Imagine an unhealthful behavior that can result in serious, even fatal illnesses. These illnesses are almost certainly completely preventable because most cases result from directly from this risky behavior. Is an employer justified in saying “this behavior is dangerous, and it increases health care costs; therefore, if you engage in it, even during your own time, you will be terminated?”
I’d been thinking about this question for several years, and two articles in two different papers on February 15, 2005 reminded me of it once again. First, I read “His Ultimatum: Quit Smoking or Lose Job,” in the Detroit Free Press, about Howard Weyers, who makes no apology for his widely-publicized “play by my rules or get off my team” policy. Smoking, even off the job, gets you canned and Mr. Weyers, founder of Weyco, Inc. sees absolutely nothing wrong with that. Not so fast says Cara Stiffler, former receptionist and one of four dismissed for refusing to take a drug test. "We live in America, and I'm an American and I have freedoms," she says. It’s a privacy issue according to these ex-employees and they have the support of at least one legislator who has introduced legislation to make it illegal to fire someone for legal behavior outside the workplace.
On the same day, the New York Times reported that “Gays Debate Radical Steps to Curb Unsafe Sex,” an discouraging article that confirms what gay activist Larry Kramer said last November to wide criticism; that is, that gay men refuse to modify their behavior even in the face of the threat of AIDS.
Even the possible emergence of a superbug version of AIDS doesn’t scare them, apparently, as one expert in the article notes. "People are not going to modify their sexual habits in ways that are difficult or unpleasant until they see their friends dying again. "And to me that's just an unbelievably depressing thought," he says. You can say that again.
So here we have two groups of people, both voluntarily engaged in risky, albeit, legal behavior. In the case of the first, their habit is considered disgusting, unhealthful, burdensome on our already burdened healthcare system and absolutely socially-unacceptable, so much so that it is considered not only proper but absolutely essential to stigmatize them, isolate them and in every possible way express our collective disapproval, including firing them. In the case of the second, not only is it considered the height of narrow-mindedness and bigotry to even suggest that their behavior is wrong, in many situations it is illegal to express any condemnation of what they do behind closed doors. This group is so protected that not only are they entitled to continue to engage in dangerous behavior, the rest of us are supposed to invest millions of dollars to prevent or treat the illnesses that result.
Can you imagine what would happen if smokers demanded that we invest millions to find a cure for lung cancer so that they could continue smoking? Oh yeah, right. No, it doesn’t matter if the potential beneficiaries were veterans who had survived storming the beach at Normandy, and who only took up smoking to cope with the stress of defending freedom. Too bad. Just quit smoking. We’re not going to spend a fortune just to help you recover from self-inflicted illness. Yet recall what happened back in the 1980’s when we learned that AIDS was a disease that usually resulted from a variety of risky behaviors. Those who wanted to continue to engage in them demanded that we find a cure NOW!
Can there be any doubt that Mr. Weyco would see himself hauled into court, after a humiliating barrage of publicity characterizing him as a contemptible hateful bigot on the order of Hitler, if he had the audacity to even suggest that he would fire someone for engaging in dangerous sexual behavior, regardless of the effect on health care costs or anything else?
Please don’t misunderstand. I don’t want anyone to get sick for any reason. Having said that, the question is a legitimate one: Why is one risky behavior universally condemned while the other is encouraged and protected?
On his 1/31/05 program, former sportscaster turned MS-NBC smartass Keith Olberman had a gay old time—wait, poor choice of words—had a field day mocking the mouth-breathing, knuckledragging right wing nutjobs who he claims have been e-mailing him incessantly to complain about his reporting on Dr. James Dobson and SpongeBob. Not that anyone would know that, since almost no one watches the show. Yes, as I always say, I watch this stuff so you won’t have to.
Anyway, Keith could barely suppress his laughter as he read examples of some of the moronic e-mails he got from these fundamentalist low brows, which admittedly did contain some factual errors and failed to address the real issue. In that, both those writers and Mr. Olberman share the same deficiency. The issue is not the innocuous video from the “We Are Family” foundation. Nor it is even the “Tolerance Pledge” that appears on the group’s website. The real issue is the assertions contained in the Teacher’s Guide that accompanies the video, and which is supposed to be sent to 61,000 schools.
As David Huntwork pointed out in his excellent column, “The Saga of SpongeBob SquarePants,” this guide contains the following exercises for middle-school children:
Identify ways in which homophobia and compulsory heterosexuality are at work in your daily life.
Find some examples of compulsory heterosexuality in your daily life.
How are you affected by compulsory heterosexuality?
How are you affected by homophobia?
How would you be affected if your sexual orientation were different than it is now?
How would others you know — friends, family members, classmates, members in your clubs or organizations — be affected?
How will understanding these definitions change your thinking about compulsory heterosexuality and homophobia?
Haven’t heard of ‘compulsory heterosexuality?’ According to the guide, compulsory heterosexuality, is “the assumption that women are "naturally" or innately drawn sexually and emotionally toward men, and men toward women; the view that heterosexuality is the "norm" for all sexual relationships. The institutionalization of heterosexuality in all aspects of society includes the idealization of heterosexual orientation, romance, and marriage. Compulsory heterosexuality leads to the notion of women as inherently "weak," and the institutionalized inequality of power: power of men to control women's sexuality, labor, childbirth and childrearing, physical movement, safety, creativity, and access to knowledge. It can also include legal and social discrimination against homosexuals and the invisibility of or intolerance toward lesbian and gay existence."
Perhaps some parents have no problem with their children being spoon-fed this socially-destructive tripe, but shouldn’t they be given the opportunity to give their informed consent? Mocking the critics is a poor substitute for telling the truth about what is in the entire program.
Yes, the video is innocuous in itself. So is a syringe, which can be used to inject life-saving medicine or poison. In this case, the video is the delivery system designed to place these pathological ideas in the minds of children.
To all the Keith Olbermans of the world, I ask if this video and accompanying material is not an attempt to conduct a stealth campaign to undermine traditional values, why can’t its supporters tell the truth about it? Is condescending mocking laughter the appropriate response to parents and other concerned adults? The fact that the proponents of this stuff are constantly required to lie or at least conceal some of what they are doing is more telling than a million idiotic e-mails.