Equal Rights Amendment pops up in Virginia

This post was published Jan. 25, 2020 in the Wilson Times.

Here is a question for public policy fans: What is more amazing: that the Commonwealth of Virginia, which had transformed into a reliably Republican state in the 1970s, has now passed the Equal Rights Amendment; or that the Equal Rights Amendment still has some slim chance of ratification 48 years after being sent to the states?

Virginia is the 38^th state to ratify the ERA, but this late 1970s hot-button issue and presidential campaign platform plank, faces legal challenges before it can become part of the Constitution. Congress sets deadlines for ratification of amendments, and the ERA’s deadline ran out in 1982. So Virginia is too late. Five states that had initially ratified the amendment have rescinded their vote to ratify, leaving ERA advocates well short of the three-quarters majority of the states, even if the deadline had not lapsed.

The excitement over the ERA has dissipated, in part because most of the goals of the amendment have been realized without the need for changing the Constitution. The 1964 Civil Rights Act made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, establishing federal penalties for discriminating against women. Title IX of the education amendments of 1972 prohibits sexual discrimination in education. This prohibition has been interpreted to require equality in secondary and collegiate athletics. Title IX was largely responsible for the emergence of modern-day women’s sports. It also has forced colleges to establish sexual misconduct rules, trials and punishments to protect female (and, presumably, male) students from sexual assault or harassment. Discrimination in hiring and pay has been outlawed since the 1963 Equal Pay Act.

So what’s the need for the ERA, that relic of 1970s feminism? One actress appearing on a TV talk show four decades ago expressed her support for the ERA by saying, “I’m not in the Constitution; I should be in the Constitution, too.” The show host did not tell her the Constitution begins by saying, “We the people”; if she’s a people, she’s in the Constitution. She is also in the 14^th Amendment, which assures the rights of “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” That amendment also guarantees “any person” the “due process of law” and “equal protection of the laws.” That covers equal rights for every person.

Would an amendment make discrimination laws more secure against challenges? Perhaps, but discrimination laws are well established and solidly affirmed by the courts.

Opponents of the ERA in its early days warned of negative consequences if it became part of the Constitution. Critics warned that public bathrooms would have to be unisex and that girls and boys would have to compete against each other in high school sports rather than fielding gender-separate teams. Some protections

for pregnant workers, for example, could be overturned under the ERA as discriminatory.

Critics also claimed that the ERA would lead to same-sex marriage, but the Supreme Court has found such marriages to be legally valid without a new amendment. ERA advocates failed to anticipate the expansion of gender options in 21^st century society. The ERA uses the word “sex” where today’s laws focus on gender, leaving the ERA’s protections against bias “on the basis of sex” a vague term.

People seeking more protection for U.S. citizens would be wiser to put their efforts behind the proposed 28^th amendment, which makes clear that corporations are not people and do not have the same rights as “we the people.” It also declares that money is not “speech” protected by the First Amendment, so using money to “buy” elections could be strictly limited. (I have written about this “Move to Amend” effort before.)

Tobacco was accepted, celebrated before health worries

This post was originally published in the Wilson Times Jan. 18, 2020.

Recent news stories about a deadly vaping illness have reminded me of how much tobacco intertwined with my newspaper career. I edited newspapers in Wilson and Danville, Va., cities dependent upon tobacco growers, tobacco warehouses and tobacco factories. Both cities proclaimed their superiority as tobacco markets. The dominant radio station in Danville, where I worked 1977-79, was WBTM, “World’s Best Tobacco Market.” The dominant radio station in Wilson when I arrived in January 1980 was WGTM, “World’s Greatest Tobacco Market.” Tobacco prices during the market season were front-page news in both cities. The market’s opening was a Big Event drawing crowds of buyers, growers, politicians and others. President Jimmy Carter attended the market opening in 1978.

The two editors who preceded me in Wilson were chain smokers. Newspaper staff members were allowed to smoke at their desks. “Thank you for not smoking” signs were not found in the newspaper office or in many other businesses in town.

The 1964 surgeon general’s scathing report on cigarette smoking and its link to lung cancer marked the beginning of the slow erosion of tobacco empires, although tobacco and smokers held on for decades. Congress fought an extended battle over price supports and Depression-era tobacco allotments (essentially a license to grow and sell tobacco, which turned into a valuable asset for shrewd investors in farmland).

To counter government studies linking tobacco to various diseases, the tobacco industry created the Tobacco Institute, which financed “studies” that cast doubt on the tobacco-disease links and promoted smoking. The Tobacco Institute was eliminated in the Master Settlement Agreement that settled lawsuits brought by 46 states against tobacco companies in 1998.

Eventually, messages about the health hazards of smoking began to take hold. State, federal and local taxes on cigarettes soared, discouraging (somewhat) sales of cigarettes. But the addictive power of nicotine in tobacco made it nearly impossible for smokers to quit. Non-smokers became aware that “secondhand smoke” was affecting their health, too.

The percentage of adults who smoked peaked in1954 at 45 percent and is now around 18 percent. That drop resulted from efforts to curtail tobacco use by limits on advertising, laws prohibiting tobacco sales to minors, and a long-delayed public recognition that cigarette smoking is not healthy, sexy or sophisticated.

For more years than I had realized, I tolerated cigarette smoke at public events, in my office, in classrooms, in stores and other people’s offices, in restaurants (“smoking or non-smoking?”) and waiting rooms. Friends with asthma or allergies complained about smokers invading their space, but it didn’t seem to bother me until fairly recently. Like many other people, I’ve developed a sensitivity to cigarette odors.

I can remember when heavy smokers would come into my office at the newspaper, and the smoky odor would linger for a long spell after the visitor had left.

The impact of smoking goes beyond the 440,000 Americans who die from smoking-related illnesses every year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The litter of cigarette papers and filters, the ashes (and yucky ashtrays), the accidental fires, the cigarette smoke odor that permeates clothing, upholstery and vehicles are also part of tobacco’s history.

Tobacco made many people filthy rich, from the farmers who knew that tobacco had a greater profit margin than any other crop they could grow to the tobacco corporations that inundated television, radio and magazines with costly advertising to promote their products.

Most Americans, predominantly non-smokers, will not mourn the decline of the tobacco industry even as new products aim to hook new generations on vaping  products that send a heated mist into their lungs and emit a cloud that looks a lot like cigarette smoke. Lung damage, leading to some deaths, have been linked to this new substitute for cigarettes.

Knowing tobacco’s history, Americans should be more skeptical about this new, widely promoted habit that clogs their lungs.
-->

Christmas emotions change with years and generations

This post was originally published in the Wilson Times Dec. 28, 2019.

In practical terms, Christmas is over. The after-Christmas sales have begun. But indulge me as I think of Christmas in the present tense on this fourth day of Christmas, with eight of the 12 days of Christmas remaining.

When the children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren of my parents gathered in Charleston, S.C., “the Holy City,” last weekend, I found myself reflecting on Christmases I have known over my lifetime. My conclusion is that life goes through several episodes of Christmas emotions.

As children, we are consumed by the excitement of Christmas, an excitement too great for young children to examine and understand. The word “miracle” pops up frequently in young children’s thoughts. They hear about the “Christmas miracle” of God made flesh-and-blood human in the form of a helpless baby in a stable. “Miracle” is also an apt description of the assortment of gifts, candy and celebration, in quantities with usually unimagined magnitude. Candies, nuts and fruits overflow stockings in quantities that are normally forbidden. Children get what they ask for, with some exceptions, and parents loosen their rules on candy consumption and behavior. A mysterious benefactor in a red suit and a magical sleigh makes this impossibility happen — one day out of the year.

Christmas is every kid’s favorite holiday. You can find them out on the street or front yards at daybreak, playing with new toys — bicycles, air rifles, dolls and games. This inexplicable mystery is played out against the soundtrack of Christmas music that every radio station and every store’s sound system plays endlessly leading up to Dec. 25, then the music goes away for 10 or 11 months.

I was sure my parents, who struggled to feed and clothe five children, could not afford the expensive toys that appeared magically in the living room. It had to be a part of the Christmas miracle discussed at church and of the legendary Christmas saint, who loved children so much he provided toys for them. It had to be a magical conjuring that got all those toys into all those houses. Nothing could be better than being a child on Christmas morning.

Then, when the child matures, questions myths and expects rational explanations, something else happens: The grown-up child discovers that there is one thing better than being a child on Christmas morning. It’s being the parent of a small child on Christmas morning. While a child glows with excitement, a parent feels a greater joy, greater gratitude, and a greater understanding of what human happiness really is. In family lies the greatest happiness of all.

As parents age, they observe the maturing of their children, and Christmas becomes not just a bonanza of toys and treats but also, and more importantly, a family ritual of celebration and renewal built around shared memories and a dining table that now includes grandchildren. The consumption of treats and the sparkle in the eyes of children with new toys mean less than the re-stitching of the family fabric. Grandparents enjoy the vicarious excitement they feel with each new grandchild. While nothing can replace the thrill of your child’s first few Christmas mornings, seeing grandchildren experience that same joy offers a time machine experience.

As a new parent many years ago, I wanted to show my children what my Christmas mornings had been like: a pre-dawn awakening, excitement that made my whole body shudder, and a drive in the dark to my maternal grandparents’ rural home, where a large breakfast and a crowd of aunts, uncles and cousins awaited. More gifts would be distributed after breakfast, then a hefty lunch would be served before our exhausted carload returned home.

I could not replicate that experience for my children, although we did something quite similar for several years. I could only tell them how I felt about that Christmas routine. Now my children and grandchildren have their own routines, and my wife and I have ours, which we try to mesh with those younger generations.

One fewer Confederate statue: does anyone notice?

This post was originally published in the Wilson Times Nov. 30, 2019.

The statue of a Confederate soldier in front of the Chatham County Courthouse and within a traffic circle surrounding the old courthouse has been removed. During my four years of college, I drove around that courthouse and passed that statue each time I went home or returned to campus. In all those times passing the statue, I never gave it much thought; it was just background scenery.

The statue was removed Nov. 19 after the Chatham County Board of Commissioners chose to remove it. This removal follows actions in other towns and states to remove Confederate monuments from public land. Some statues, including the “Silent Sam” statue on the University of North Carolina campus and a statue at the Durham County Courthouse, were brought down by protesters who took the law into their own hands.

Confederate statues, mainly installed in the first quarter of the 20^th century to honor local residents who had fought on the Confederate side in the Civil War, are ubiquitous across the South and, therefore, little noticed. The statue at Chapel Hill was a memorial to the UNC students who postponed their studies to fight in the war. Many of the memorials across the South were paid for or advocated by United Daughters of the Confederacy chapters.

Many African-Americans have objected to the statues and other reminders of the Civil War, including the display of Confederate battle flags. Other protesters against memorials to Confederates, including left-wing “anti-fascists” and veterans of other demonstrations for liberal causes, joined the original protesters. Controversies like this have brought out angry counter-protesters who see the toppling of monuments as a way to erase history.

Emotions are strong. The Chatham County commissioners’ meeting about that county’s statue was called “rowdy” as residents on both sides of the issue loudly made their views known. Some arrests were made in Chatham County and during the Silent Sam protests in Chapel Hill.

Estimates are that there are more than 1,000 Confederate statues or memorials across the South, and about the same number of memorials to Union soldiers in the North, reminders of the deadliest war in American history.

You can mark me as ambivalent about Confederate statues. I have never felt inspired by one, although two of my great-great-grandfathers died in the Civil War while wearing Rebel gray (one in battle, one from disease). I don’t think of my ancestors when I see a Confederate statue, nor do I find the statues to be an endorsement of slavery.

The overwhelming proportion of Confederate soldiers (including my dirt-poor great-great-grandfathers) had no interest in slavery or the slave economy. They fought for what they saw as their patriotic duty, defending their homes and their sovereign state from what they saw as an invading army. These boys in gray were in many ways victims of the war that was thrust upon them by wealthy, slave-owning aristocrats. As N.C. Gov. Zebulon Vance said, “It’s a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight.”

What disturbs me most about the toppling of Civil War monuments (from South or North) is the fact that they are memorials to a generation who died doing their duty as they saw it. The memorials were an effort to assuage the grief of losing a father, brother, son or neighbor in that awful war. Every family in the South lost someone. I find it particularly sad that today’s UNC students cannot see the sacrifice that students and their families made, rightly or wrongly, 160 years ago.

Today’s partisans of the Confederate memorials issue might want to take a look at some photos from the 50^th anniversary of the 1863 battle of Gettysburg. The photos from the 1913 reunion show aged Union and Confederate soldiers sharing food, smiles, seats and mementos with a camaraderie that would shock today’s protesters. They celebrated their sacrifices and achievements together and gave honor and respect to those on the other side. Fifty years before, they had been intent on killing each other.

Today’s Americans, unlike the frail former combatants of 1913, seem determined to refight the past.

 
-->

Politicallly correct words are artificial and unnecessary

This post was originally published in the Wilson Times Jan. 4, 2020.

In a display touting Colonial Williamsburg’s three decades of inclusion of African-American characters among its costumed interpreters in the restored Colonial capital of Virginia, the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation offered an explanation of appropriate semantics and politically correct words.

The display primarily concerned the word “slave” — a word no longer used by the interpreters playing the roles of historical characters. Instead of “slave,” Williamsburg characters use “enslaved” — a term preferred in much recent literature and news accounts.

“Slave,” the display on the wall of the Raleigh Tavern explained, is a noun that refers to only one aspect of a person. It would be wrong, therefore, to refer to a person as a slave, because that is just a part of what a person is. (I am paraphrasing here, as I did not copy or photograph the display). “Enslaved” is better because it is an adjective that describes one aspect of a person, allowing the whole person to be distinguished from the one unfortunate aspect. Therefore, “enslaved” is better than “slave,” a noun that should not be used in referring to people.

Other common words could be banned under this line of reasoning. A “prisoner” would become an “imprisoned person.” A “plaintiff” in a court case would become a “complaining person.”

This elimination of a perfectly good word for a sanitized new version is reminiscent of the shift from “colored people” (a polite, non-offensive reference from before and during the civil rights era) to “people of color,” an awkward term that means roughly the same thing and often refers to all non-Caucasians. We are all people of (some) color; we are all (somewhat) colored, so non-Caucasians might be a more accurate term, but because it’s a negative term (what you aren’t instead of what you are), it’s not a good choice.

Although I am a fan and supporter of Colonial Williamsburg, I found its defense of “enslaved” inadequate. You can’t use “slave” as an adjective? What about “slave rebellion,” “slave quarters,” or “slave labor”?

African-American characters walk the streets of Williamsburg in 18^th century dress, perform work in “trade” shops, display Colonial crafts and give a more accurate rendering of Williamsburg during its heyday. Some characters are feisty, complaining of their status in a civilization dominated by white men, or telling embarrassing stories about their masters. None are “Stepin Fetchit” types.

Colonial Williamsburg has done an admirable job of including African-American interpreters after having ignored the black population of 18^th century Virginia in the first decades after the restoration of Williamsburg in the first half of the last century (a time when state laws segregated the races).

Words have become political rallying cries in discussions of race, gender, religion and other matters. As political correctness took hold, we were discouraged from using terms such as “policeman” and “fireman,” and the presiding officer at a meeting can no longer be the “chairman.” Alternatives included “chairlady,” “chairwoman” or even “chair,” a word originally meaning a piece of furniture, not a presiding officer. Gender-neutral titles got so insidious that a sarcastic memo offered this warning: “Henceforth, mailmen shall be referred to as ‘person-persons.’”

As a long-time editor, I find most of the alternative titles and word usages are longer than the words being replaced. “Enslaved” is a longer word that “slave.” “Firefighter” is longer than “fireman.”

One exception to this trend is the use of “gay” instead of “homosexual.” The original “homosexual” is a descriptive term (same-sex), but “gay” had traditionally meant lighthearted and carefree. This modern use of “gay” has eliminated the common expression of 50 or 60 years ago of a “gay bachelor,” meaning an unmarried man who is frivolous and carefree.

Words matter, but words’ meanings can be a moving target. Be careful that a word’s meaning still applies.