When Brendan Eich resigned from Mozilla last month, a group of marriage equality supporters penned a public statement “Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent: Why we must have both.” They argued that “diversity is the natural consequence of liberty” and that “disagreement should not be punished.”
Then LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling was caught on tape telling his girlfriend/archivist what kinds of interactions with black people were and were not acceptable. Sterling was summarily judged a bigot in the media.
Here’s my question. Why aren’t Sterling’s views an equally defensible natural consequence of liberty?
Columnist Andrew Sullivan, who signed the “Freedom to Marry …” statement, suggests that Eich never demonstrated “Sterling-level bigotry” and may have had any number of more mundane reasons to support Prop. 8 like general discomfort with change or religious convictions.
I wish Sullivan had provided his rating system. Which are worse, public donations or comments meant to be private? How does attacking the right to marry the person you love compare with a history of alleged housing and employment discrimination? Does it matter how many of your own employees meet your criteria for unequal treatment? Where does Dan Snyder-level discrimination, i.e. keeping “Redskins” as your team name, fit in?
I agree that Sterling’s views aren’t defensible, but neither are Eich’s or Snyder’s. Some of the additional outrage against Sterling may relate to the particularly heinous history of racial discrimination in America. Most of the difference, however, is a matter of timing. If discomfort plays a role, it is discomfort with our recent past not with change.
While institutionalized and covert racism still exist, most Americans were raised to believe race based discrimination is wrong. We can scowl at Sterling because we believe we have not, and would never hold such views much less espouse them. Sterling can’t say, as opponents of gay marriage do, that President Obama agreed with him only a few years ago.
Eich’s actions against marriage equality, however, are a window on our parents and a mirror on ourselves. For many LGBT people, condemning Eich requires condemning feelings they had before they came out. They are luckier than those who feel they would have to consign parents and friends to Eich’s fate for holding the same view of same-sex marriage. Snyder’s “Redskins” bring the same uncomfortable introspection to those of us who played “Cowboys and Indians” and were encouraged to run around in feathers making noises by banging our mouth with our hands.
Finding a way to give intolerant people a pass, as Sullivan does, may make sense when you need their vote. Otherwise, the best way to fight discrimination is to call it out when you see it. Our distaste shouldn’t be determined by a rating scale or suppressed because it prompts difficult conversations with ourselves or our family. The actions by Eich, Sterling and Snyder all denigrate a group of people for being who they are, and we should treat them the same. History surely will.
