Althouse on the soapbox.

I see this morning she's dredging up the incident at the libertarian dinner years ago where she allegedly left the table in tears, accusing other conference participants of racism.**

In criticizing libertarian Rand Paul today, the professor says: "I'm certainly not saying he's a racist, but he seems to support a legal position that would place racist private businesses beyond the power of anti-discrimination statutes. "

Hm. That seems to be at odds with her opinion that sexual discrimination by the state against gays is permitted because sexual bigots, like racists, have the right to cater to majority sentiment. *

If we can must tolerate sexual bigotry in that sense and work against it state-by-state because there are no federal protections, why can't we treat racial discrimination in private businesses in the same way?

Otherwise, isn't it a bit hypocritical? Cherry-picking victims of discrimination, and being inconsistent in determining what the federal role is in enforcing individual rights.

Plus, she left out the part about her leaving the table in tears, dismayed at the level of discrimination on display!

Tough times don't last; tough people do. And yes Virginia, true freedom can seem frightening at times to some types more accustomed to the safety of the academy, but that's no reason to reject it collectively for others who are up to the challenges.
---------------------

* I wonder if this whole legal debate will end up turning on the definition of "mutable and immutable characteristics". If so, then the personal example of potential Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan might just turn out more relevant that one initially might think. "If you can pass, or your personal characteristic can be altered or subliminated, you don't need federal protections."

** A more detailed account here (Dan Drezner), here (Jonah Goldberg), here (Jacob Levy), here (Radley Balko) and here (Ronald Bailey):

Anyway next thing I know, Ann Althouse is shouting at two of our dinner companions demanding that they prove to her (Althouse) that they are not racists! She kept asking over and over, "How do I know that I'm not sitting at a table full of racists?" This was completely bizarre! It should go without saying, but I will say it: No one at the conference could even remotely be accused of being racist.

Apparently, the three of them had been discussing the constitutionality of the public accommodations sections of the Civil Rights Act that forbids private businesses to racially discriminate among customers. That is an interesting issue where people ask serious questions about how to balance state intervention and individual choice. Anyway, it's an important issue over which people of good will may disagree-once state-enforced segregation is obliterated, will individual choices under equality of law and in a free market place end racial discrimination? Perhaps not. As Nobel Economics Laureate Gary Becker has argued if a minority group is a very small percentage of a population, then the costs of discrimination will be borne mainly by the minority and market forces may not be strong enough to overcome such discrimination. To me, the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that compelled private businesses to serve people of all races have largely resulted in beneficial outcomes. But beneficial outcomes may not be the only desideratum of state intervention. Consider the egregious violation of property rights that took place in the Kelo v. New London case. After all, forcing Ms. Kelo to sell her house so that the city could give it to a private developer is beneficial to the city of New London's tax base. Again, people of good will can have serious disagreements on where the proper limits to state power should lie. For example, should the Feds outlaw gay marriage, medical marijuana, concealed carry, surrogate motherhood even though some states want their citizens to have the opportunity to participate in those activities? Some conservatives would say yes. Libertarians would say no.

In trying to explain to Althouse why private discrimination might be OK, I later pieced together that my tablemates had posed the question of whether or not Althouse would want to have the right to refuse to serve KKK members if she owned a restaurant--say, the KKK members were planning to have a weekly luncheon meeting at her cafe? My interpretation of what happened is that because she didn't want to appear to be hypocrite, she refused to answer and kept asking more and more abstract questions about their example. When she was backed into a corner, she lashed out, suggesting that people who disagreed with her feelings were racists. Eventually, she was so upset that she began crying. Of course, at that point the possibility of civil intellectual discourse completely evaporated.

I was also astonished by the poise with which my tablemates handled Althouse. Our companions did not raise their voices nor dismiss her (as I would have), but tried to calm her down. In fact, Althouse made the situation even more personal by yelling repeatedly at one of my dinner companions (who is also a colleague) that she was an "intellectual lightweight" and an "embarrassment to women everywhere." In fact, in my opinion, with that statement Althouse had actually identified herself. Before Althouse stalked away, I asked her to apologize for that insult, but she refused.

I sure hope that Ann Althouse's behavior at the Liberty Fund colloquium is not example how "intellectual discourse" is conducted in her law school classes in Madison, Wisconsin.