Ijack of the magazine, can find nothingrnmore important to talk about than thernAIDS quilt and similar topics of uni crsalrninterest.rnWilliam Bucklev, who must knowrnbetter, seems now to grant homosexualsrnthe special rights of a victimized minority.rnBut over the vears National Reviewrnhas mercilessly attacked the notionrnof group rights for anyone. Of coursernhomosexuals have rights, the samernrights the rest of us have, as guaranteedrnbv federal and state constitutions andrnb the traditions of the Common I,aw.rnBut. t]ua homosexuals, what rights canrnthcv possibly hae in a societ that hasrnalways regarded their practices as unwholesome,rnunnatural, and contrar torndivine ordinance? Will there now bernthief rights, cannibal right.s, child molesterrnrights? (I hope I am not givingrnanyone ideas.)rnYes, criminals and perverts do havernrights, and where an activity takes placernin privacy and between consentingrnadults, no sensible or well-bred personrnwould want to stick his nose in, especiallyrnif one has retained a fine sense ofrnsmell. But do these people have a rightrnto intrude their problems into m life,rnby coming out of the closet or byrnpreaching to my children in school orrnby flouncing about in militar’ uniforms?rnThe proposed Oregon ordinance, tornwhicli Mr. Buckley objects in a column,rnwas directed not against homosexualsrnthemselves but against “gay rights.” ‘I’hernmain object, so it seemed to most of us,rnwas to prevent teachers and counselorsrnfrom indoctrinating schoolchildren intorna positi’e view of a perxersion tiiatrnwill not only ruin their lics but willrncondemn them to an early grac.rnMost of us find our own way of goingrnto hell, and I hold no brief for thernDon Juans, divorces, drunkards, stockrnmanipulators, and slanderers of my accjuaintance.rnMany of them will bernfound, no doubt, in lower circles thanrnhomosexuals who cling to their particularrnice, but sin, in order to prosper,rnneeds no encouragement—as a wisernman ob,scryed—it needs only to be tolerated.rnToleration and persecution arernboth official acts of a moralizing state.rnThe best that homosexuals can expectrnfrom us is to be ignored; all we ask inrnreturn is a little discretion.rnAny decent and moral person nrustrnattempt to resolve the obvious conflictrnbetween the sense of humanit and thernsense of propriety. The case of JohnrnSchlafly, homosexual son of PhyllisrnSchlafly, is a case in point. To myrnknowledge, Mr. Schlafly dealt with hisrnown problems in a priate and discreetrnfashion; he inited no attention, nradernno dcirrands. It was the homosexual activistsrnat Queer Week who “outed” him,rniolating both Mr. Sehlaflv’s pri’aey asrnwell as the common standards of decenevrnthat obtain in the aptly namedrn”straight world.” The conclusion of NationalrnReview’s October 19 editorial onrnthis incident is worth repeating: “Thernmedia, though still furious about Mc-rnCarthvism after all these ears, Iraverndropped an qualms the once hadrnabout ‘outing’. . . . So much for priyacy.rnNot to mention free speech and fairrnplay. ‘Outing’ is what used to be knownrnas blackmail. And thanks to the ‘silentrnapproval’ of good liberals, blackmail nowrnhangs over one side in the debate on gayrnrights.”rnIn tlie better wodd of not too nranyrnyears ago, we knew that iee was vicernand sin was sin. We also had the nrannersrnand sense not to intrude into otherrnpeople’s pri’atc life. If the chcedess garncommunit- now bclices that invasionsrnof private life are justified by a higherrnmoralit’, they arc initiating a powerrnstruggle they cannot win against thernother 95 percent of the human race—rneven if tbe’ should live so long.rn— I’homas FlemingrnR A C E – N O R M I N G ‘ S likeliest successorrnis something called “banding.” Ifrnou see references to a “diersit-l:)asedrnsliding band,” do not expect to encounterrnsomething as agreeable as arnDixieland ensemble. No, the term isrnonl’ a euphemism for the latest subterfugernto scuttle rank-order selectionrnof top scorers on tests for hiring and promotion.rnIt’s better, you see, to advancernlower-scoring members (^f politically favoredrnminority groups.rnUnder banding, cmploers tap employeesrnfrom within a narrow band ofrnmediocre scorers—sa’ the 70-to-8() percentrncorrect range—on objective testsrnof job skills. The band is designated forrnits demographic correctness. That is,rnjob seekers are clustered w ithin the bandrnin racial/ethnic proportion to the localrnlabor pool. Band selection thus effectsrnthe racial quotas mandated in the 1991rnCivil Rights Act that President Bush sornfoolishly signed. As witli race-normingrn(which evaluated blacks and Ilispanicsrnagainst lower standards than whites andrnAsians), the emploer pavs a considerablernprice in decreased worker productirnit but supposedly comes off a littlernbetter than by simply drawing namesrnout of a hat.rnWashington’s bigwigs naturally arernnot cranking out press releases to announcernthat raee-norming’s evil heartrncontinues to beat inside banding’s bosom.rnTo wit: former New York MayorrnEd Koch’s interest was piqued by my articlernlast Eebruar in Chronieles entidedrn”Dirty Secrets: Race-Norming LivesrnOn.” Mr. Koch (a Democrat who, tornhis credit, has taken a principled standrnagainst racial quotas) vyrote to Secretaryrnof Labor Lnn Martin asking, inrnessence, “W hat gives?” Sfie wrote backrnin the blandest of bureaueratese to savrnthat the Department of Labor had terminatedrnrace-norming in compliancernwith Section 106 of the Civil RightsrnAct. She even sent him a copy of a EederalrnRegister notice from last Decenrberrn18 as proof.rnWhat the Secretar said was truernenough. (The Federal Register noticernwas released after the deadline for m’rnarticle in Chronicles.) What she did notrnexplain was wh the DOL had draggedrnits feet for more than a vear in haltingrnthe race-norming of the General AptitudernTest Battery, administered annuallyrnto millions of job seekers. Her predecessor,rnI^lizabeth Dole, had publishedrna notice of suspension of the GATB inrnJuly 1990 following disclosure by thernRichmond limes-Dispatch of the secretrnrace-norming tables. Nor did Martinrnexplain win the DOL dillydallied anotlierrntwo months after Section 106rnwent into effect before putting out thernword to job agencies and enrplovers tornstop rigging test scores. (Congressionalrnquotacrats wrote Section 106 into thernlaw after concluding it was pointless torntry to defend race-norming. But thernrest of the bill essentially requires whatrnwas outlawed: that test results be fiddledrnwith or set aside if thcv producernan “adverse impact” on designated minoritrngroups.)rnNor, finalK’, did Secretary Martin tellrnformer Masor Koch about what heatsrnthe fevered brows of Washington’s civilrightsrnelite these days: banding, a benign-rnsounding subterfuge they hope willrnpass legal muster. No, banding has notrnyet become official practice (at least asrnfar as is known) at jol) agencies or at therncorporate personnel offices tliev hector.rn6/CHRO,NICLESrnrnrn