While I do not agree with Jeff Session's views, I believe that he has a valid interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, it is stubborn to interpret all laws literally, because although the law does not explicitly mention gender identity, the ultimate goal of the Civil Rights Act is to protect people from discrimination such as sex, and transgender people should be included too. As society's views on certain topics change over time, laws should adjust to society's views and be interpreted differently, because the underlying value and intention is still there.
I think Sessions is wrong in his strict interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As Caroline said, societal values change over time and the law should be continually adapted to said views. Moreover, I think that while it's important to have a stable constitutional basis from which to judge, but evidently it's also important to not adhere strictly so that historically disadvantaged peoples are not continuously discriminated against. Bills such as the Equal Rights Act, which seeks to protect sexual orientation and gender identity from discrimination, are fighting to do just that. I believe the concept that "all people are created equal" recognizes personal civil liberties and rights and preferences, and are protected through the equal right amendment or implied right to privacy or the civil rights act.
Post a Comment