Therefore the Law is Slacked
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is planning to issue a sweeping directive telling every public school district in the country to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms that match their gender identity.
A letter to school districts will go out Friday, adding to a highly charged debate over transgender rights in the middle of the administration’s legal fight with North Carolina over the issue. The declaration — signed by Justice and Education department officials — will describe what schools should do to ensure that none of their students are discriminated against.
It does not have the force of law, but it contains an implicit threat: Schools that do not abide by the Obama administration’s interpretation of the law could face lawsuits or a loss of federal aid.
There is not even a scintilla of Constitutional authority for the President of the Union to be dictating school policy on how each local jurisdiction wishes to handle mentally disturbed and sexually perverted students. This is a naked power grab by a lawless autocrat.
In other news, the daily caller reports that frat boys wearing facepaint is forbidden, under the theory that it is cultural appropriation for white devils to paint their faces:
…. according to a letter from Millikin’s Office of Inclusion and Student Engagement (OISE) obtained by Campus Reform, TKE members have been warned against the face-painting practice and other forms of dress-up because it can be disrespectful to other cultures.
OISE Greek Advisor Nicole Rowlett writes as follows:
The bureaucrat progressive nutbag who signed the directive above threatens “additional sanctions” — a subjective flexibility and vagueness in the law is always a favorite of progressives.
She then expresses (in bad English) the hope that the men of [note missing word] utilize this as an opportunity to explore the concept of intent vs. impact with regard to cultural appropriation.
Likewise, using arbitrary abuses of power as opportunities to “teach” the benighted about legal or moral concepts is also a favorite Progressive pastime. I note these are usually concepts beyond the grasp of fatuous progressive dimwits, such as the role of intent in giving offense.
My question is twofold: why is a man dressing as a woman not considered sexual appropriation of a sex into which he was not born, whereas a Christian dressing as a Red Indian or a Pict or a Kabuki stageactor or circus clown, or any other race that ever did facepainting, is indeed considered an appropriation somehow offensive in principle to such persons, even though not one of them in the history of the world has ever complained, only Progressives allegedly speaking for them?
If every eighth grade girl in all the school locker rooms in every school in America is told merely to shut up and suck it up when a man in a wig and a dress walks in and flaps his hairy Johnson joystick in their faces, on what grounds are we to be so solicitous of the tender feelings of the fully-grown sons and grandsons of Apache and Comanche warriors who faced death and wounds unflinchingly? Allegedly such grown men will break down in silent tears when they discover a frat boy in Illinois had painted his school mascot colors on his cheeks.
The second half of the question is, how long? How long, O Lord?
O LORD, how long shall I cry, and thou wilt not hear! Even cry out unto thee of violence, and thou wilt not save!
Why dost thou shew me iniquity, and cause me to behold grievance? For spoiling and violence are before me: and there are that raise up strife and contention.
Therefore the law is slacked, and judgment doth never go forth: for the wicked doth compass about the righteous; therefore wrong judgment proceedeth.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
