Part One:
We speak with David Schultz, professor of political science and law at University of Minnesota School of Law, about the long history of racial problems in Minnesota. It is not just police brutality and unjust law enforcement that has made life intolerable for African-Americans. Systemic racism is endemic in Minnesota’s economy, culture, and political system.
For this reason, small-scale, short-term changes will not be sufficient to resolve the outrage that has manifested itself on the streets for these past weeks. Nor will one or two significant changes be enough – like banning chokeholds or limiting the use of deadly force. Systemic change will have to take place. It won’t be easy and it won’t come quickly. But the change has to be deep, broad-scale, and long-term.
Part Two:
We talk with Katelyn Burns, the first openly trans Capitol Hill reporter, about today’s historic ruling from the US Supreme Court. The decision held that employment discrimination on the basis of a person’s being transgender is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
This case is historic not only because of the result it reached, but also because of its rationale. The language of the statute outlaws discrimination “because of sex.” The Court reasoned that animus based on an individual’s trans status includes, by definition, some degree of bias based on gender. That is, the employer expects certain stereotypical behavior or feelings from a person born with particular genitalia. The trans employee does not conform to those social stereotypes, so the employer mistreats them. The Court concluded that to discriminate against an employee based on the employee’s trans status meets Title VII’s definition of discrimination “because of sex.”
This interpretation of trans discrimination as being, by necessity, a form of sex discrimination could have wide ramifications. There are many aspects of the law – other than the employment context – where courts have looked askance at discrimination based on gender. For example, the Obama administration interpreted the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) prohibition against sex discrimination to apply equally to discrimination against trans people. The Trump administration has now proposed regulations to rescind this interpretation of the ACA. We will watch carefully to see whether courts will apply the reasoning of today’s employment discrimination decision to this new Trump regulation and find that trans people have broader protections in other contexts as well.
