Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Tuesday, July 18, 2000Gay students should
be included in rulesHAWAII voters rejected same-sex marriage but their state legislators have been willing to extend limited rights to homosexual partners. Whatever one's views on same-sex marriage, freedom from verbal or physical harassment based on sexual orientation is a fundamental right. Surely this freedom should be assured for students in the public schools.The issue: The state Department of Education has proposed rules to better protect students from bullying and harassment that include sexual orientation among the protected categories.
For this reason it is perplexing to see that objections are being voiced to rules proposed by the Department of Education to better protect students from bullying and harassment, including harassment related to sexual orientation.
As a department spokesman explained, DOE policy does not tolerate emotional or physical harm to any student. "No student should be deprived of educational opportunities because of fear, intimidation or physical abuse." Who would disagree with that statement?
Sexual orientation is one of the main subjects of harassment cases. It therefore should be included in the list of protected categories. Opponents of homosexuality have seized on this proposal as evidence that the department seeks to promote homosexual behavior.
The author of a July 8 View Point column charged that it was "an attempt to equate homosexuality with a bona fide minority status" and could open the way for the promotion of gay values in the schools.
Those accusations go far beyond the facts. Although many people consider homosexual behavior immoral, gays at a minimum have the right to freedom from harassment on the basis of their sexual orientation. Protection of that right is the plain intention of the proposed rule -- nothing more.
The idea that adoption of the proposed language would open the flood gates to advocates of a gay lifestyle is preposterous. As one letter to the editor pointed out, the proposed rules also include religion as one of the protected categories, but that does not mean the Department of Education is endorsing a fanatical cult.
THE vehement opposition to the rule raises the suspicion that the real intention of the critics is to condone harassment of gays because they are not a "bona fide minority." No attempt to distinguish legitimate from illegitimate minorities is likely to be persuasive.
Like them or not, gays exist and they have rights. Homosexuals cannot be humiliated at will because some people want to treat them as outcasts.
Akaka advocates end
to Cuban embargoHAWAII'S Daniel Akaka was one of three senators who visited Cuba over the weekend and came away calling for an end to U.S. trade sanctions against the Fidel Castro regime. They have it right.
Along with Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Pat Roberts, R-Kan., Akaka said it was time for Washington and Havana to improve relations although Cuba must open its economy and grant freedom of expression to its people.
The trio had a 10-hour meeting with Castro. They also met with Vice President Carlos Lage, National Assembly President Ricardo Alarcon and several cabinet members. They said they got the impression that a peaceful transition from the aging Castro to his successor was a primary concern.
Baucus said the U.S. trade embargo gives Castro "an excuse for failed economic policies." Akaka expressed interest in increased educational exchanges, which he said could "create a dialogue."
The embargo was imposed 37 years ago when Cuba posed a threat to U.S. security as the vanguard of Soviet imperialism in the Western Hemisphere. Moscow had been Cuba's political and economic patron, giving Castro billions of dollars in aid each year.
But all that ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Cuba lost not only direct financial assistance but also its main export market.
By 1994 Cuba's economy had shrunk by at least one-third. People were taking to the streets to protest food shortages.
Meanwhile the pro-Moscow Sandinistas lost power in Nicaragua and other Central American radical movements failed. Castro ceased to be any sort of threat to U.S. security.
To cope with Cuba's new circumstances, Castro instituted limited market-oriented reforms and invited Western investors into the country. This has isolated the United States and made the embargo less effective.
The embargo's main purpose now is to appease the vociferous community of anti-Castro Cuban Americans who wield considerable political clout in Florida and who oppose any easing of U.S. opposition to the dictatorship. Otherwise the policy has outlived its usefulness.
Moreover, the Cuban Americans have lost credibility with much of the American public as a result of their hysterical behavior in the Elian Gonzalez affair.
Many of those who advocate ending the embargo have no sympathy for the Castro regime. This is simply a policy that no longer makes sense. It's encouraging that Hawaii's Akaka sees the point.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
