The state has historically been tasked with ensuring the wellbeing of its citizens. This includes ensuring that individuals are able to live their lives free from discrimination, harassment, and violence based on factors such as race, gender identity, religion, age, disability, national origin, ethnicity, and sexual orientation.
There is an inherent tension in this role between the need to promote diversity and inclusion, and the desire to maintain social order and cohesion through the enforcement of conformity. While some scholars argue for a balanced approach that prioritizes both these principles, others contend that the state must choose one or the other.
The Supreme Court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) upheld the right to equality and non-discrimination while simultaneously affirming the state's interest in protecting traditional marriage norms. In light of this case, it becomes clear that the state must navigate a delicate balance between promoting diversity and enforcing conformity in order to protect the rights of all individuals.
One way that the state can promote diversity is by implementing policies that support equal access to public goods and services, including education, healthcare, housing, employment, and political representation. These policies aim to ensure that all members of society have equal opportunities to succeed regardless of their background or identity.
The state can work to foster understanding and empathy among different groups by promoting intercultural dialogue, celebrating diversity in schools and communities, and supporting cultural heritage and expression. By creating a safe and inclusive environment where individuals feel free to be themselves without fear of discrimination, the state can help to build stronger relationships and connections between diverse communities.
The state may also seek to enforce conformity in order to preserve social order and prevent conflict. This could include laws against hate speech, religious intolerance, or sexual harassment. The state may also regulate certain behaviors or expressions deemed contrary to societal norms, such as dress codes or gender roles. While these measures may seem restrictive, they serve to maintain social cohesion and stability.
The state may need to take steps to protect vulnerable populations from harm, even if those actions result in some level of conformity.
Laws prohibiting child pornography or banning conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ people are designed to protect individuals who are particularly at risk due to their identities.
While there is tension between the desire to promote diversity and uphold social order, the state must ultimately mediate a balance between the two principles. Policies that support diversity and inclusion while also enforcing conformity when necessary can create an environment where everyone feels valued and respected, thereby strengthening our society overall.
Is the state's duty to protect diversity, enforce conformity, or mediate a balance between the two?
The state's duty is to mediate a balance between enforcing conformity and protecting diversity. It should provide a safe and inclusive environment for all citizens while also ensuring that individuals adhere to certain societal norms. This balancing act can be achieved through policies and regulations that promote tolerance and respect for different cultures, religions, and backgrounds.