No Responsibility

I recognize that my previous post (almost 2 years ago) was not popular with some. The goal was not to inflame anyone. But it is a legitimate response to the news and is a position that should at least be entertained as having potential validity rather than being dismissed out-of-hand.

I have posted on related topics over the past years. The first was in July, 2008 (“Freedom”), and the second in August, 2009 (Tolerance, the New Intolerance).

In the first, I argue that we cherish freedom like it is a religion, and have elevated desires and wants to rights. But what rights we have generally come with responsibilities. And few of our wants (whether or not claimed to be rights) have guarantees. As an example, we have managed to convince most that a college education is a right. But we too often fail to recognize that only the attempt might be classified as a right (and even that is only tentative). The outcome requires that we actually complete the coursework with a satisfactory grade. There is no right to a degree that is not earned.

In the second, I argued that tolerance should mean that I am willing to allow those who do not agree with me to continue to hold their view rather than be required to agree with me. But too much of the social and political dialog of late is framed in terms that require agreement for those that might otherwise disagree. In effect, tolerance will no longer be tolerated. Only agreement.

This then raises the question of who gets to determine what is right. Am I allowed to insist upon my views and opinions and you be required to agree, or is it only the other way around? Is the underdog, minority, or other special classification presumed to have the right to insist upon adherence to their opinions as if “gospel truth?” Is an alternate opinion worthy only of disdain, or even censure?

Now we arrive at the August, 2019 post. It is admittedly missing information upon which to conclude much. But based on nothing more than the equivalent of “my son can be disruptive but he has a disability therefore you cannot place boundaries on his behavior or you will be vilified,” we are left to understand a mother’s claims of discrimination as implicitly true and the actions of a restaurant manager to be worthy of blacklist.

And there was clearly a comment posted on the mother’s facebook page that was later deleted because several other comments were cursing some woman for having an opinion about the subject that was not in full support of the outrage.

This is political correctness at its very worst. We have a situation described that indicates there was an actual problem, not just some simple discrimination worthy of the response received. The way the facebook post was written hints that there was more than just discrimination against the disabled. But now that is the sum total of what it has been distilled into.

And the bandwagon is clearly intolerant of any suggestion that it might not be that simple. There is no consideration that disability does not create a right to act in any manner without consequence. And just because the child was not destroying the restaurant’s property does not mean that there was nothing to justify a consequence. No. Just the presumed insult (from a place that has entertained you before and welcomed you to come back again) that cannot be tolerated. Did no one sense that the manager was doing what he thought was right under circumstances that he clearly did not expect to be the norm. He expected that another time might result in a better experience.

And the idea that whoever it was that complained should have been asked to leave . . . are you serious? We do not even know if it was only one complaint. But do you see the reverse discrimination when someone abiding by all norms of behavior are asked to leave because someone else is being allowed to be outside of those norms?

I recognize that the case of disabilities has issues that sometimes must be taken into account. Impediments to access by otherwise valid customers or employees must be corrected. In some cases standards that are beyond what is truly required must be relaxed to allow for those who would otherwise qualify.

But access to business establishments is not an inalienable right. Some require that children under certain ages be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. There are still restaurants that require a coat and tie. There is no exception. They often provide (ill-fitting) jackets and ties for those who arrive unaware of the rule. But without it, you are excluded. There is no special status that trumps the rules.

I recognize that being asked to leave a restaurant is embarrassing. But in the present case is there no consideration for other patrons? Is misbehavior to be forced upon them because of disability? Is there no thought that disability does limit one’s activities and to presume otherwise is to impose upon the rights of others? When our children were small, we had to consider whether going to a restaurant was appropriate at particular times. And we had to be ready to discipline them when they got out of line. I can only imagine if one of them had the kind of disability that is mentioned in this particular case. But it would have caused us to be more serious in our decisions concerning whether to eat out and where to go. We might have had the right to eat almost anywhere. But we also had the responsibility to ensure that we did not overstep the rights of others in the process.

And that is what is missing in the mother’s post and the comments it gathered. There is no evidence that any responsibility falls on her, as the parent, to control the behavior of the child or to accept responsibility for failures. She has stated the nature of the child’s disability and insisted that it is wrong to take any action against them under the stated circumstances — presumably because disability requires that it be acceptable. No imposition should be made on her, but other patrons are required to tolerate the imposition of noise.

No responsibility.