More on Multiculturalism
I enjoyed Alon's post and the comments on it. They raise the problem of what we might call the paradox of tolerance (that is, that intolerance must be tolerated and that if intolerance prevails in the battle of ideas, then tolerance will be no more -- a variant on one person, one vote, one time). Nomi Stolzenberg at U.S.C. Law Center wrote an article in the Harvard Law Review (on which I was a research assistant, just to give you a sense of how long ago we're talking about) called something like "He Drew A Circle That Shut Me Out: An Assimilationist Critique of Pluralism" that captures these issues very well. My own view is that in a battle between multiculturalism and equality, equality ought to win. This sort of thing comes up quite regularly when religious groups (and it does, unfortunately, tend to be religious groups) deny women and gay people an equal place in their societies and then demand that the surrounding society "stay out" and allow the subordination of its members. When the members "choose" subordination, then I suppose they are -- in the absence of contrary evidence -- consenting adults, and one must tolerate it with some of the same distate that one might tolerate a sexual practice in which one member of the couple consensually burns the other member with cigarettes. But once a "member" objects (or, in the case of children, once someone notices that children are being subjected to subordinating practices), I no longer believe that tolerance should thrive. Karima Bennounce, my colleague at Rutgers, has a fasinating article coming out (I believe in the Columbia International Law Journal) about Turkish and other limits on Muslim covering of girls at school.
2 Comments:
At 10:55 PM,
Anonymous said…
"My own view is that in a battle between multiculturalism and equality, equality ought to win."
You're begging the question. If you deny the right of an Orthodox Jew (for example) to discriminate against homosexuals (for example) based on his sincere religious beliefs, then he has become less equal. You're arguing, in essence, that certain religious beliefs deserve no protection, whereas purely secular practices do. Where's the equality there? That's exactly the tension Alon was discussing, and which can't be avoided by mere semantics.
"This sort of thing comes up quite regularly when religious groups (and it does, unfortunately, tend to be religious groups) deny women and gay people an equal place in their societies and then demand that the surrounding society 'stay out' and allow the subordination of its members."
That's one aspect of feminist critique of the Bush administration I've never been able to understand. NOW has harshly criticized the war in Afghanistan, even though it led to the defeat of the Taliban and undeniable improvement in the lives of women -- yet NOW opposed and continues to oppose that military action, usually in terms defending the multiculturalism of Afghanistan.
Not exactly on-topic, but sorta-conservative radio talk-show host Tammi Bruce left NOW in part because of its failure to condemn Bill Clinton's sexual predations, because of the political disadvantage they feared should he be held accountable. This strikes me as an example of allowing one's supposedly core principles go by the wayside for the sake of political expediency, which I can only assume is the rationale behind NOW's opposition to the Afghanistan invasion.
At 9:12 AM,
Adam P. said…
Something about this came up in Professor Dorf's seminar yesterday. In the US, we don't "balance" constitutional rights against one another, though they do in other countries. So if the right to express one's religion via discrimination comes up against the right to be free from discrimination, a society has to decide which it values more. No religious practice gets carte blanche simply because its a religious practice, nor should it. Some things are dangerous and harmful to thirdparties, nonwilling participants in the religion. They cannot use their religion to inflict a hardship on another party.
Although I disagree with them, I'm not saying that orthodox jews cannot discriminate against gays within their sect, denying them rites and participation within the community, but to deny them rights in the municipality is a far different question.
Post a Comment
<< Home