Last
year, controversy arose when the Lafayette Public Library scheduled a “Drag
Queen Story Time.” Males dressed in drag would read to children as part of a
program put on by the library.
When the advertising started, it became abundantly
clear that the community didn’t want a government agency backing such an event.
Run by board members appointed by local government officials, responding to
constituents they pressured the library into revoking the invitation to perform
at the main branch, which library officials described as unable to accommodate the
anticipated crowd. A subsequent
attempt to relocate it to occur on the scheduled date at a nearby community
college failed when the institution said it could not guarantee adequate
security.
Thus, the library system’s Board of Control postponed the event, but did not withdraw its sponsorship. It claimed it had to hold off because of a lawsuit filed by opponents of the event, and wanted to compromise by letting the group behind the event to reserve a meeting room, but not to propagate the material it originally wished: i.e., reading stories that, under the guise of promoting tolerance, also would convey a message that society should accept and protect expression of homosexual activity as a lifestyle.
That brought
about a countersuit joined by the Louisiana chapter of the American Civil
Liberties Union, calling the proposed restriction viewpoint discrimination.
Finally, all parties worked out an agreement that the group could reserve a
room as could any other, but that the library would not sponsor officially the
activity.
This compromise strikes the right balance and makes
for good constitutional jurisprudence. If people want to get together to engage
in an activity that neither breaks the law nor advocates behaving violently in
a way that does, if government permits any interest to do so, it must permit
all that conform to these guidelines.
At the same time, government does not have to give
its imprimatur to any such events by spending taxpayer dollars in promoting it.
This seems especially wise in the case of showcasing something that might
encourage children to pursue harmful behavior to themselves, as this turns
government into subsidizing this form of expressions as an option for youth to
emulate.
Behavioral science notes this conveys risks. Research
consistently demonstrates a disproportionate incidence between a person of a
biological gender, including children, who wish to dress in raiment consistent
with the opposite sex (if not conceive of themselves as that opposite sex) and
mental illness, with this association unlikely a consequence of generally negative
societal attitudes towards cross-dressing.
In short, by implying this behavior can’t serve as
a potential sign of illness, the underlying cause of that illness may not
receive the attention and treatment if necessary that it deserves. This message especially
could impact negatively children, with their personalities not yet full formed.
Not all communities may act as enlightened;
witness New Orleans having a similar event regularly and without fuss (not that
government even must involve itself: a version
of this took place in Baton Rouge at a private facility). Let’s hope others
in Louisiana do if faced with a like circumstance: government protecting both
free speech and children.
No comments:
Post a Comment