D.C.’s Discrimination Escalation

Readers outside of Washington may or may not be aware that there has been a more or less continuous movement, since the late 1960s, to grant statehood to the District of Columbia, the nation’s capital city. It came about as close to success as it ever will during the Carter administration (1978), when a constitutional voting rights amendment passed Congress but failed to be ratified by the requisite number of states. 

His Honor Marion Barry

The Scrapbook isn’t about to rehearse the arguments for or against statehood; we simply mention this fact by way of introducing the latest reason why statehood will never be granted to the District. Councilman Marion Barry​—​the onetime four-term mayor of Washington​—​has just introduced legislation to add “ex-offenders” to the list of people guaranteed legal safeguards against discrimination. Lest you think adding convicted felons to the burgeoning roll of protected species is a nonstarter, think again. The D.C. Council is expected to pass Barry’s bill.

Indeed, as the Washington Post delicately points out, Washington’s Human Rights Act is “considered one of the broadest anti-discrimination documents in the nation .  .  . [offering] protection based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, familial status, family responsibilities, matriculation, political affiliation, disability, source of income, and place of residence or business.”

As readers might imagine, the beleaguered business community in the nation’s capital has registered its self-evident concern about an ex-offender provision​—​must they really be obliged, under punishment of law, not to discriminate against convicted murderers and rapists?​—​but as the existing act suggests, such concerns usually fall on deaf ears in city government.