Quite spectacularly when they give it a go.
The Washington Times was founded by Sun Myung Moon to challenge the “the liberal media bias™” of the Washington Post. Around 2009 the Unification Church stopped funding the paper. Then, in 2010, it was sold to a group with close ties to the church. The Unification Church is no friend of the LGBT community.
Last night the Times published an editorial titled “For too many gays, ‘tolerance’ is a one-way street.” What oppression have we wrought upon the heterosexuals comprising about 95% of the population? Well, apparently the organizers of this year’s Reaching Out MBA Conference are trying to ensure that attendees are in fact members of the LGBT community; the group for which the conference is intended. Ah, but the Times sees this as some form of discrimination:
Equality gets no sanction. Water fountains might be labeled “gay only,” and anyone admitting to normal sexuality should expect to be relegated to the back of the bus, or the hall. Such attitudes are, full irony here, nourished in a group that has complained about shunning and discrimination.
My (limited) experience with these types of events is that they are more pull than push. In reality this one probably exists because there are employers who value corporate diversity. There are also employers who want to take advantage of the fact that gay talent (still) have reduced employment prospects. In other words, no employers — no event. It is really quite ironic because, if we did not have to identify the organizations that want to hire us, then these events would not exist. By fostering discrimination, the Waashington Times is helping to perpetuate the very problem that they are complaining about. And make no mistake. This piece is drowning in bigotry that is cloaked in demagoguery.
People who oppose LGBT equality often complain that we are hijacking the civil rights movement of the 1960’s. Yet, in the previous quote, the Washington Times is using “water fountains” in its imagery. Do they have any African-Americans on their editorial board who might object? But it gets worse as they explain:
Mr. Kidd [the lead organizer] told Bloomberg BusinessWeek about a group of 15 MBA graduate students from Rice University who attended the event in New Orleans, only one of whom was openly of the homosexual persuasion. He “was forced to go around introducing himself as ‘the actual gay guy,’ so he didn’t get round-filed with the rest of the school’s [straight] students.”
“Homosexual persuasion?” Is the Times trying to be offensive? And our grievous offense is that we are trying to limit attendance at an event for gay graduate students to actual gay graduate students. Gotcha! Do these people actually not appreciate the fact that we are a minority? Moreover, I would remind the editorial board that we continue to be denied equal employment opportunity because of irrelevancies like sexual orientation. It is abundantly clear that these folks are either in denial or oblivious to history:
This would surely be the Justice Department’s reaction to anyone who suggested that homosexual job applicants’ resumes be routinely “round-filed,” or the outrage if a similar event were advertised as for straights only. But imagination is not required, it’s actually happening.
Actually, the DOJ could do nothing because (unlike religion) there is no federal anti-discrimination law that protects LGBT citizens in the workplace.
The polemic eventually concludes:
For militant homosexuals, tolerance is a one-way street, as is freedom of expression. Josh Barro, a writer for The New York Times, tweeted last week that “anti-LGBT attitudes are terrible … and we need to stamp them out, ruthlessly.” The lavender lobby could use a little diversity among the ruthless stamper-outers.
It seems that every gay person seeking equal protection and due process is labeled a “militant homosexual.” I find nothing wrong with Mr. Barro’s tweet. As a society we have usually determined that any form of discrimination is un-American and should be stamped out. The folks at the Washington Times seem to lack the introspection required to examine their own attitudes towards LGBT people. To suggest that we need more diversity is preposterous. However, the constituency of the Washington Times is unlikely to appreciate the intellectual dishonesty. How wonder how many openly gay managers are employed by the Washington Times.