The End of Civil Rights focuses on two important areas in which accommodation protects individuals in the work force from being discriminated against, religious observants and the disabled bodies. Although, law requires accommodations defined as “absent a reason for demanding conformity, the state or employer must bend toward the individual, rather than vice versa” (Pg.167), there are loopholes in which individuals are left defenseless, so one is still coerced into covering and assimilating for the protection of basic civil rights.
Religious minorities give up symbolic aspects so they can fit into mainstream society. Jewish men “cover” by not wearing a Yarmulke, which is a representation of their religious beliefs in Judaism. Muslims are told to disclose any symbolic representation such as emblems and headscarves. In some cases they have went as far as changing a surname not to be associated with a religion that has a negative stigma. In this model of accommodation a person is protected for being a Jew or for being a Muslim but not being “too Jewish” or “too Muslim” by observing religious beliefs in the public workspace.
While, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 mandates employers to make “reasonable accommodations”(Pg.174) under the condition that the accommodations are not “significantly difficult or expensive” (Pg174) for people whose disability is immutable. This does not apply to people that have a mutable disability. In the case that is presented to us with the cochlear implant, a person with unilateral hearing loss that decides not to correct their impairment with a cochlear implant would not be safe from discrimination in the workplace. In some cases such as the Sutton v. United Airlines, the employer required an uncorrected disability; since her condition was not immutable she too was not protected by the act of accommodation.
As the courts determine sanctions on which disabilities employers considered immutable and deserve accommodations or how much of ones religion they are able to “flaunt” in the workplace, many people are neglected from the First Amendment. So why is it ethical to deny certain individuals against accommodation and not others? Why are we only protected for “being” a certain religion but are not protected when “doing”? “The court has solved this problem by moving toward protecting no behaviors, safeguarding only the immutable aspects of identity”(Pg. 177). Which in turn only leaves the option to assimilate into mainstream society by covering.
In understanding The New Civil Rights, Yoshino describes this as the authenticity that lies in each of us. To further elaborate, D.W. Winnicott a psychoanalyst describes that each of us has a “True Self” which is the uncovered self and a “False Self” the covered self. The “True Self” is the true uncovered and most authentic you while the “false self” is what protects the “True self” from the societal demands.
Under the law of Civil Rights the new minority groups are not protected. As a population we as a whole are protected for basic human rights. Any diverse groups that differ from the norm need to evolve into a big enough groups to influence a change or modification to human civil rights.
Do you think there is a difference between covering and having a “False self”?
Is it ethical to persuade an employee to repair a mutable disability in order to be protected from employment termination?
SOC320: Law, Society and Civil Rights 