Bathroom v. Courtroom: Confluence for Symbolism of Protected Class, Politics, Social Justice, Safety and Health Barbara Qualls, Ph.D. Wayne D. Haglund Stephen F. Austin State University Haglund Law Firm, P.C.
[email protected] [email protected] 1 “If freedom makes social progress possible, so social progress strengthens and enlarges freedom.” Robert F. Kennedy INTRODUCTION There is no shortage of issues on which members of the political far left and far right can assume positions that preclude the finding of common ground. There is, however, at least one issue that can serve as surrogate for many other partisan issues. That issue is: Who can use which segregated public bathroom? A time-tested definition of social justice was presented by Louis Brandeis: “Social justice is the fair and just relation between the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges” (Brandeis, 1916). Over a hundred years later, that definition seems tailor-made for today’s clash between those who practice or tolerate gender fluidity and those who do not – specifically as that clash is fought behind the euphemistic screen of public bathroom access. In an address before the Chicago Bar Association in 1916, Brandeis said, “In the last half century our democracy has deepened. Coincidentally there has been a shifting of our longing from legal justice to social justice, and – it must be admitted – also a waning respect for law. Is there any causal connection between the shifting of our longing from legal justice to social justice and waning respect for law? If so, was that result unavoidable?” What is legal and what is moral should never be assumed to be equivalent, but modern grassroots movements for social justice include efforts to break existing social barriers, while creating safety nets for those who traditionally have been socially marginalized.