Let me take a stab at mapping out what Ian and I are going to try to accomplish over the next week. As Larry mentioned, we’ve just published Straightforward – which makes the argument that mobilizing heterosexual support is crucial to making progress on securing equal rights for gay, lesbian, and bisexual citizens. The book is packed with advice about what people can do – on personal and public levels.
But what we really want to stress here over the next week are a series of informational innovations that can promote equality in the military, in the boy scouts (and other discriminatory organizations), in marriage, and in the workplace. The Fair Employment mark fits right in with the theme of informational incrementalism. By certifying one piece of information – that a business does not discriminate – we might be able to induce a substantial number of employers to privately opt into ENDA, a proposed federal statute that Congress has been unwilling to enact.
The first chapter of our book discusses how we might set out to manage heterosexual privilege. We highlight three approaches: exploiting, renouncing, and disabling privilege. We also suggest informational strategies for implementing each approach. We’ll try to suggest factors that counsel allies to speak out specifically as heterosexuals, and others that suggest it’s better to leave sexual orientation ambiguous.
Over the next week, you’ll see the way our proposals attempt to harness the support of heterosexual allies, and the important role that information plays in that process. It shouldn’t surprise the readers of this blog that managing information turns out to be a powerful way to manage privilege.
meta http-equiv=”Content-Type” content=”text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1″, but that’s definitely a UTF-8 character in there.
Is there any chance you guys can sign off with your names or something at the bottom of your posts? I know I’ll forget that Larry isn’t posting at the moment and assume this is him, otherwise.
Thanks!
Interesting that the choice of the phrase “heteroseual privilege” alienates me from you and your arguments even though I completely accept the normalcy of homosexuality.
A couple of thoughts come to mind.
1) There is no discussion or mention of the positions or arguments of those opposed to the gay agenda (presumably those who are to be ultimately convinced by these tactics). (I suspect there is no respect for those positions by the authors, but I don’t know that). This is profoundly apparent by the entirely tactical approach suggested by the authors (e.g., “informational incrementalism”, “mobilizing heterosexual support”). So apparently the authors are giving up on convincing the populace of the rightness of their ideas, or winning “hearts and minds” as it were. Instead, stealth and changing the vocabulary is the order of the day.
2) I find it troubling, if not fascist, for the freedom of association by private organizations (the Boy Scouts) to be attacked by those whose claim to civil rights is based on freedom of association.
3) Since this is a blog by a law professor, let’s mix in a legal point. It is “heterosexual privilege” that is being attacked by the authors. Is it beyond argument that a state cannot possibly have a rational basis for granting privileges to heterosexual couples (i.e., marriage)?
That’s all for now. BTW, I have followed this blog for IP discussion. So I’m not necessarily part of the choir to whom these authors are preaching. But apparently I was assumed to be?
Without reading the book (I don’t have time to do it),
I have to say that you really don’t support the freedom
of information. You are quite correct in saying that
managing information is a powerful way to manage (a
fancy word for control) anything else. That is old
news. Dictators use the method. Tyrants use the
method. Even Republicans and Democrats use the same
method. I am surprised that you even use the same
method to prevent other people from enjoying the freedom
of information. That freedom of information necessarily
include the ability to discriminate, for better or worse,
something that you want to remove from the people.
Don’t manage (control) information. Instead, use your
reasoning ability.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<[email protected]>
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this
comment in the public domain.
rodander,
The book so far appears to be advocating a particular set of practical approachs, so it’s understandable if some of the wider issues and responses to them are assumed to be already known.
Seems reasonable that freedom of expression by the authors can include criticism of groups they see as flawed but there may be more to it than that.
The group has so far been given some use of facilities not normally provided to discriminatory groups. I assume tha time will correct that and the Boy Scouts will end up on equal footing with other selective membership groups, like the Vulcan Association (of only black police officers) or women-only clubs. At present, though, the Boy Scouts are in a favored position in part because society has so far been made up mostly of people whose religious views agree with its positions and that may lead into the homosexual privilege argument apparently being made by the authors.
A state can have rational arguments about marriage but if it does, it seems possible that the law can be crafted in such a way that it serves those purposes more efficiently. For example, if promotion of children is the goal, the benefits might not be accorded to infertile couples or perhaps to those using contraception which is recognised as being effective.
This is the Lessig blog, not an IP only blog, so variety, based on his interests, is to be expected.
In the preciding post the phrase “homosexual privilege argument ” should have been “heterosexual privilege argument”.
Rodander:
(1) People who are strongly opposed to the gay “agenda” [sic] tend to be so for predominantly non-rational reasons such as fundamentalist religious beliefs. In my opinion and experience, there’s nothing argument can do to dissuade such beliefs. Those with weaker opposition are often merely evincing a fear of the unknown, and as more tolerance of diversity is displayed around them, they tend to become more accepting.
(2) I didn’t see anything in the published chapter attacking the freedom of association of the Boy Scouts. All that was advocated is a policy that would require discriminatory organizations to make it clear to current and potential members that they discriminate.
(3) Well, you can try to make arguments. The only ones I know of against gay marriage are either religious in nature and as such inadmissible in US law (“The Bible says…”); based on easily disprovable claims (“children adopted by gay parents have psychological problems”); or contradictory to other established social and legal norms (“marriage is for procreation” — which implies that infertile people should also not be allowed to marry, and childless couples should be fined.)
(4) I think you’re doing Mr. Lessig a disservice by assuming that he assumes his readers must agree with all of his positions or those of his guests; or that those positions take the form of sermons. The speakers here are advancing arguments that you are free to agree or disagree with.
As for Mr. Riolo — your puzzling non sequiteur shows that you have not only ignored the content of the book, but you apparently haven’t even had time to read any of this post apart from the last sentence, from which you’ve extrapolated a nonsensical rant on fascism. One can only hope that next time perhaps you won’t have the time to type a misinformed comment, either.
James Day:
Why do you find the phrase “heterosexual privilege” to be alienating? Do you think that heterosexuals don’t have privileges that non-heterosexuals lack, or do you just think a different choice of words would be better?
>>posted by [ Jennifer Brown ] on [ Jun 1 05 at 11:47 AM ]
???
Much of the sample chapter seems to be based on the distinction between “heterosexual privilege” vs “homosexual discrimination”. I couldn’t pick out exactly what the distinction was, other than the that it is clear that the authors feel that recasting the discussion as one of “heterosexual privelige” would increase the ability of “gay allies” to play an effective role. Is there an example that would disambiguate these for me?
I found two of the suggestions on page 9 to be contradictory: “Nongay allies should take care lest they suggest that homosexuality is a game or a costume to be taken off and on at whim” vs “Nongay allies should be careful not to compound the lies by reversing them; ambiguation makes sense if a nongay ally can acknowledge and appreciate the fluidity of sexual orientation”. Aren’t these two views at odds with each other?
While I support much of the gay rights movement, advocacy of this sort makes me feel uneasy. I don’t think the earlier comments about ‘stealth’ and ‘managing information’ should be dismissed as irrelevant. The approach espoused by the book does feel a bit stealthy and managed. And while I appreciate professor Lessig’s willingness to burn social capital in support of causes he believes in, I read this blog because it has attracted a following of passionate but rational followers of copyright and IP reform, and I worry that using it for other (good) causes will dilute its primary strength and goals.
Re: problem with privilege.
Didn’t read the sample chapter, but the post starts out talking about things like marriage, military, generalized equality. These things are as much matters of right as matters of privilege. Maybe these rights are being wrongfully denied to some, but this does not convert, say, the right to marry into a privilege to marry, at least not to me. Ditto the free speech right to disclose my sexual orientation.
Privileges are bad things to be gotten rid of. Do you want to get rid of things (eg, political “rights”) heterosexuals have? This is what “privilege” suggests to me.
Or, is it more a matter of getting fair homosexual access to things heterosexuals have? Something else might be better memewise.
Unpacking the verbiage.
The term “heterosexual privilege” seems to be used in this article to bring forward the benefits heterosexuals receive for being the dominant sexuality. Heterosexuals get lots of advantages – both legal and social. By calling it a privilege, the authors simply force heterosexuals to recognize the advantages they have, often unknowingly, received for most of their adult lives. This seems to be Step 1: recognizing the advantages you have. It may be a little alienating for an equality minded individual to have to admit they are higher on the totem-pole, but right now it is a reality we have to deal with.
From this standpoint the authors have outlined a few strategies for managing the “privilege”, sometimes in ways that are a bit subversive. Not mentioning your own sexuality in a conversation about gay rights – remaining ambiguous – may seem dishonest, but it really isn’t. When you don’t bring your own sexuality to the discussion, you break down the underlying meme that supporting gay rights is inherently shaped by the supporter’s sexuality. Supporting gay rights is simply supporting human rights.
A supporter’s individual sexuality is irrelevant in the larger point. There is nothing disingenuous about using this technique because the information you are “hiding” does not illuminate the debate or conversation you may have about gay rights.
Managing information in this context seems to be about breaking habits. It’s about presenting yourself in a way that actually represents your beliefs, instead of reinforcing the bias through language you are accustomed to. This is not managing or controlling the flow of information – which is bad. This is managing how you present information, which is good. They sound similar, but have one crucial difference. Managing the flow of information is what the Boy Scouts are doing: they won’t step up and say they discriminate against gays. Managing how you present information is when, for example, you support gay rights and want your words and actions to express that fact. You aren’t hiding the underlying truth; you’re making it more obvious. And that, I say, is good.
Anyway, that’s what I got from reading the chapter. BTW, any of you guys reading George LaKoff?
Okay, let’s discuss in terms of “advantage,” a terminology that doesn’t bother me. What are we trying to do (and I am going to manage the flow of possible answers here):
a. bring everyone up to the advantaged position; or
b. bring everyone down to the disadvantaged position?
“Privilege” says b. I can’t imagine that b is the harness-yer-allies answer, tho.
I find the comments from the people who seem to think that eliminating heterosexual privilege means taking away privileges or rights from heterosexuals to be baffling. Are you not familiar with the concept of “male privilege” as explored by feminists, or of “white privilege” as explored by anti-racist activists? Do you think that queer activists want to take away heterosexuals’ right to marry or join the military? (Answer: only those who want to get rid of the institutions of government-sponsored marriage or the military altogether.) Losing the ability to exercise privileges that people different from you can’t exercise is not the same as losing privileges.
What do I think of “male privilege,” “white privilege?” Bad terminology and bad pr. (Generally speaking. Some exceptions apply. Slave ownership is white privilege. Accordingly, we got rid of that. But, the prerogative to sit where I want on the bus — that is a right, and should not be smeared with the p-word.)
Maybe I am the wrong individual to be commenting on this. Are race and gender activists the allies sought to be harnessed here? Sympathetic tho I am to gay equality, I am more of an ip person than an race/gender activist.
or empathetic. whatever the respectful one is.
Ms. Chevalier is, er, right. “Privileges”, at least in this context, are not merely “rights”. Privilege is unequal access: “a special right … granted or available only to a particular person or group of people” [New Oxford American Dictionary]. Eliminating privilege thus means fairer access to rights.
“Heterosexual privilege” can be a tough concept to see. Two examples of a minor privilege come to mind. First: A bi female friend of mine once told me she was afraid to hold her girlfriend’s hand while they were driving [in Phoenix], because there were a lot of jacked-up trucks whose drivers could look down right into their small car and might yell insults at them, or worse. Second: my father, who is quite liberal, once mentioned that he was fine with people being gay, but on the streets in San Francisco why did they have to “flaunt it” by holding hands or kissing where people could see them?
Both illustrate a pervasive and invisible privilege: to be able to express affection to someone you love (or maybe just are flirting with), without the well-founded fear that you might as a consequence be yelled at, harassed, beaten up or even killed for it.
Clearly, no one (other than the Religious Right (of the Middle East)) would argue for taking this right away from anyone. Rather, it should be extended to same-sex couples, just as it has in past decades been (mostly) extended to mixed-race couples.
David W.: You’re confusing “privilege” and “privileges” (well, not just you, but a lot of people) — but perhaps you have a point in that most people won’t be able to see this distinction, either. This essay, though about male privilege rather than heterosexual privilege, makes the distinction pretty clear, IMO. And here’s a version for heterosexual privilege (derived from the previous essay.) Notice that none of the items on either list are privileges that everyone should have, because they largely involve having some sort of power over others. Whether you agree with the terminology or not, I think it’s important for heterosexuals to recognize that “heterosexual privilege” refers to something real, and that it needs to be eliminated.
David Woycechowsky:
“the prerogative to sit where I want on the bus — that is a right, and should not be smeared with the p-word”
Perhaps this will help clear up the meaning of the “p-word” to you: You are absolutely correct that being able to sit where you want on the bus is a right. However, being able to sit where you wanted, when there were others on the bus who were forced to sit in the back due to their race, was a privilege because the right was applied unequally and unfairly. Part of the process of the civil-rights movement was to make well-meaning white people aware of this unfair privilege, instead of unconsciously treating it as just the way things were.
“Eliminating privilege” (by itself) suggests that the “special right” is going away, but does not suggest that a universal right is coming in to replace it. “Superseding privilege” would draw a clearer picture, I suppose. You take the position that everybody knows that eliminated privileges will be replaced by rights, citing marriage.
I wouldn’t be so cavalier. Let’s say the issue involves the law governing employment benefits. If one spoke about “privilege” in this context, it would concern me that the legal mandates and then the benefits themselves will disappear. Now I *know* that’s not your position. I really, really, really do.
What is the problem is exists at the connotational level. If you keep characterizing my employment benefit a “privilege,” I get nervous. Is that how to win friends and influence people? You point out Ms. C is denotatively correct. She is. If this was a patent lawsuit at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Ms. C would definitely win.
Yeah, there are other people out there who, like me, don’t fully understand the definition of “privilege.”
A legal idea or concept of lesser significance than a right.
http://www.crfonline.org/orc/glossary/p.html
A benefit that is discretionary (may or may not be granted), in contrast to a right, which must be granted.
http://www.oxnardsd.org/pubs/pcrr/10100pcrr.htm
Anybody who happens to be operating under these (admittedly minority position) definitions could potentially be alienated by the p-word. Maybe this political cost will be outweighed by enhanced rhetorical vigor on the part of energized race and gender activists, who will finally be able to relate the gay struggle to their own.
To Jens,
Your observation is quite incorrect. I did not rely on only
one statement to form my opinion. I did read both Ian Ayres’
and Jennifer Brown’s comments and immediately recognized
what they are trying to do. I doubt that you will have time
to study semiotics but semiotics taught me few things on how
people can influence others through the manipulation of
information (in semiotics, the formal word is “sign”).
While I understand that their desire is to increase
fairness in some circles in our society, their method
raises some ethical issues that some or many heterosexuals
will not find acceptable.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<[email protected]>
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this
comment in the public domain.
I have finished reading the first chapter of your book.
I would like to read more but do not have easy access to a bookstore where I live. Ordering books and having them delivered to Africa is too expensive for me – I rarely do it.
I am eager to read more now, but I’m restricted to the first chapter.
Although I will likely track down and buy a copy of your book when my spouse and I travel to Canada/California this summer, I would be more inclined to do so if we all were allowed to continue reading what you have presented via PDF. Last summer I did the same with “Free Culture” – that is, I read a large chunk of it before traveling to North America and purchasing a copy.
It’s disappointing to see socially charged material intended to change the world for the better be restricted in regards to distribution. You obviously have a message you want voiced and it would be nice to see that message flow as unencumbered as possible.
Peter.
I think sexuality should be left ambiguous.
– Amantha
Thanks to James Day and Jens for their thoughtful responses to my earlier comment. The discourse here is respectful, for such a charged topic.
In brief response to James Day, I think that to the extent that the Boy Scouts have been “favored”, it is because many have seen the results of their work in forming great young men, teaching conservation and appreciation of the outdoors, and, yes, in moral formation including recognition of a Creator (of whatever flavor). Perhaps “society has so far been made up mostly of people whose religious views agree with its positions”. But maybe those principles are objectively Good and True, which is why they have worked. And maybe that is a good thing, and something worth favoring.
And I agree with James that a state can craft a marriage law in a way that it serves purposes such as promotion of chiildren more efficiently. But must it, constitutionally? Must it look into the fertility of a hetero couple before awarding a marriage license, if it denies same-sex marriages? Really?
In brief response to Jens: By stating that opponents “tend to be so for predominantly non-rational reasons such as fundamentalist religious beliefs”, I fear you have fallen into the trap of disqualifying a view because it may be religiously based (not to mention belittling it as “non-rational”, or “indadmissible in US law”). I smell some intolerance of diversity in that. Listen more closely to positions of others, to see why they think as they do, and perhaps you will understand (while not agreeing) and even respect such views. Which I think is ultimately what both sides ultimately want here.
And yes, I understand that this is Prof. Lessig’s blog. It is his toy, not mine. No disservice intended to him, if that is what I did. I do feel free to agree or disagree with what is posted here, and I very much appreciate the tone and thought behind the comments on my comment. I will endeavor to do the same.
Kirsten Chevalier,
Privileges are generally optional and not fundamental rights or equality. They are often granted to favor certain desired behaviors. For those reasons I think that calling the benefits linked to homosexuality or some homosexual practices privileges is starting off with wording which undermines the case being made.
I take your point about privilege rather than privileges but you’ve still lost before really getting started because the meaning is there, regardless of your understanding or explaining of how you’re distinguishing between the two – simply by having to explain it, you’ve lost most people already, however common that usage is iin assorted civil rights groups, because the target audience is not within those groups and doesn’t share their defined usage and assumptions.
Since I think many of those things are rights and also don’t want to the case undermined, the effect of the wording is to cause me to want to be dissociated from the arguments.
rodander,
Certainly there is much good which has been and continues to be done by the Boy Scouts. “great young men, teaching conservation and appreciation of the outdoors, and, yes, in moral formation” are things I’d agree are good, pretty much universal and clearly rational.
Linking moral formation to a creator is more problematic, for there are so many counter-examples of moral teaching which don’t have them flowing from a single omnipotent creator. It’s only necessary to look at the former Soviet Union, India and China to find moral teachings, including such things as condemnation of murder, theft and breaking stable relationships. Condemning those things does seem to be pretty universally accepted in human societies. This is a point where those who have been taught morals in the context primarily of the Ten Commandments flowing from a religious basis seem to have difficulty, understandably enough, for it’s contrary to their, and my, upbringing.
Of course, I wouldn’t ban the Boy Scouts. I just recognise that parts of the teachings they have are based on the religious beliefs of their founder and would have them treated like any other groups teaching and requiring specific religious beliefs as a required part of the activity.
To everyone who is worried that they will have to give up privileges or rights if the queer rights movement succeeds, or who thinks that other people might be worried about this due to the term “heterosexual privilege”: what specific rights are you worried about losing, as a heterosexual? Or what rights do you think other heterosexuals who find the term “heterosexual privilege” confusing might be worried about losing?
RIGHTS I AM AFRAID OF LOSING
1. Employment protections / fair labor laws. (discussed above)
2. Right to disclose my sexual orientation in the military. (mentioned above)
To name 2.
RIGHTS I AM NOT AFRAID OF LOSING
Probably more importantly, even though I am not afraid of losing my right to marry or hold hands or have sex or whatever, as a “equality minded individual,” it really rankles me to hear these things called a “privilege.”
PRIVILEGES I AM AFRAID OF LOSING
Above, I referred to employment law — state-mandated / forbidden stuff. This is, of course, interrealted with the issue of what benefits an employer will choose to offer me. For better or worse, these benefits are not “rights” in the US. They are considered to be consideration bargained for at arms length between the parties. As such, privilege, while maybe not the best descriptor, is a fair word to use here. Fair to use, but very bad from a p.r. angle. You imagine that the shameful talismanic p-word will shame the devil out of employers. On the other hand, I think greater repetition of the p-word in this context will shame the benefit privileges right out of everybody’s employment package (tenured profs excluded, of course).
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
I don’t know if this is better regarded as a right or a privilege. I didn’t know in lawschool when I had to read Jaycees and those other cases and I don’t know now. Actually, this was the reason I got involved in these gay posts, because I am so conflicted about freedom of association. At any event, when an ambivalent guy like me keeps hearing of freedom of association as part of a set of “privileges,” it gives me great pause about anything else the author is saying. Since the debate in this area is active and nuanced, maybe both “rights” and “privileges” are too conclusory here in their respective ways.
Thanks again, James Day.
Since the original post here is a day+ old, I’ll take the opportunity to drift our discussion a bit farther afield. 😉
You refer to the USSR, India, and China as examples of non-single-creator moral teaching frameworks. The history, in practice and in fact, of the atheistic pair of those countries (USSR, China) more likely proves the point that morality (in practice) requires theistic belief.
But be that as it may, the founders of the US acted on the principle that they had the right to break away from the Crown because they held certain truths to be self-evident, including those unalienable rights that are endowed in men by their Creator. It is because those rights have a higher source than man himself, that the founders were justified in the revolution. The Boy Scouts of America, in their recognition of a Supreme Being (as they state it, I believe) go no further than that, really along the lines of the Declaration of Independence (for those readers that didn’t recognize my reference above). So to paint the Scouts as a religous organization (and then, once in that category, then marginalizing them along the lines that many seek for faith-informed discussion and action in today’s society) is unjust, and contrary to the fundamental defining idea of this country.
rodander,
I’d say that the history in Russia and China shows that the basic day to day morals are the same, regardless of the nature of the religion of a society. Murder, theft and such are pretty universally condemned in all societies when it comes to humans living their daily lives. Leaders vary, of course, with all countries having some good and some less so.
You may wish to reconsider your argument about the basis of the removal of the US from the British Empire. The head of that empire was also the head – “Protector of the Faith” – of the Church of England and the traitors removed that religion as the official state religion of their colonies. he empire also had mandatory representation for that religion in law making.
Other colonies, like India, left the empire simply using human rights and a desire for local government. Still others left the empire and retained the official state religion.
Since the declaration required by the Boy Scouts of America is consistent with the beliefs of the majoriy religions in the US it seems pretty unlikely that it will marginalise them, at least in the short term.
“to paint the Scouts as a religous organization” isn’t necessary. All it takes is knowing that the required declaration excludes those of many religions from membership, by requiring a declaration contrary to their faith. Do you agree that it does have a requirement with that effect?
James Day, thanks. You’re a fun correspondent.
But the governments of the Soviet Union and PRC did not/do not abide by those morals themselves. There was/is wholesale disregard of human rights in those regimes. Gulags. Forced abortion. Murder. No private property rights. No freedom of speech or of association or of religion. Sorry, but it is a cruel joke to use them as evidence of moral societies, based on stated “laws” that were just wallpaper. Check out also today’s Wall Street Journal article on churches in China for additional info.
As far as the Scouts go, while the Declaration (do you mean the one in the Bylaws?) and all other religious facets are “consistent” with majority faiths, I am challenged to find “many” faiths that it is inconsistent with. They go out of their way to be nonsectarian. The faiths that in fact have religious awards for Scouts include Baha’i, Buddhist, Hindu, Meher Bab, Unity Churches, Salvation Army, Zoroastrian, . . . . (want a website?). I don’t see how “many” are excluded. I think Supreme Being is all that is required to be acknowledged.
But whether Wiccans are excluded is irrelevant, also. The Scouts remain a private organization. My point was that their enemies “paint” them as a religious organization in order to further limit their activities under the establishment clause.
I’ll stand by the rationale for the founding, as stated in the Declaration itself. And, yes, I understand the breaking away from CofE as a factort. The underlying justifying principle, based on unalienable rights endowed by a Creator, remains, tho.