City Commissioner John Matta's Reasons for Voting to Repeal the Discrimination Ordinance
The following are comments given by City Commissioner John Matta at the City Commission meeting held on May 3. They express his reasons for voting to repeal the discrimination ordinance. It was officially repealed on May 17, 2011.
While there are many arguments for repeal both from technical issues with the specific ordinance to general philosophical concept of the law itself, I will limit my comments to three areas.
The First area is the need and appropriateness for City Government to use its’ police powers of force and coercion against its’ citizens as the only solution to this perceived problem.
The ordinance specifically calls for the use of police power. Here there really is a conflict of vision between the two sides. The pro side thinks we are corrupt unless we have the law. The con side says to say we need the law means Manhattan must be extremely corrupt and bigoted to have to resort to the use of force against our own citizens and they disagree.
The pro side sees the use of force as necessary to secure their basic rights, while the con side believes the ordinance gives special rights by providing certain groups a protected class status. This begs the question - if there is a protected class, then there must be an unprotected class as well. This issue is further complicated because membership into this protected class is defined by a person’s declaration and or behavior whether actual or perceived. Conceivably one can change their mind regarding their status.
I come down against the use of force. Yes the use of force is justified for things like theft, murder, and fraud. This is, for the most part, universally accepted and indeed the protection of private property was and should be the main job of government. However once we stray from such basic concepts, the use of force hardens positions, creates resentment, and sets a bad precedent. While technology progresses in a linear fashion, law does not. Human nature does not evolve. Ideas are merely recycled and repackaged. The more we accept the use of force as a way to get what we want, the more others will follow that path to get what they want. In the end, this turns into whomever runs the government gets what they want.
The second area is the unforeseen consequences that always come with the enforcement of motive or “what was someone thinking” crimes as opposed to the actual act being against the law. Not hiring someone is not illegal in and of itself under the ordinance. It depends on what the person was thinking.
You know this ordinance really is not about discrimination. It actually condones discrimination as long as it is for the right reason.
Section 10-16 j states – “It shall NOT be an unlawful employment practice to fill vacancies in such a way as to eliminate or reduce imbalance with respect to race, sex, military status, disability, religion, age, color, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin or ancestry.”
So, in essence, the ordinance allows discrimination for social engineering purposes. Now I agree with this section from the stand point that this should be legal. I think a private business can have very sound business reasons for such a practice besides just looking politically correct. Having a diverse work force with varying points of view, I think is beneficial for the development of new and better ways to approach things. In addition a company may target a specific market segment population for increased sales and therefore may want employees from that population. Also a company may do it because their management thinks it is the correct thing to do morally. I see no problem with company policies in this regard.
The problem comes in with government enforcement of “what were you thinking” crimes – how do you determine that an injustice has occurred. I have dealt with this issue for two decades professionally. First off only the foolish and the very honest will just out right tell you they are discriminating. So how do you know? One way that has been used is to look at statistics. In essence using a quota system which of course creates discrimination because then people may hire in a way merely to look good.
The other way is to scrutinize business practices to make sure the business practices are uniform and consistently followed. This sounds nice, but the devil is in the details. Say you have a set policy but you made an exception for someone down on their luck. Well guess what, now you may have a problem unless you grant everyone that same exception.
The result of both methods is that the accused ends up having to prove their innocence versus the accuser proving guilt. Will it be acceptable for a landlord merely to say “when I talked to them they seemed like they would be high maintenance tenants”, or a store owner to say “I did not think he would fit in with the current staff” - of course not. Both may be totally reasonable conclusions of a perceptive landlord or store owner, but what will city staff and our volunteer board make of these answers.
The goal really is a utopian diverse employee or tenant mix guided by equally utopian objective government approved business practices. I am amazed that we think government can be so wise and virtuous to achieve such a thing. We do not trust the people. Why do we trust the government? Remember it was government that created slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow Laws. Do we want to keep adding to the protected class list or find a more progressive way to handle the issue?
I used to think that eventually everyone would become a protected class and then everything would be fine. But, then I realized all that would mean is that everybody would run to government to settle their hiring, firing, amount of pay, if they got the apartment, benefits, time off, etc. disputes. City Hall would become one big HR department for the city.
Lastly, there is the religious question. Again we have a conflict of visions. The pro side says you can have your religious beliefs, but keep them inside the four walls of your church. In essence you are not allowed to live your religious convictions in the public square or in commerce. The con side says this ordinance goes against the US & KS Constitutions’ which guarantee the rights to live their religious beliefs publically and to an extent commercially.
The US Constitution says in the 1st Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
The Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights #7th States:
“The right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any person be compelled to attend or support any form of worship; nor shall any control of or interference with the rights of conscience be permitted, nor any preference be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship. No religious test or property qualification shall be required for any office of public trust, nor for any vote at any elections, nor shall any person be incompetent to testify on account of religious belief.”
So we have a conundrum. How do we reconcile the issue? I do not see a way. Therefore, I choose the path not to use force on either side. Mutual respect and understanding do not come about by the use of force.
One last thought. Much of what I have stated you could say applies to race as well as the gender issues we are debating. While that is true, there is a distinction.
For some reason when a black baby is born there are some people who automatically hate him. The baby can not talk, has no opinions, has done nothing, and has not disagreed with anyone on anything yet but is still hated. The issue we are debating is not the same as that issue.
Did the previous government programs of slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow laws justify the government use of force in the opposite direction? That is forced integration and the creation of a protected class of citizens. That was a very difficult question for a very difficult time. It was an extreme situation.
I am for repealing this ordinance. We are not in that situation today in Manhattan, KS, and I do not support adding more members to the protected class status.
