Separate But Equal... off on a tangent

The Washington Post published an interesting piece yesterday by Jonathan Turley called Good Intentions Aside, Separate Still Isn't Equal. In it Turley castigates what he calls new segretationists.

Few legal doctrines are more dangerous or despised than that of separate but equal rights -- the philosophy that legitimized racial apartheid in the United States. It took the sacrifices of the civil rights struggle to put an end to both this doctrine and the officially sanctioned segregation that it justified.

While conceding that their motives are different from the old segregationists, Turley says "there remain striking similarities in their methods." He cites two examples: New York's Harvey Milk High School which was created "to provide a sanctuary for gay and lesbian students who face tremendous pressures and even violence in many schools." And the California Prison System which initially segregates by race inmates who are arriving in the system.

Both plans are being vigorously defended on pragmatic grounds -- arguments long used by segregationists. From the court's first articulation of the doctrine in 1896, separate but equal was always an exercise of pragmatism over principle. Rather than confront racial animus, society chose to yield to it -- to achieve the appearance of racial coexistence through racial separation. (emphasis added)

Turley makes some good points which I agree with. But that's not the point of this post. The point I want to address here is the proverbial Pink Elephant in our midst which nobody wants to aknowledge: There is another separate but equal system which enjoys not only overwhelming popular support, but also is codified into law. It's alive and well in California and New York, in Ohio and Florida, in Oregon and Texas.

Public Restrooms.

That's right... public restrooms are a sanctuary of separate but equal under the law.

I checked. After a brief conversation with a nice lady with the Portland Police Department's Public Information Office, I was told that it's generally illegal for a man to use a public woman's restroom. There are exceptions, of course. The nice lady declined to articulate all of them. But, as a general principle... all else being equal (no emergency, adult status, mental competence, etc...) it's illegal for a man to use a public woman's restroom. And vice versa. In effect: separate but equal. Although women who attend any large public gathering will likely challenge the "equal" part of that. What with the insanely long lines compared to the men's facilities. But, even so... it's legally "separate but equal." And, it seems to me that the legal rational isn't fundamentally different than the "pramatism over principle" which the USSC used in 1896.

So why do we willingly tolerate one form of legal segregation but not others? I submit that it's all about sociatal norms and expectations. Particularly with respect to the individuals sense of private versus public space.

A woman copping an attitude at my intrusion into her Venusian sanctuary is only looking at her own self interest. She doesn't want me invading what she sees as her private space. I don't necessarily disagree with that reasoning. But, isn't that really the same basic motivation as many in the old South had vis-a-vis blacks? While there clearly were many racist Southern advocates of racial apartheid. Many others simply were born into a culture and didn't overly question it's presumptions. I think it perfectly rational to presume that many of those simply saw their "whites only" space at the lunch counter as personal space. And invasions by blacks was probably reacted to on an emotional level as an unwarrented invasion of privacy.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not making excuses for Southern bigots or any other bigots. I don't condone racial apartheid under any circumstances! All I'm saying is that we as a society continue to dance around the issue of "equality" based on our own perceptions of what is acceptable and what isn't. Turley's piece is a good example of that, IMHO.

You wanna end "separate but equal" under the law? Then end it all or be honest about your true objections to specific examples of it. Anything less is hypocrisy.