Sunila George, chair Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination 1 Ashburton Place Suite 601 Boston MA 02108 To whoever this may interest or concern, greetings: On a telephone inquiry a while ago H.Harrison kindly gave me additional background on what MCAD does, and more importantly perspective on some of the issues you sometimes find yourselves up against. There are many forms of discrimination both overt and subliminal, and I'd like to spend a few moments on one of the most pervasive even if it's seldom thought about -- footwear, or chosen lack thereof. It's one of the areas of lifestyle against which our society and our legal system still tacitly allow intimidation and harassment, for no valid reason and without appropriate censure or consequence. Most of the protective law against discrimination has to do with inherent characteristics of a person that they cannot change -- age, sex, ethnicity, disability, and so on. I view religion as a gray area, certainly based on family upbringing and yet somewhat under the control of an individual -- note that peoples' spirituality and values can shift over time or convert. Where things really get even more fuzzy is in gender expression, which despite the fact that gender dysphoria is indeed a clinical condition, the outward manifestation day to day is almost certainly under a person's own control. And yet that is also now a protected class in Massachusetts, as are some of the other gender-related lifestyle and individuality choices made by the public. I have read your "gender identity guidance" document and some others with great interest, as it seems that there are concepts in there which could be brought to bear in many other areas. What I would advocate is bringing more of those gray-area attributes into the realm of protection, especially when scientific fact shows clear benefits from some of the choices people can make. Specifically, I'm talking about barefooting. This is simply the practice of not wearing shoes in one's day to day life, just like making choices about any other article of clothing or adornment within the boundaries of existing law. There is nothing inherently wrong with bare feet, but there is a lot of unfounded social stigma around the subject. Medical science is rapidly acknowledging that unshod living is healthy living for many physiological reasons, and the evidence is all over the internet. Some of us view "no shoes, no shirt, no service" in the same inexcusable class as "blacks to the back of the bus", despite the inevitable counterarguments of that being a false equivalence. Barefoot wherever feasible is what some of us have simply *become*, and more so as time goes on -- a "sincerely held part of our identity" in many cases, to swipe a little rhetoric from the "guidance" document. We understand how typical footwear can cause a process of slow destruction similar to smoking or alcohol, and avoid it. There's a helpful website located at outbarefoot.org which helps quickly point web visitors to some of the more prominent and long-standing resources and facts around this. While Massachusetts has blazed many new trails in anti-discrimination law, California may still be ahead of us with its Unruh Civil Rights Act and precedent stemming from its interpretation since passage. The notion that a person can be denied goods and services based purely on appearance is abhorrent, and yet it still infiltrates our society. While we wouldn't necessarily look to mandate every truly private establishment to rescind traditional dress codes, resources that are arguably public accomodations and critial infrastructure should absolutely NOT be allowed to discriminate on such a basis -- there is no reason to. The overall picture is murky, as disputes in this area usually boil down to someone's personal prejudices rather than corporate or government policy, and the dream is to codify away the ambiguity and the upsetting confrontations it often leads to. Nobody likes to be bullied over something that petty, and yet they are every day. It does seem like such a simple, minor thing -- I could just as easily be talking about six-inch pink mohawk hairstyles or large tattoos or skirt length. Most of these things *are* essentially protected, since someone denied service for such attributes would likely have a discrimination case against most types of establishment. But bare feet? Because of the insidious and quite incorrect mythology about bare feet somehow being bad, that changes the picture, and it simply should not. The common reactions are based on no facts of law or science, only fifty-year-old "fake news" from the sixties and seventies. "OMG you have to have shoes on to come in here", where even known-hazardous flip-flops qualify as suitable footwear. What nonsense. This appears to be largely unique to the United States -- while barefooting may still be a little unusual around the rest of the world, in general no attempt is made to prohibit it. The falsehoods commonly raised here, about health, safety, liability, food, or even decorum, are generally not in the conversation on other shores. I realize that your organization does not legislate, but if you have close ties to that activity and a solid means for plowing suggestions into the process, I would encourage lawmaker-level study of this topic. Suppose Massachusetts were to lead the country in freeing our feet, as it did for same-sex marriage? That could make some serious news, and be a big boost to credibly laying all those old rumors permanently to rest. The morality around simple acceptance of the unshod is not nearly such a tinderbox, either, as its related history is short and based entirely in arbitrary discrimination that should have never happened at all. It is almost comical to even think about any desire for barefooting to enjoy specific legal protection, but with some people still raised so brainwashed against it perhaps the consideration and clarity is warranted. All that seems necessary is another small addition to Chapter 272, section 98 and some publicity to notify merchants and service providers. So this letter is just to try and float an idea, not necessarily to direct your actions or priorities. You clearly have plenty of work to do along existing efforts. But if this seeds any positive ideas that could eventually slot their way into your agenda, that would be great for the local barefoot community and ultimately, good for a healthier society. Even if it's entirely an issue of perception, endorsement carries considerable weight. Thank you very much for your time and attention. I would be happy to engage in further discourse about this and answer any additional questions, via whatever communications medium you deem most appropriate. /s/, etc