Referendum for equality

The notion of federal protection against discriminatory employment began in the early ’60s and is nothing new. Since then, the federal government has passed statutes forbidding employment discrimination based on one’s religion, race, color, sex, national origin and even genetic information. In addition, laws currently protect individuals over 40 years old and those with disabilities. Yet measures protecting sexual orientation and gender expression — identity categories with a clear, patterned experience of marginalization — have been repeatedly defeated or ignored. Protections against employment discrimination first made the law books in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and indeed, that’s exactly what these are: civil rights. Yet to this day we continue to allow employers to unfairly discriminate based on perceived sexual orientation and gender expression.

This practice isn’t just a relic of a bigoted history, but a looming injustice that continues to disrupt lives across the country. Lisa Howe, a soccer coach at Belmont University in Nashville, was terminated when university administrators found out that she had a same-sex partner. Andre Cooley, an employee in a sheriff’s office in Mississippi, was fired when his employer discovered that he was gay. However, this discrimination doesn’t solely apply to LGBT individuals. In states without protections, any individual at all is susceptible to this type of employment discrimination because it can also be based on a non-LGBT identity as well as for the mere perception of an identity. For example, an employer could discriminate against someone merely for thinking that someone is LGBT, even if he or she is not. Likewise, an LGBT employer could discriminate against straight individuals. This injustice is intolerable, but Princeton University has a special stake in its rectification and should move swiftly to endorse the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the federal legislation to protect against this discrimination.

Princeton is in the business of preparing the next generation of leaders. This business, in large part, includes a massive alumni constituency that constantly seeks employment in almost all sectors of the workforce. Princeton alumni are currently working in all 50 states, but their prestigious degrees are worthless when they — along with many other qualified, hard-working individuals — are denied job opportunities, fired or otherwise discriminated against because of who they are. The University pays close attention to the creation and manifestation of its students’ potential, and this attention has always included a robust interest in the employment opportunities available to students. Taking an agnostic position on the issue is a bizarre silence on a highly relevant topic. Employment opportunities should be of foremost concern to the University, and breaches of this opportunity on the basis of identity ought to be considered an affront on Princeton’s mission.

Yet the University has remained silent in the debate that has ultimately squashed this legislation for decades. This complacency with the status quo on such a pertinent topic must be considered a quiet endorsement of it; therefore, we must call upon our University to take a stand on our behalf. ENDA will protect every graduate of Princeton and ensure that our hard work is never excused as a result of a perceived identity.

Some, such as The Daily Princetonian Editorial Board, claim that it is not appropriate for the University to take a stance on a seemingly political issue such as equal rights, and in his column, Luke Massa claims that there are no clear guidelines on the content of a referendum. However, the Constitution does state that one of the purposes of the USG is “[t]o discuss, deliberate and vote on questions relating to or affecting undergraduate life at Princeton University, or any other question of interest to the undergraduates.” Luckily, a mechanism exists for Princeton students to join together, declare our commitment to equality of opportunity and demand that the University join us in this declaration.

This USG election, undergraduates will be given the opportunity to make this declaration by voting “Yes” on the referendum calling on the Board of Trustees to protect Princeton’s mission and community by endorsing ENDA. Undergraduates have already made their voices heard by petitioning this referendum onto the ballot and garnering hundreds of signatures. The next step is to send this appeal to the trustees and thereby to send a message to Congress: Discrimination is unacceptable, and this injustice must be righted.

Opposition to employment nondiscrimination is fairly weak, but the momentum to act is not strong enough. This type of referendum is the first of its kind in the United States, and this occasion represents an opportunity for the Princeton community to become a leader in the fight for equality. We should take advantage of the platform that this terrific University lays claim to and set an example of what a meaningful commitment to equality really looks like.

Ballard Metcalfe is a freshman from Eminence, K.Y. He can be reached at blmetcal@princeton.edu.