"If the principal called you into the office it was, yes sir, no sir; and oh yeah, there was no confusion about restrooms in North Carolina in 1967."

-Governor of North Carolina, Pat McCrory-

It is hard to avoid comments like these when talking about House Bill 2 in North Carolina. The bill restricts bathroom accessibility to people based on their sex on their birth certificate, and not by the one they identify as, in all government and state buildings. The above is Pat McCrory supporting the bill at the State Republican Convention. He is alluding to the idea that North Carolina didn't have a problem with people using certain bathrooms in 1967, almost as if to minimize the problem as non existent.

Well, while he may want to believe that wasn't an issue, North Carolina did have a problem with a particular group of people using the bathroom back then: African Americans. That is exactly what brought the Department of Justice to issue a letter to the State of North Carolina and Pat McCrory. The DOJ states that North Carolina's House Bill 2 violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The letter goes on to inform the Governor that by implementing the bill against Title VII, they are apt to lose federal education funding. That would cost about $1.4 billion to University of North Carolina, and $861 million to state public schools. This is a huge blow to North Carolina and their education system. The Governor came out originally saying "they were weighing their options and seeing what legal decisions they will take," in an interview with Fox News. But as of May 9th, 2016, Governor McCrory and the State of North Carolina have sued the Department of Justice, claiming that they are not in violation of Title VII, and accuses the DOJ of not defining what they interpret Title VII to be, but also, having a radical interpretation of it.

Now, this is where it starts to sound weird, because while McCrory accuses the DOJ of not stating what they interpret Title VII to cover, but also state that they have a radical interpretation of it. Many people have flocked in support of North Carolina and McCrory for suing, thinking that this has nothing to do with Title VII because it uses the word 'sex' and not gender. In fact, McCrory states that in the interview with Fox New, "that's not what the federal law says, the federal law uses the term sex, and congress does not define sex as including gender identity or other terms that the Justice Department is currently using, so right now, the Justice Department is making law for the Federal Government." It appears North Carolina has a case of a Justice Department accusing them of breaking a law that doesn't identify sex as including gender identity and gives no justification in their letter.

After hearing all of this I got curious if this was true, and found out that not a single thing McCrory and North Carolina are suing for is true. When I read the letter to McCrory and NC, I found that not only do they show how they are violating Title VII, but also show how the language of "sex" is interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. They found that the state was discriminating on the basis of 'sex' as prohibited in Title VII and set forth in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. The letter then goes on to justify why discrimination of Transgender individuals is defined and protected by the word 'sex' in Title VII. This was set forth and upheld in not one, but in five federal court cases: Glen v. Brumby, Barnes v. City of Cincinnati, Smith v. City of Salem, Schroer v. Billington, and Macy v. Holder. The DOJ does not stop there though, they then go to show how, "equal access to restrooms is a significant, basic condition of employment, and that denying transgender individuals access to a restroom consistent with gender identity discriminates on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII," as set forth in Lusardi v. Dep't of the Army. The DOJ ends with asking for the removal of the implementation of this law or risk losing federal funding for education.

After reading the DOJ letter, I almost have to laugh to myself and ask the question, "did McCrory and his staff not read this letter?" Not only does the DOJ give reasoning for why Transgender people are protected under Title VII, it's language with the word sex, and how the bathroom includes that, but they give legal precedence for that as well. If McCrory and North Carolina decides to continue to sue the DOJ, they will have to get all of those court decisions to be overturn, due to the fact that they uphold Transgender rights under the Title VII in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is important to keep informed on exactly what the facts are to any case or issue, and when reading the document, it becomes clear that either McCrory didn't read the letter, or he decided to lie in interviews. We must uphold our state officials to a high standard of the truth, and McCrory seems to be suing from a standpoint in which he currently has no ground.

State officials in support of the bill are saying "they won't alter it and hope it will help them in this year's elections." This kind of rhetoric is just disturbing, I don't think I could live in a state that hopes denying civil rights will help their political position. As one republican put it to NPR, "In the scheme of things, that is not a major concern. The biggest are things like the economy or health care, things like border security."

But, if this wasn't a major concern to the republican part of North Carolina, why did they spend $42,000 in taxpayer money to have a special session just to pass the bill? The economy doesn't seem to be a concern in North Carolina, because on top of tax money for the special session, they are losing major revenue from acts like Bruce Springsteen canceling his concert in NC, Pay Pal moving its company, and the loss of nearly 1750 jobs. It is overall estimated that North Carolina is losing about $77 million dollars due to the bill. I think North Carolina needs to start reevaluating their priorities and decided exactly what they stand for.

In the end, we must understand that calling it simply an attack on bathroom choice is demeaning the issue. This has been about civil rights and always has been. When Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. marched the streets, it wasn't because he couldn't use the white restroom, it was because he was considered lower than another race. Why is House Bill 2 being implemented, is it because of the fear of perverts, or because of the fear of the unknown? Perverts are likely to exist whether there is a law or not, much as criminals using a gun are likely to exist whether there is a ban on guns or not. So then it is left to the unknown. We fear what we do not know. McCrory says that it is not an issue of perverts but, "an issue of what is expected, an issue of privacy." His very own language has an admittance, an "issue of what is expected," basically tells us that he signed the bill because transgender people using the bathroom is not 'expected.'

If this is an issue of privacy, what is your basis that privacy is being invaded by transgender people using the restroom? It can't be that they 'might' look at children while in there, because he says this isn't about perversion. Then it must be that there is more than one person in the bathroom, because I cannot think of what else he could mean. If that is the case then he should have pushed for a law to create only private restrooms. McCrory doesn't seem to be clear on the basis for his lawsuit, and going up against a Justice Department that has presented him with legal precedence he will surely lose. Maybe this wasn't an issue back in 1967 Governor McCrory, but I think the sixties should have thought you about something bigger than restrooms: Civil Rights.