It Take More than Not Doing Wrong to Do Right

We often think of ethics as "doing the right thing". In other words, we think of it as resisting the temptation to do wrong: somebody drops a $20 bill as they're stepping away from a cash register, and, instead of pocketing it quietly ourselves, we call out to the person and return the lost money.

But I've been thinking about the flip side of ethics lately. In one version of the Episcopal Church's communal confession of sin, congregants ask God for forgiveness not only because "we have done those things which we ought not to have done", but also because "we have left undone those things which we ought to have done."

Just the other day, I drove right past an older, heavy-set woman walking slowly up a hill, laden with packages. How hard would it have been for me to stop and offer her a ride? I didn't have anyone else in the car; I wasn't late for any appointment. It would have been easy. And I didn't do it.

I've been thinking about leaving things "undone" since reading an article by Winnie Hu in Friday's New York Times, where she reports about a suit filed by deaf customers against the Astor Place (New York) Starbucks for allegedly discriminating against the deaf. A small group of deaf New Yorkers had been meeting regularly at that coffee shop, and say that "Starbucks workers refused to take some of their orders at these meetings, stared when they signed to each other, complained that they were not buying enough coffee and pastries, and eventually told the group not to come back."

As Hu wrote, "The legal battle has jolted many New Yorkers who have made the ubiquitous coffee shops part of their routine, and served as a reminder that even in a city as tolerant as New York, intolerance can be all too common for some populations."

The lawsuit "seeks to compel the company to conduct sensitivity training for employees and adopt policies to better serve deaf customers". A Starbucks spokeswoman would not comment on the specific litigation, but said that the company "does not agree with the allegations contained in the complaint" and noted that the company already provided sensitivity training for its employees and supported "equality, inclusion, and accessibility" for both employees and customers.

We don't hear a lot (if you'll pardon the expression) about discrimination against the hearing-impaired. Hu quotes a civil rights lawyer who said that "discrimination against the deaf often goes overlooked because it is subtle and sophisticated, and because some deaf  people may be isolated and may not speak up when it happens to them." He added,

It's not like putting up a sign on the door, 'No deaf people allowed." But when deaf people are treated differently than others, it does hurt and it's illegal.

Illegal and unethical aren't always the same, but in this case they certainly run together. I'd like to suggest, however, that it's not enough to "do the right thing". People who are hearing-impaired are already outsiders in a hearing world, just as the blind are in a seeing world. It isn't enough to get out of the way of a blind person being led by her guide dog. How hard is it to ask her if she needs assistance? It's not enough to accept a hand-written request for a super-tall extra-strong four-sugars iced coffee from someone who is deaf; how hard is it to offer a warm smile?

As for me, the next time I see someone to whom I should offer a ride, I'm going to try to remember what I left "undone" the last time. And this time, I want to do the really right thing.