Collegiate Times

Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has no reason to defend his letter that repeals discrimination protection for non-heterosexual individuals in the workplace, college applications process and anywhere else.

That fact embarrasses me, a Virginia resident.

Cuccinelli’s infamous letter to state agencies — including public universities such as Virginia Tech — repeals the supposition that non-heterosexuals receive the same protection from discrimination that other minority groups receive.

The law does not explicitly provide this protection, which means those agencies that uphold this protection with Virginia as its underwriter and authority must no longer do so.

But, for a state that has its fair share of bigotry in its past (see Prince George County’s reaction to Brown v. Board of Education), the fact that non-heterosexuals are not protected from discrimination is not surprising.

Something that will surprise me would be the utilization of the repeal. I assure you that there is no agency around the state that will deny access to a program, job or whatever based on the sexual orientation of the applicant or worker. Nobody is that ignorant. Although the ridiculousness rests in the perfect legality of this situation, it does not explicitly say so in the law; it hints to it, but there are no provisions for non-heterosexuals.

It is the debate of the antinomy of the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law (shout-out to Mr. Ed Weathers, my Literature and the Law professor). Is it more important to follow what the law actually says over what the law means?

Take, for example, speed limits. If Cuccinelli is against the inclusion of non-heterosexuals in anti-discrimination, then he better drive the speed limit on his way home from work tonight.

The law exists to protect minority groups such as non-whites and non-males. But, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Cuccinelli’s letter states, “A public university simply lacks the power to create a new specially protected class under Virginia law.”
Virginia has designated non-heterosexuals as a distinct class already, as voters in 2006 voted against a marriage definition that would provide non-heterosexuals the legal right to marriage.

The law also does not permit driving faster than the posted speed limits — even for one mph over makes a driver subject to a fine. I hope he does not exceed 55 mph on the Downtown Expressway. Although I raise this speed limit issue lightheartedly, it is a good example of the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law.

Minorities are protected from discrimination in Virginia, and from what I understand, there are far more heterosexual individuals in this state than non-heterosexual individuals. This fact, by definition, makes anyone who is not heterosexual in the minority.
Thus, the non-heterosexual minority in this state must be protected from discrimination.

Gov. Bob McDonnell already has stated his disapproval of Cuccinelli’s letter. Unfortunately, there is nothing that can be done about this directive because of its failure in Virginia’s General Assembly.

But until either a November vote changes this law or the General Assembly recognizes this disrespect for all its minority citizens, all we can do is sit in opposition to this law or write to our delegates and state senators.

For now, it is law. Cuccinelli’s strict interpretation of the law is not illegal in any way, but it certainly would have been more ethical had he overlooked the progressive thinking that public universities had in place.

But please do not fret over this issue. Regardless of Cuccinelli’s letter, no worthy state agencies will discriminate against non-heterosexual individuals. Not in this society they won’t. And if state agencies do discriminate against non-heterosexual individuals, I want the Virginia’s kangaroo court of a General Assembly to feel all the shame the American media can load upon them.

But Cuccinelli’s letter just states the letter of the law. It’s legal to discriminate against non-heterosexuals in Virginia.

It’s legal to discriminate in Virginia.

What else is new?

A version of this article appeared in the Mar 19 issue of the Collegiate Times.