Editorial

Family North Carolina Magazine—September/October 2008

by R. Matthew Lytle, Ph.D.

Defeating the Straw Man

by R. Matthew Lytle, Ph.D.

A North Carolina-based think-tank recently compared the circumstances surrounding HB 1366–School Violence Prevention Act to what many consider to be the seminal moment in the Civil Rights Movement—Rosa Parks’ refusal to give up her seat on a bus. Parks’ act of civil disobedience snowballed into a movement that fought—and arguably achieved—equality for minorities.

The briefing’s comparison doesn’t stop here, however. It likens the reaction by opponents of the House version of the bill to those who arrested and tried Parks. In other words, it argues that opponents of the pro-homosexual “Bullying Bill” are somehow similar to racists and segregationalists who didn’t want equal rights for minorities.

This characterization is dynamic and engenders sympathy for the side that is considered to be the underdog. It is also highly problematic.

First, it appeals to emotions, not to reason or to the facts. Identifying the supporters of the House version of HB 1366 with Rosa Parks evokes an emotional response in the readers. Emotional responses are strong responses. Who wants to side against Rosa Parks? The problem with this comparison is that, while emotionally powerful, it does not fit with the facts. HB 1366, which included the controversial list of protected classes including “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression”, was introduced in the General Assembly and approved by the House. There is no underdog status here for the proponents of the House version of HB 1366. The proponents of the bill are not a lone and brave woman sitting on a bus, but the majority of a chamber of the North Carolina General Assembly.

Of course, once the debate around HB 1366 has been framed this way (i.e., as a case of segregationalists against a lone Black woman refusing to give up her seat), people tend to think about the debate in these terms, even when the terms do not fit the facts. It takes a certain level of sophistication to get past this misleading image and get a clear picture of the actual landscape. Fortunately, this level of sophistication is not beyond the citizens.

Second, the briefing mischaracterizes the response by those of us who feel that the House version of HB 1366 is unnecessarily problematic. By arguing that our response to the House version of HB 1366 is filled with “hate and vitriol,” the briefing again appeals to emotions and ignores the actual situation. Such ad hominem attacks are not uncommon in debates like this. Nor are “straw men” arguments. In a straw man argument, one side sets up an argument that, while different, resembles the opposing side’s position. This alternative argument is always intentionally full of holes and is therefore easily defeated. By setting up and defeating a straw man argument, one hopes to fool others into believing that he has actually defeated the opposing side’s real argument.

The briefing combines variants of both kinds of faulty argumentation. In the first place, the briefing mistakenly characterizes the response as full of “hate and vitriol.” This tactic is common (as is the tactic that characterizes opposing sides as fearful, using words like “homophobic”) in the public square. This is nothing but an attack on the character of those citizens who think that the House version of HB 1366 is bad policy. In addition, it is simply not true. The nature of our opposition to the bill lies with the ideas and issues behind the bill, not the people enumerated in the bill or its supporters.

It should also be stated that a similar attack on our character has been leveled in the form of a patently untrue argument that we are in favor of bullying the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) community (or of bullying in general). We advocate or oppose ideas, not people, and we always do this with the good of our neighbors in mind. The idea or myth that we support bullying LGBT people could not be further from the truth. We certainly do not want anyone to be bullied, regardless of the reasons. This is another straw man based on the false assumption that opposition to the enumeration section of HB 1366 must equal an approval of bullying. It is sloppy logic. Moreover, it is not true.

Another straw man component comes from the underlying assumption that opposing the ideas (or perhaps better, “ideology”) of the enumeration section of the House version of HB 1366 necessarily equals “hate.” This the creates a caricature of our actual position, and one that no one would want to embrace. No one wants to side with hate. The thing is, there is no hate here.

These gross mischaracterizations of our position and our approach to the HB 1366 debate (along with other similar debates) must be corrected. The North Carolina Family Policy Council supported a version of HB 1366 that did not include the controversial enumeration section. This way, the bill would strengthen the state’s stand aganist bullying but not affirm the promotion of homosexuality and other “alternative” sexual behaviors in our public schools. Attacks on our character and intentions make us out to be something we are not. Such mischaracterizations are unacceptable and—in some people’s minds—would amount to bullying.

R. Matthew Lytle is director of research with the North Carolina Family Policy Council and editor of Family North Carolina.