Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
I tend to agree, but this was not my purpose in outlining in detail the TWU Community Covenant in met earlier post. My point initially was that I don't believe that the charge of discrimination follows from the document in question, as the Law Society of Alberta has attempted to do. If it does, then it is really not at all direct or obvious.
I concede that there is a discrimination at work insofar as TWU distinguishes people for certain roles or privileges based on their sexual orientation, which is clearly a problem. However, since the Community Covenant is only "binding" for students and faculty (and I would also imagine that as a legal document the extent to which the university can enforce the document is highly debatable) for the duration of their participation in the community, the effect on the aspirations of either group to enter into marriage seems possibly irrelevant. Notice that there is no language preventing members from forming homosexual relationships, or from expressing thoughts and feelings in a homosexual context.
Apart from the letter of the rule (as with many things in real life), the way this works itself out in the day-to-day activities on campus is actually quite different. In biology classes, there is no strong apologetic against the scientific validation for inherited homosexual tendencies. In psychology classes, gender issues are treated as normative parts of social and cultural development, and not as aberrant behaviours. The student newspaper's annual issue on sex and sexuality is very contemporary and balanced in its treatment of LBGT topics. I would be very interested to see how the university might handle a situation in which a student or students pursued same sex marriage whilst still enrolled at the school.
|
Of course discrimination requires actual differential treatment. It would be interesting to see how TWU would treat a professor who was openly gay or engaged in sexual activity with a gay partner (married or not.) As you noted earlier, perhaps TWU would be smart enough to seek (and follow) some legal advice before taking any action (despite the obvious contravention of the Covenant.) Perhaps TWU might try to make the argument that the employee is being punished for breaking their Covenant rather than for their sexuality. However, I doubt that would succeed. Even if one were to characterize the Covenant as being part of the employment contract, one can't contract out of one's human rights.