THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, January 3, 1996 TAG: 9601030008
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A8 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Short : 38 lines
I was surprised that someone wrote in to support the EEOC position in the recent Hooters controversy (``Why a Hooters debate? Read the Civil Rights Act,'' Another View, Dec. 12). Considering the difficulty of the task, defending the virtually indefensible, Mary Jane Hall does a commendable job.
Ms. Hall makes two basic points: First, that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires that Hooters hire male waiters so that they too can parade around in skimpy shorts and halters. I doubt that she is correct, but if she is, the only adequate response is to quote Dickens' Mr. Bumble, ``If the law supposes that . . . the law is a ass, a idiot.''
Ms. Hall's second point is not directly stated. She says, ``If the essence of their business is to `jiggle' for the men, then perhaps they should change their ads and announce that it is a gentlemen's entertainment place.'' The implication being that if they only did this, all would be hunky-dory at the EEOC. But these agencies exist for the specific purpose of behavior- and thought-control, not truth in advertising.
What can the rest of us learn from the Hooters incident? Only this: Here is another example of a bureaucracy gone mad. Parkinson observed decades ago that such bureaucracies will never shrink on their own, but will continue to expand. Nothing is too trivial for the long controlling arm of the federal government.
I look forward to the day when the federal agencies of social engineering will be but an embarrassing footnote in our history.
DALLAS HOLSTON
Suffolk, Dec. 13, 1995 by CNB