Economist Said With a Silent T


In its third week back since the start of the new year, the 113th Congress has left the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) still languishing in house committee. ENDA, which passed in the Senate last year with a nearly 2:1 vote for the first time since its perennial introduction in 1994, would provide employment protections on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation in a manner similar to the 1964 civil rights act.

Plenty of journalists have come out in support of and in opposition to ENDA. The Senate Democratic majority has rekindled its fight to pass the law. The House Republican Majority were last heard making the same tired anti-civil rights arguments now directed against the queer community. It’s patently obvious that the bill can only serve to benefit homeless queer youth who want to have a job free from homophobic and transphobic harassment.

While a number of professional economists have a substantial body of work in feminist and heterodox journals, the number of economists publicly commenting on this particular piece of legislation is fairly abysmal. Among mainstream economists, the number of articles published on their (our?) shout-y blogs is 33 less than the number of state constitutions that ban same sex marriage. The number is 4 less than the number of openly gay members of the House and 1 less and then the number of openly gay members of the Senate.

The number of professional economists blogging about ENDA is zero.

Read More at the New School Economic Review


Categories: Law, Policy, and Government, Legislation

Tags: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: