Sixty-five Lehigh Valley residents, nearly every one of them proudly wearing "Civil Rights Now" stickers, sacrificed a pleasant Spring evening on April 28 to appear in Bethlehem's Town Hall. They were there to support an Ordinance that banishes discrimination and establishes a Human Relations Commission. During a three hour long hearing before Gordon Mowrer's Human Resources Committee, nearly every one of these people had something to say, too, some of them several times. They said it to every single Council member, too. Although there are only three members on Mowrer's Committee, all seven Council members were present.One of these speakers, ironically, was a former Bethlehem City Council member. Ismael Arcelay, who now serves on the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, talked about his life in Bethlehem as a Latino. He claimed that twenty years ago, if he walked down a Bethlehem street without a suit and tie, he would be treated much differently because he s a Latino. He lamented that even now, there is still "disparate treatment," and it extends to Bethlehem's educational institutions and even exists inside City Hall.
Discrimination is alive and well in the housing industry, too, according to former Bethlehem realtor Rob Hopkins, who now works as an assessor in Lehigh County. He claims to have personally experienced seeing tenants ejected from apartments because of who they are. He has seen homeowners refuse to sell to a person who is different.Racism still rears its ugly head, even in the rarefied academic atmosphere of Lehigh University, according to Professor Addison Gross. After Obama's election as President, Gross told Council that several black students were taunted with epithets. Just last November, two of them wore blackfaces.
A lesbian who worked as a nurse in Bethlehem found that a special set of rules existed for her. She learned that she could be fired, and would be without recourse because Bethlehem has no law to protect her right to be different. She no longer works in Bethlehem. A Lehigh student added that, though she loves the Christmas City, she could never remain in a City that refuses to protect our diversity.
In addition those who came to tell their story, the aristocracy of the gay and lesbian community was on hand. Liz Bradbury, Executive Director of the Pa. Diversity Network, told Council that it's completely legal to fire someone in Bethlehem for being pregnant. Equality Pa. Executive Director Ted Martin noted that a recent poll shows that 69% of Pennsylvanians support anti-discrimination legislation."It's embarrassing," claimed J. Willie Reynolds, after listening to the public. "This is a no-brainer," remarked Dave DiGiacinto.
Mayor John Callahan brought a special guest to Council, Pa. Human Relations Commission Chairman Steve Glassman. Arriving a little late, Callahan explained that he and Glassman were working on some changes to the ordinance, designed to make it stronger. But Bethlehem resident Tim Chadwick questioned Callahan's sincerity. Chadwick reminded Callahan that in 2002, Callahan was much less enthusiastic about anti-discrimination legislation. "I don't want to anger that old lady up on the Main Street extension," is what Chadwick claims Callahan said then.
Although the legislation itself may be a "no-brainer" to most Council members, DiGiacinto had several amendments, from how members are appointed to a possible sunset provision in three years. Glassman had several suggestions as well, designed to bring the proposed Ordinance closer to state law. After some debate, Mowrer's Committee moved to advance the legislation to the full Council, where the sausage-making will continue.
Council President Bob Donchez stated that a full Council will consider the legislation at their May 18 meeting, with a final vote slated for June. If passed, Bethlehem will be the 21st municipality in Pennsylvania to pass a non-discrimination law at the local level.
If passed, this legislation will make it illegal to discriminate in employment, housing, education, or public accommodation in the City of Bethlehem based on a series of protected classes.
But will it stop? That was the concern raised by Bethlehem resident Mary Pongracz. "Discrimination has no address," she reminded everyone. "If you look for discrimination, you will find it."
33 comments:
"protected classes"
Great. Let's battle discrimination by discriminating. Little kids learn that two wrongs don't make a right. I guess we forget this as we age. This is another example of the good intentions making for bad law. These laws promote exactly what they purport to eliminate.
Well, isn't the very fact that an anti-discrimination ordinance might upset the older residents of not just Bethlehem, but many Lehigh Valley communities, very telling?
That's the whole point of the thing.
I don't know any of the specifics on the ordinance, but how is it battling discrimination by discriminating?
The stark fact is that minorities, even those in suits and ties, often with much larger incomes than the little old ladies on the Main Street Extension, do NOT feel welcome in many Lehigh Valley communities.
Ordinances or not, whether they fix the problem or make it worse, the point is, that that is the problem.
It's subjective, it's not quantifiable, an ordinance isn't going to fix it, but it's at least an indication of the sentiment.
"If you look for discrimination, you will find it."
Truer words have never been spoken, and many organizations (including some mentioned in the post) have built an industry around finding it and making sure people remain divided and identified by whatever the organization's protected group is.
This ordinance has nothing to do with solving problems or bringing people together.
Don't believe me? Look how great things are working in Allentown, where such an ordinance and commision have been around for years.
12:22 is a glowing example of the hatred and bigotry possessed by those who defend racist tactics to address racism. He or she paints with a very broad brush "older residents" as presumed racists. What an appalling generalization from one with a very disturbed view. And this is who presumes to fix racism? Please.
It is not completely legal to fire someone in Bethlehem who is pregnant:
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions constitutes unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII, which covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. Title VII also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government. Women who are pregnant or affected by pregnancy-related conditions must be treated in the same manner as other applicants or employees with similar abilities or limitations.
In fact, other than sexual orientation, Title VII protects from discrimination in all the cited areas. We have a state human relations commission to handle these claims as well as the EEOC. This may just be another layer of mostly redundant government.
I suspect you are right and that what they are really saying is that there is no local law to protect them, but that is what they did say.
Don't the laws of the United States apply to Bethlehem city residents? Does every civil rights law that is the law of the land have to be repeated in every municipality in order for the law to be enforced? Anyone can file an EEO claim at any time and the state or federal EEO office, must by statute, investigate all claims of discrimination and those accused of discrimination, must respond.
3:43 - Yes. Bullseye. This is the kind of circle jerk that keeps lawyers working. It's like a porn movie gang bang featuring guys in gauche suits and shiny wing tips. Codify a victim class and start mining for billable hours! Shakespeare's butcher had it right.
One must wonder if Grubb and O'hare are co-conspirators. They seem to be the only ones concerned that the Mayor was late for the meeting. (see Grubb's comments on the patch. Such childish behavior)
The first complaint that should be heard by this new board is the constant and mostly all day use of a handicapped parking space in front of City hall. It is true that the wife of the Director of the Rehabilitation Authority is handicapped but he seems to think this is personal parking spot even when she is not with him. Isn't it discrimination when a non- handicapped person illegally uses a handicapped slot provided for by federal law?
Olive, Actually, the purpose of my story was to tell what happened, and in as much detail as possible. Part of that story is that the Mayor and the Chair of the PHRC were late. This threw Mowrer off, who wanted to get a presentation BEFORE hearing from the people who signed to speak. I pointed out that he was late, and provided the explanation he gave for being late. He and the Chair were working on the Ordinance.
I thought it was part of the story. I did not post it to be mean to the Mayor, but because it is what happened.
There is one thing i must pass on to liz/pat and Rob hopkins. Your 60s style advocatcies are fine based on a basic princple but come on lets bring it to the current century.Litigation is NOT the anawer to disputes.The only winners are lawyers.Your passion for change is honorable but your not the only vehicle.Many are out there day to day with the unsung ability to bridge gaps with social/sexual lifestyles.It boils down to this. Dont spred your perceived discrimination on us younger folks, well correct when necesarry.
Has anybody seen Fleck and Maniatty together lately?
Olive,
I have been told by a number of people that the Mayor seemed to have been drunk. Perhaps this was a result of the fine vino that he was enjoying with his meal. Regardless of that, from all accounts this meeting was a total circus.
Perhaps Mr. Grubb and Mr. O'hare were making a polite attempt to bring this fact to light.
I have no reason to believe the Mayor was drunk. I saw nothing in his behavior that would lead me to that conclusion. I thought it was part of the story, but not a significant part.
Interesting comment by Pallidino. I've heard this rumor often. Any truth to it, Bernie?
Olive, Tony Hanna's wife, as you know, is severely disabled. The other day, arriving early for a meeting, I could see Tony leaving with his wife. It was already around 6 PM so he had already put in a long day. Mr. Hanna spent a good twenty minutes just getting his wife safely into the car. She needs constant care and he often must bring her to work with him.
It is VERY difficult to be a caregiver, ESPECIALLY when it is to a loved one, whether it is a wife or a parent. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the devotion Tony shows his wife.
Bernie it seems as though your defending the actions of the mis-use of a handicap plaquard. If the individual is not in the vehicle it should not be used. This is an abuse that is rampant in Pa. with little or no enforcement.
Anon 7:33 Mike Fleck is managing Vaughn Spencers campaign for Mayor in Reading and there is alot of controversy with Spencer's Charter violations and Ethics problems.
7:58,
I have a different view. First off, let me tell you that there is a handicapped City employee who drives the exact same car that Hanna drives and that may be the car you constantly see. Second, I have nothing but respect for people, including Tony, who are caregivers. It is demanding, both physically and emotionally. I believe a person who gets handicapped plates bc of a spouse or parent who is disabled, should be able to park in handicapped spots bc they can be suddenly called away to deal with an emergency.
Now I know some people use it to play the system, but Tony H is not one of those people. He is a caregiver, and deserves nothing but our respect for what he doeS.
I am highly critical of Callahan's administration of the City. He's run the City into the ground. But let's be fair. I am not going to call him drunk when I see no evidence of it.
In fact, he was late to a Committee hearing. I think it's somewhat unusual for the Mayor to attend a Committee hearing at all, isn't it?
And the last thing we should do is dump on Tony for dealing admirably with a very difficult situation.
When we get personal like this, we just cheapen ourselves.
Bernie Ohare said:
"I believe a person who gets handicapped plates bc of a spouse or parent who is disabled, should be able to park in handicapped spots bc they can be suddenly called away to deal with an emergency."
**********************************
Bernie -
What you are endorsing is in direct contradiction to the law, which states:
"A Person with Disability Parking
Placard is issued to the disabled person for their use in any vehicle being operated exclusively by or for the benefit of a person with disability and may only be used when those person are actually being transported in the vehicle."
Without bringing personalities into the mix, the thought of a disabled person having to struggle because the handicapped parking space is occupied by a non-handicapped person - especially a caregiver (who should know better) - is sickening.
Although I respect Tony's support for his wife it is still his car that is parked in a handicapped place whether she is with him or not. He, at times is breaking the law.
Patrick & That's a Fact,
Yes, I am advocating that a caregiver be given the opportunity to park in a handicapped spot for the same reason as the disabled person, but that is strictly my own view.
Now as far as Mr. Hanna is concerned, he does NOT share my view and does not park in a handicapped spot unless his wife is with him. As indicated, there is a disabled City employee who drives the exact same kind of car as Mr. Hanna and she sometimes parks there.
If you would like to state "that's a fact," you should identify yourself and accept responsibility for your accusation.
Ironically, this post is about discrimination, and one person uses it to vent resentments against a City employee whose wife is disabled. Maybe discrimination does have an address after all.
As far as the parking spot goes I have parked in it many times and have seen Gordon Mower use it many times too, so to say any individual is always in it is untrue. I think we do need more handicapped parking in the city and have spoken with the mayor about it several times. Mr. Hanna had (maybe still has) an assigned spot in the parking garage but there is no handicapped access from the basement. Maybe they should build ramps and such in the basement and see how people complain about the waste of funds. People are so self centered and don’t understand what it’s like to be handicapped (or discriminated against) until it happens to them. I finally agree with you Bernie, the comments clearly demonstrate that discrimination is rampant in our fine city weather we chose to recognize it or not.
Seamus
Yes, Mr. Hanna did have (and still has, to my knowledge) asn assigned parking spot. When his wife is not with him, he does not need handicapped.
Bernie -
For the record, I don't have a dog in this hunt since I don't know Mr. Hanna and don't live in Bethlehem.
I have seen the struggle many handicapped people go through to get in and out of their cars, and I don't think those who aren't handicapped need to add to that difficulty.
My only real purpose in commenting on the situation (that seemed to be taking over the thread) was to point out that your position was not aligned with the law.
bo get you head out . there is handicapped access in the garage and hanna takes advandage of the city every chance he gets by parking out front ask your boy dana. Tou wouldn't know the truth if it smacked you.
"y only real purpose in commenting on the situation (that seemed to be taking over the thread) was to point out that your position was not aligned with the law."
No, it's not.
"Tou wouldn't know the truth if it smacked you."
I know enough about the truth to know that if you're Josh Caldwell, I'm Robert DeNiro.
but still you won't face the truth.
have you checked with dana?
When you sign your real name, I'll talk to you. This is a post about an anti-discrimination ordinance, not Tony Hanna's parking habits.
Robert DeNiro? Have you looked in the mirror lately?
So please explain what this council will do when some employee claims they were fired because of their sexual tendencies?
Pa. is an at will state with regard to employment practices which means one can be fired without justification.
So presumably every one fired will make some discrimination claim to this new council. What happens next after a claim is filed?
This is ripe for ridiculous claims and unnessecary local publicity and time spent by local businesses trying to justify hire/fire decisions not necessary in Pa. as I see it.
This is government run amuck!!
Post a Comment