Recently, I started a new job and on one of my first days of work I noticed that there was a man wearing a belt with several confederate flags prominately displayed. I grew sick to my stomach and went straight to my supervisor.

When I asked my sup if the company allows their emloyees to wear apparal that represents racist values and explained to him why I was offended, he said to me, "Well, I'm hispanic and I don't find it offensive, besides, no one has complained and he's (the employee) been wearing that belt everyday for several months now."

I couldn't believe my ears. I felt as though my opinion was being belittled because I'm white (yeah, yeah...Euro-American....).

To make matters worse, when I tried to go to someone above my sup, I recieved more of the same treatment. I, once again, explained that because of the history that the Confederate flag represents, I am extremely offended that an employee would be allowed to to display such a symbol. The head cheese then excused himself, then came back to the room along with my trainer, Gloria, who is Black. He then sat her down and turned to her and said, "Gloria, are you offended by Micheal's flags?" and she replied, "No". then he turned to me with a look like, "see, she's not offended." I couldn't believe it. Again, I felt as though they were trying to trivialize my opinion, as if I couldnt be offended by a racist symbol as long as my people weren't the ones being oppressed.

The boss proceeded to say that he couldn't be expected to send Mike (the flag bearer) home just because of his attire. I pointed out that if a woman came to work in some coochie cutters and a revealing top, he would ask her to go home and change because she was not dressed appropriately and that he could easily apply the same method to this situation.

Anyway, shit was fucked up. so now that ya'll know a little about my problem, I want to hear some opinions.

Wear does free speach end? or are there any limits?
What would you have done?
Does this even suprise you? (sadly, it doesn't suprise me at all)
Who has the right to be offended?
What are the proper steps to take when you realize your employer would rather protect the opressor, rather than the oppressed?
Which is the truer evil, the flag bearer or the establishment that protects him?


"the Pu-tang Clan!?! I loooovveee you guys!" -Hugh Heffner, when he met the RZA at a backstreet boys party

i wrote this earlier today about almost the same idea: http://www.okayplayer.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&omm=34&om=737&forum=DCForumID1

Thanks for reading. I love you.

In Rotation:
LTJ Bukem - Journey Inwards
Deftones - White Pony
A Perfect Circle - Mer De Noms
Ras Michael - Rastafari Dub
Slum Village - Fantastic Vol II
Black Sabbath - Sabbath Bloody Sabbath

don't be fkn evil.

A couple of you asked if I had spoke to the Redneck directly, well, I finally had the opportunity to....Like to hear it? Here it go....

I was called into the head cheese's office by the director of human relations who explained that Mike would like to explain to me why he chooses to wear his Confederate flag belt.

When I entered the room, I was joined by a black man who identified himself as Eddie, Mike's friend. apparently Eddie was there to testify that Mike is not a racist. I thought to myself, "this will be interesting". when Eddie confirmed that he was an aquaintance (sp) of Mike and that he did not feel as though Mike was a racist I said to them that I never accused him of being racist, simply of wearing clothing that has racist connotations.

Mike went on to explain that he had gotten the idea to wear the belt from a Black man who lives in Atlanta who constantly wears a similar belt (buckwild!!) in order to express his beliefs in state's rights. At that point I explained to the group that the reason that the Confederate states were so adament about protecting those state's right was so that they could perpetuate a system of exploitation in the form of slavery so that their economic system could flurish. Hell, it's easy to make money off of products (in particular, crops/agriculture) when you steal land from Native Americans and use slaves for free labor. I also suggested that if he simply wanted to articulate his passion for state's rights, maybe he could think of doing it in a way that wasn't so offensive and loaded.

Eventually, Mike agreed to not wear the belt anymore, however, stated that he takes medication for his short-term memory, so he may forget and wear the belt again.......how convinient.

Before we were excused, the HR director turned to me and said, "see, we do care, and I hope you are happy. We could have just fired you on friday, afterall, Colorado is a no fault state, I'm sure we could have come up with something."

I couldn't believe it, I told her that I didn't appreciate her threat nor did I appreciate the company's attempts to dismiss my complaint on what seemed to be the basis of my skin color (yeah, I know, welcome to the club) by bringing in Gloria and Eddie.

Shit will never stop. Should I be satisfied? afterall, I accomplished my immediate mission, there will be no more wearing of the belt (as long as he remembers his medication -- that one killed me). Yet, it seems as though a larger evil has been exposed. My job was threatened because I was offended by another employee's clothing. Can't help but wonder, would I have been fired if I were Black?
Are there any more steps I can take?
I'm thinking about writing the NAACP, urban league and the Colorado Commission for Civil Rights.
Any thoughts?

"the Pu-tang Clan!?! I loooovveee you guys!" -Hugh Heffner, when he met the RZA at a backstreet boys party

"the Pu-tang Clan!?! I loooovveee you guys!" -Hugh Heffner, when he met the RZA at a backstreet boys party

>Wear does free speach end?

Where white people say it does.

>are there any limits?

Only on non-elites

>What would you have done?

I would have ignored it, and started rocking my Malcolm X hat. Perhaps a NOI of pin on the lapel. Or if you're latino, maybe a MECHA. Respond with more speech.

But since I live in the South, I see it on a regular. If the people I work with are racist, I start looking for another job.

>Does this even suprise you?

What surprises me is that you took it up with your supervisor. That's very commendable. It takes a lot of courage.

>Who has the right to be
>offended?

Good question. Personally I wouldn't have taken it that far. If I didn't talk to the belt wearer first, I wouldn't have went to the manager. It's like them white boys who live above me and love to jam Dj Screw tapes at 2:00 am. I holla at them first. No satisfaction, I call the apartment folks.

>What are the proper steps to
>take when you realize your
>employer would rather protect the
>opressor, rather than the oppressed?

The employer is often the oppressor. The best step is to create your own business. But a more realistic step is to work somewhere else. But if you have to keep that job, start rocking your own speech. Did you talk to the Redneck first though?

>Which is the truer evil, the
>flag bearer or the establishment
>that protects him?

obviously it's the establishment.

peace
k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

>>Wear does free speach end?
>
>Where white people say it does.
Funny you say that, because I'm white and through out this situation I realized that I don't have too much of a say so when it comes to defending ideals that are many times not thought to be in my own interests. However, I can't help but wonder how a Black person would have been treated if they had brought up this issue.....thing is that I am suspicious about whether or not I was truely the first person to report this...maybe other's concerns were swept under the rug....speculation....

>Only on non-elites
Agreed. Marxist are we?

If the
>people I work with are
>racist, I start looking for
>another job.
I thought about doing that, but then I figured that that would be like running away. I figured the only way to stop the shit that is going on is to remain a constant presence or else the day that I left, the administration would forget that a complaint was ever made and go back to business as usual. I couldn't let that happen.

>What surprises me is that you
>took it up with your
>supervisor. That's very commendable.
> It takes a lot
>of courage.
Thanks...I did that because I figured it was the only way to get anything done. I, too, lived in the South (Alabama) so I've heard most of the arguments to defend bearing the confederate flag and I figured the best way to go about it would be from a legal perspective (it's against CO law to have to work in a harassment filled environment), otherwise, I'd just be playing ring around the rosey with some old hick whose is resighting arguments I've already heard.

>obviously it's the establishment.
I was thinking possibly both...those whose perpetuate racist ideals and those who enable others to do so...

"the Pu-tang Clan!?! I loooovveee you guys!" -Hugh Heffner, when he met the RZA at a backstreet boys party

>However, I can't help
>but wonder how a Black
>person would have been treated
>if they had brought up
>this issue

2 scenarios -
1. they would have reacted the same
2. they would have fell over catering to the black person.

>>Only on non-elites
>Agreed. Marxist are we?

Pragmatist and student of history. Most of the time, it's a few key people pulling the strings.

>I thought about doing that, but
>then I figured that that
>would be like running away.

Or you could look as it as making it possible for a racist company to make money reinforcing what is already going on. Don't support if you do not have to.

k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

>When I asked my sup if the company allows their emloyees to wear apparal that represents
>racist values and explained to him why I was offended, he said to me, "Well,
>I'm hispanic and I don't find it offensive, besides, no one has complained and he's
>(the employee) been wearing that belt everyday for several months now."
If everybody jumps off of a bridge is he going to jump too?
He KNOWS the truth because why has he even noticed that homey been wearing that belt eveyday for several months. Your co-workers are making statments. I'm sure he got other belts. Why that one? Why for several months? Why did your Hispanic sup know the length of times it's been worn?

>The head cheese then excused
>himself, then came back to
>the room along with my
>trainer, Gloria, who is Black.
>He then sat her down
>and turned to her and
>said, "Gloria, are you offended
>by Micheal's flags?" and she
>replied, "No". then he turned
>to me with a look
>like, "see, she's not offended."
This is INCREDIBLE! I think Gloria tyrin' to keep her job. Ep, you will always find that Big Brother/the Devil can always find at least ONE he can put on display........

>
>Wear does free speach end? or are there any limits?
Where Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O'Conner says it does

>What would you have done?
Approched Redneck first. Supervisor 2nd.

>Does this even suprise you? (sadly, it doesn't suprise me at all)
No.....Read "Wear the Confederate Flag". Tell me what you think.

>Who has the right to be offended?
We all do. Hence the term "reverse discrimination".

>What are the proper steps to take when you realize your employer would rather protect the
>opressor, rather than the oppressed?
EEOC......

>Which is the truer evil, the flag bearer or the establishment that protects him?
The Flag Bearer ISSSSS the establishment!

Live from the Shoe Sto'
NuShooz

I,I, I Can't Wait!

Live from the Shoe Sto, the Mall and NOW the courtroom


I, I, I Can't Wait?
U've waited long enuff!

I want to respond to all of your issues, but just as a start, for everyone, here are two web sites that could help:

www.dol.gov (department of labor)
www.eeoc.gov

Both of these sites have plain English descriptions of the various federal laws that are currently in place about a lot of different issues that are germane to your questions, like discrimination in hiring. I just took a look at them and didn't immediately run across anything that would be specific to your situation, but again, this is just a starting point and a good reference tool.

Remember that certain things are governed by federal law and certain things are governed by state law. If federal law exists about an issue then if there is inconsistent state law, the federal law will preempt the state law. If there is no federal law about the issue, and there is state law, then the state law governs. Some things, particularly with respect to private employers, are left to contract between individuals. A lot of states (mine included) have a system called "at will" employment. This basically means that you can quit at any time and the employer can't compel you to stay (because that would be involuntary servitude). It also means, but read carefully here, that the employer does not have an obligation to keep you on if your job is no longer necessary, if they're downsizing, if they've decided that you're the wrong person for the job, etc. That does NOT generally mean that anyone can be fired for a discriminatory reason (i.e., because for example the boss just figured out that you belong to a religion that s/he hates or because you testified on behalf of someone who brought a lawsuit against the company for discriminatory hiring/firing).

Now, this is just the general rule. Overlaid on that is the federal and any state law that governs not only what is considered to be a "discriminatory" reason for firing, but also what procedures have to be followed in court if a lawsuit is brought on the matter. Believe it or not, that can be the deciding factor. In a lot of instances (my recollection is rusty here, so bear with me as I generalize), the problem is that discrimination must be proved by the person claiming the discrimination. This is a hard burden to meet, unless there is some hard evidence (like memoranda written by your boss saying, "Let's fire epiphany because we never should have hired a _________" (fill in the blank with a protected class), or witnesses to your boss saying "I don't need a reason to fire you, I would just make one up." Even that's probably not good enough). Plus you have to have the hard evidence yourself, or you have to know that it exists, because the defendant isn't going to offer it up. So these can be very difficult cases, because the best information is held by the employer, not the employee.

That's getting off track. There are still a lot of issues out there. Like -- what do we mean when we use the phrase "free speech" or "freedom of expression"? What and who are regulated by anti-discrimination statutes? Who can raise a claim? Can you raise a claim on behalf of someone else? What is a hostile work environment? If you're not in a protected class, can you still bring an action to enforce federal statutes that were designed to protect a protected class? And probably most important of all -- how can anyone raise a sensitive issue without fearing for their job? I think that the bottom line is that you would like for your work space to be free from discriminatory and biased symbols so that everyone will be free to do their work without the distraction of someone else's bigotry. So the only reason to put this in the context of a lawsuit is as a means of describing what is/is not allowed by law and what it would take to enforce the law. As you know, I'm not advocating a lawsuit, for a whole host of reasons, but primarily because if something can be resolved without involving lawyers, it should be. Also, people who get involved in lawsuits find that their lives are changed forever (read "A Civil Action" as a good example of this).

One thing I don't know anything about at all is Colorado law. So I'm not going to be able to help there in the slightest.

More soon.

Peace.

~ ~ ~
All meetings end in separation
All acquisition ends in dispersion
All life ends in death
- The Buddha

|\_/|
='_'=

Every hundred years, all new people

When we talk about "free speech" or "freedom of expression," we're talking about a right protected by the First Amendment to the federal Constitution. This protection prohibits the federal government from enacting laws that would prevent or inhibit certain protected speech. Speech/expression falls on a continuum from most protected to unprotected. Examples: Most Protected = political speech. Less protected = obsenity or commercial speech. Unprotected = pornography (notably child pornography).

But all of this is about what the federal government can regulate. Not about private actors (i.e., your employer).

Here's how to put this in context: Your eight year old child is making a lot of noise in the back seat of the car. You say, "Keep it quiet back there! I'm trying to drive!" Your child says, "Nyah nyah, you can't make me shut up, the Constitution guarantees me free speech!" That's when you say, "In fact, child, the Constitution only protects your right to freedom of political expression against bad acts by the federal government."

Okay, so on the one hand, we know that Congress can't make a law that says "No citizen may discuss the GOP convention in a public place." Whoo, that's about as bad as it gets. On the other hand, your mother can tell you to shut up and set the table, right when you were in the middle of telling her your views on the Republican party. So it's a continuum.

So there's no actual protection against suppression of speech by private actors. How do we find redress if our speech is suppressed? What can we do to suppress speech that is abhorrent to us individually?

Our remedies against actions by individuals that cause us harm are found, essentially, in civil litigation. The guts of civil litigation is this: If someone suffers harm, the responsibility/cost of that harm should be allocated to the person or persons who caused the harm.

Can you sue someone for telling you to keep quiet when you're talking noisily in a movie theatre? No. Can you sue someone for beating you up for talking noisily in a movie theatre? Yep. That's the kind of harm recognized by the courts. But don't think that the jury won't be presented with evidence that you were disturbing everyone. You could be apportioned some or all of the "cost" of your own harm because you brought it on yourself.

Sometimes the consequences of actions by private (non-government) actors are serious enough that Congress has taken steps to extend the protection of some rights beyond the government (public) arena. Here's an example: The owner of a restaurant (private actor, therefore not subject to the federal Constitution) hangs up a sign that says "Whites Only" on the door to his restaurant. I want you to understand that this was NOT regulated by the federal government until the 1968 federal civil rights legislation was passed. This has been tested by the courts because it was challenged as an impermissible intrusion by the federal government on the right of private actors. And it was a pretty complicated matter to decide that it does fall under federal jurisdiction because pervasive discrimination such as this impairs interstate commerce. (this can get really complicated. If you really want to understand the details on this, let me know and I'll dig up some references for texts that could help, although the first place to start is always Laurence Tribe's American Constitutional Law.)

Okay, so then we move to the workplace. Congress, over time, has deemed the workplace to be significant enough to impair the "private right of contract" by creating laws that prevent discriminatory hiring and firing practices that are biased against specific groups -- if the bias is on the basis of race, sex, religion, etc. Notably, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not prohibited. Disability is a new-ish one. So, can you be fired for any reason? Yes, so long as your firing does not violate any of the anti-discrimination laws set in place by Congress or by your state (some states offer more protection than the federal government). Right, but so could your confederate-flag-wearing co-worker.

I'm getting fuzzy-headed and blurry eyed, and probably so are you. I'll re-group and continue, possibly tomorrow or in a few days.

Peace

~ ~ ~
All meetings end in separation
All acquisition ends in dispersion
All life ends in death
- The Buddha

|\_/|
='_'=

Every hundred years, all new people

or witnesses to
>your boss saying "I don't
>need a reason to fire
>you, I would just make
>one up." Even that's
>probably not good enough).

I was told this by the director of human relations for the company during a meeting with Mike (the flag guy), Eddie (a friend of his), the "head cheese", HR lady, and myself.
I mistakenly posted a reponce to bluetiger (when I ment for it to be a reponce to my original post) about what happened after I first reported this incident.
Basically I was told that if the company didn't "care" about my opinions on this subject, they would have simply "fired me on friday and came up with a reason because Colorado is a 'no fault' state."
I have a total of 2 other witnesses and the meeting was being taped by the project manager, but like you said, the company would probably deny me access to the tape itself.

Besides, I really didn't consider a lawsuit, just some way of getting the word out about this wack ass company.
What do you think?

"the Pu-tang Clan!?! I loooovveee you guys!" -Hugh Heffner, when he met the RZA at a backstreet boys party

on some items that you raise in this last message. I think I have one more post to get out everything I want to say on the substantive issues.

First, in fact, the reason that I used that as an example was because of your follow up post. The fact that you know that a tape recording was made is really really good. If this issue were ever to come to litigation, you probably would be able to get it entered as evidence (you could compel them to produce it). The hard stuff is when they're writing internal memoranda that you don't know exist so you can't demand it.

Also, I know that it sounds like I'm advocating a lawsuit. And I also know that you know that I'm not. My problem is that when we talk about what laws are in place and what rights exist, we necessarily look at what breaks those laws or violates those rights. Ultimately, if rational discussion breaks down and requests are ignored, the way that we enforce the law or protect our rights is through court action. So we look at what breaks the law (and could result in a lawsuit) to find out if someone is within their rights or not (even though we won't actually sue).

The best remedy is always to work it out privately -- if it can be worked out privately. That's the least expensive in terms of money, time, emotions, heartache, etc.

Peace.

~ ~ ~
All meetings end in separation
All acquisition ends in dispersion
All life ends in death
- The Buddha

|\_/|
='_'=

Every hundred years, all new people