Gov’t ‘bathroom’ directive sets back fight for solidarity

BY ARLENE RUBINSTEIN

On May 13, the Barack Obama administration issued a directive mandating that transgendered students be allowed to use whatever bathroom they choose. The 26-page guideline, jointly issued by the federal departments of Education and Justice, says that “as soon as a child’s parent or legal guardian asserts a gender identity for the student that differs from previous representations or records” the child is to be treated accordingly in all public schools. Obama presents this as a major civil rights accomplishment of his presidency.

It’s in workers’ interest to oppose all forms of discrimination in hiring, housing and access to education and to oppose violence and harassment of anyone for their sexual orientation or how they view their gender. But that’s not what this “guideline” is about.

In addition, imposing broad social policy changes through executive decree is an obstacle to the discussion and debate needed to forge working-class unity. Relying on presidential decrees undermines constitutional protections the working class needs against the government and is an obstacle to independent working-class political action.

The federal action follows passage of the North Carolina Equal Access to Public Accommodations Act, adopted March 23. This legislation, also called HB2, has become known as “the bathroom law” because of a provision that requires multiple occupancy bathrooms and locker rooms in schools and other government buildings to be used only by individuals of one biological sex.

The law was adopted in response to an ordinance passed by the Charlotte City Council in February. This law barred discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, but also included the use of restrooms, sparking controversy.

Over the last five years, many city and county governments have adopted ordinances prohibiting discrimination against gays and transgender people in housing and employment. They reflect changing attitudes within the population and deserve support, as they strike a blow against prejudice and strengthen the capacity of the working class to take the moral high ground and to fight for the interests of all working people.

HB2 not only banned opening bathrooms to individuals of the opposite sex, but overturned local anti-discrimination laws. It also banned any local measures to set a minimum wage higher than the federal level of $7.25 an hour, saying this is to prevent jeopardizing “the competitive position of North Carolina business and industry.” Neither Obama nor the Justice Department have commented on this aspect of the law.

The Justice Department sued the state of North Carolina, saying HB2 violates federal civil rights legislation. The state government countersued.

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch equated the fight over restroom access by transgendered individuals to the fight against racist Jim Crow laws. This comparison is “spot on,” wrote Washington Post columnist Janell Ross.

This is a false analogy. Jim Crow segregation was used to oppress Black workers and farmers and to foster racism to divide the working class. It was a key tool to push down the value of labor of the working class and boost the profits of the propertied rulers. Its overthrow was the result of a massive struggle, a revolution that won millions to its banner. The laws that followed codified what had already been won.

Obama’s executive order undermines the fight against prejudice and it does not protect transgendered individuals. It paints working people as a backward, reactionary mass that needs to be ordered to do what’s right.

“Kids who have a different sexual orientation or are transgender,” Obama told BuzzFeed News, “are subject to a lot of bullying.”

But most workers oppose violence and bullying. And there has been a sea change in the United States over the last several decades, with growing support for women’s rights and opposition to discrimination against gays, lesbians and transgender people.

That this order has little do with protecting anyone is shown by the reaction of federal authorities last year to the Palatine Township High School near Chicago. School officials offered a private changing room to a biologically male student who identifies as female. The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights ruled that the offer was a violation of gender equality law.

The attempt to force schools to follow these guidelines also ignores the right to privacy, especially of women who wish to change clothes or use bathroom facilities without the presence of males.

According to Obama, ultimately the “courts will affirm or reject how we see the issue.” The president and the meritocratic layer of lawyers, professionals and non-governmental organizations he is part of see the use of executive orders and court decisions as the arbiter of all political questions.

By making “bathroom choice” the issue, the proponents of the Obama directive are undermining the fight against discrimination based on race, gender or sexual orientation.

Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home