Online Forum Leads To Hostile Workplace Lawsuit

Tiger4 writes "A group of black Philadelphia police officers have filed a lawsuit against the police department and the city, alleging a hostile work environment due to a private website popular with police. Their story has received wide coverage. From CNN: 'The suit alleges white officers post on and moderate the privately operated site, Domelights.com, both on and off the job. Domelights' users "often joke about the racially offensive commentary on the site ... or will mention them in front of black police officers," thus creating "a racially hostile work environment," according to lawyers for the all-black Guardian Civic League, the lead plaintiff in the suit.' The site appears to be owned and operated by a member of the police force, but it is not funded or operated by the city. Management clearly knows it exists; it is possible police force members access it on the job, and the suit says some of them reference it on the job. Individual police force members have a right to their own opinions, but management has a responsibility to enforce the law fairly and equitably across the city and among their own workforce. What is the solution here?"

Comments

Racist cops.....

[pablo_max]

And racist cops are news because??? Also, how is this tech news other than the fact that someone used the internet?

Re:Racist cops.....

[Stu1706]

I agree that this does not really fit on /. but I do find it troubling anyway. I think an openly racist police officer should be fired. If not, you get crap like Rodney King on one extreme and OJ on the other. Things like this make it hard to support cops. The youtube videos of police brutality out there don't really help either. I still believe most are good, but I feel as a whole they are worse than the general public.

Re:Racist cops.....

[Darkness404]

The problem is, cops tend to be jerks no matter who they are. Heck, you can give anyone power and see that they are jerks especially when given very little oversight (if you don't like the president you can vote them out of office, but the most you can do to a police officer that you don't like is recommend them to have disciplinary action... to another police officer).

And as for racism, everyone is racist to some degree. As evidenced by it we target marketing to certain ethnic groups, fill out ethnic information on census forms, etc.

What really needs to be done is elect police officers on a neighborhood (in larger cities) or town (in smaller cities) basis to make them accountable to the public.

Re:Racist cops.....

[Anonymous Coward]

If you get into the actual facts of the story it is clear, though the summary didn't really touch on it.

At it's heart it's a question of whether a person that runs a bulletin board is responsible for what posters post, a subject of frequent commentary on slashdot.

In point of fact, it would be like calling Commander Taco a racist homophobe because of all the troll spam that's gotten posted here over the years.

Re:Racist cops.....

[sorak]

Exactly. If this were cops watching 'Amos & Andy" and making "Mammy" references on duty, it would be no different.

Re:Racist cops.....

[Duradin]

"And racist cops are news because??? Also, how is this tech news other than the fact that someone used the internet?"

The moral of the story is that "the all-black Guardian Civic League" is A-OK.

If it was a forum of all minority officers, and they were doing the same thing to all the crackers and honkies (ie, being racist against whites) anyone complaining about it would just be "the man" and "trying to keep them down" and violating their civil rights.

It's like where I went to school. There was a black student union, a black choir and a black homecoming (run in parallel with the normal one) with their own black king and queen. "The man" didn't make these groups to segregate the whites and the blacks, the black students themselves made these organizations. Unfortunately we couldn't ever get anyone brave enough or stupid enough to try to make the white student union, choir, and homecoming.

Re:Racist cops.....

[tuxgeek]

Agreed, this is hardly tech news.
The simple fact of the matter here is that racism is an outward expression of ignorance by an individual. People are people regardless of skin color. We all eat, sleep, and shit each and everyday from the day we're born until we die. Some contribute to the community to make life better for all, but most are worthless uneducated meat sacks.

Cops on the other hand are no better than anyone else, although they like to think they are 'special'. Most are assholes with little dick syndrome. Give them a gun, and now you have an armed asshole with a little dick running around on the loose, and contributing nothing of value to humanity.

Re:Racist cops.....

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

Sir! I will have you know that I am neither a Cracker nor a Honky! I am a Jive Turkey and proud of it.

Re:Racist cops.....

[stuboogie]

Cracker Please!!

Cracker What??

Re:Racist cops.....

[stuboogie]

Cracker Please!!

Sorry, don't know what happened with my previous link.

Re:Racist cops.....

[Abcd1234]

The problem is, cops tend to be jerks no matter who they are.

Please. First, cops who abuse their power for any reason deserve to be fired. Second, a cop who's a jerk to everyone, versus a cop who's just a jerk to black people, are two very *very* different things. The former is at least fair. The latter means the law will likely be unevenly applied, and last I checked, that violated the US's equal protection laws.

And as for racism, everyone is racist to some degree. As evidenced by it we target marketing to certain ethnic groups, fill out ethnic information on census forms, etc.

Holy shit... you aren't seriously trying to draw an equivalence between denigrating someone based on their race, and targeting marketing at them based on cultural differences, are you? Because, frankly, that's fucking absurd. Referring to ethnically-target marketing as racism makes the term utterly meaningless.

Re:Racist cops.....

[Crystalmonkey]

"What really needs to be done is elect police officers on a neighborhood (in larger cities) or town (in smaller cities) basis to make them accountable to the public."

The problem with this is that being a police officer requires time and specialized training. Perhaps a better oversight group might be more practical? (And THOSE members could perhaps be elected.)

Re:Racist cops.....

[morgan_greywolf]

At it's heart it's a question of whether a person that runs a bulletin board is responsible for what posters post, a subject of frequent commentary on slashdot.

That's exactly what I thinking. Of course, the problem is that we're all Internet denizens, and therefore, we assume that no one would ever question this. But, obviously, some ignorant people do.

Of course you can't hold the operator of an online forum responsible for what other people say on it. The very thought is completely ridiculous. Do we hold a bar owner responsible when one of his customers makes a slanderous statement?

Re:Racist cops.....

[ImYourVirus]

Well by that logic then tpb guys aren't responsible for the torrents uploaded to their site. And then again I guess it depends on if the site owner participates it what goes on. It still has to stay within 'legal bounds' the prosecution will probably try to say the sites spread 'hate' material or some shit like that.

Re:Racist cops.....

[rainsford]

You would have a point if black people and white people (or any minority group and white people) were treated equally and fairly in our nation, or if they had the exact same experiences and cultural "needs". But simply proclaiming that "color doesn't matter any more" doesn't make it so, and suggesting that black people don't need "black groups" because WHITE people don't need "white groups" is comparing apples and oranges. You want to know where the groups pushing white advancement are? Look no further than the leadership of any large company...who's working there, compared to who's working in the factory or on the loading dock? I'm not saying the imbalance of power and influence in this country is inherently racist, but the fact is that white people DO have a lot more power, influence and money compared to their black fellow citizens...even accounting for the difference in population. And as far as cultural identity goes, it's the same thing...white is the default, we don't NEED any special effort or groups made to maintain our identity, it's built in. That's what comes from being the majority...

Re:Racist cops.....

[sayfawa]

"If it was a forum of all minority officers, and they were doing the same thing to all the crackers and honkies (ie, being racist against whites) anyone complaining about it would just be "the man" and "trying to keep them down" and violating their civil rights."

And you know this, how? Citation needed.

"It's like where I went to school. There was a black student union, a black choir and a black homecoming (run in parallel with the normal one) with their own black king and queen. "The man" didn't make these groups to segregate the whites and the blacks, the black students themselves made these organizations. Unfortunately we couldn't ever get anyone brave enough or stupid enough to try to make the white student union, choir, and homecoming."

The rest of your school was the white student union, the regular homecoming had the music and style that white people liked. If your school were mostly black, then I'd agree that it was dumb to have a BSU and black homecoming, because that's what the student body union and regular homecoming would be, but it wasn't was it? It was a mostly white school where the views and tastes of white people (so far as a skin color can be generalized) were reflected in all the official events. If other cultures wanted to do things a different way, they had to start their own organizations. And someone should have a problem with this, why?

Re:Racist cops.....

[h4rm0ny]

Presuming that ethnicity equates to a particular culture is racist, actually. If someone makes an assumption about your attitudes and beliefs based on your race, what else can it be? Now if you want to market something to Americans, you can make that case. If you want to market something to Mexican people or people from Mozambique, then maybe you have a case (though you're still stereotyping). But when you say something along the lines of Person X is Black, therefore they will identify with Culture Y, you're judging people by their skin colour, not who they are.

And personally, I refuse to fill out those ethnicity sections on forms - it's not relevant, so I wont add it.

Re:Racist cops.....

[644bd346996]

Presuming that ethnicity equates to a particular culture is racist, actually. If someone makes an assumption about your attitudes and beliefs based on your race, what else can it be?

Statistically valid?

If you're trying to target your marketing to a specific culture, it's often a lot easier to collect data on race and risk offending the 15% that aren't part of the expected culture, rather than try to collect meaningful data about cultural identification. There are no value judgments in a process like this, no offense is intended to anybody, and it does not arise out of hate. Thus, it doesn't fit under any useful definition of "racism". The only way it can be racist is if you generalize the concept of racism to be "anything not completely color-blind", at which point it is no longer at all connected to bigotry.

Re:Racist cops.....

[Anonymous Coward]

What about Hispanics?
What about East Asians?
What about Asian Indians?
What about American Indians?
What about persons of mixed parentage?
Black vs White is so 20th Century.

Re:Racist cops.....

[Teun]

I know, who cares about a bunch of cops who get together and create a group specifically not including people based on race?

I do, especially when they are on the public (my money) payroll.

Re:Racist cops.....

[sjs132]

"And racist PEOPLE are news because??? Also, how is this tech news other than the fact that someone used the internet?"

There, I fixed that for you...

Really, Have you looked at the site? When I first heard about this, I went over and looked... It would be the same as saying Cowboy Neal is a racist because of the AC's that post racist coments on /. You cannot BAN a group of people from a website, it deliberatly flies in the face of free speech rulings. AND you cannot hold a site liable for the post of the people that may post there.

The worst alligation I saw was that the administrator of the site may be an officer and supposedly (although he denies it) there was site administration done on office computers. (But was it on his own time? Lunch, breaks??) The closest they got is mis-use of work resource.
that does not make a hostile work environment, The comments by someone @ work are the hostile people, IF they exist.

Follow the $$$, you'll see they are just trying for a score. Typical lawyer and activist BS to bring a sight down by made up negative exposure.

People need to wake up and pull their heads out of thier own *

Re:Racist cops.....

[obarthelemy]

What would you call racism against cops... jobism ?

Re:Racist cops.....

[ultranova]

The rest of your school was the white student union, the regular homecoming had the music and style that white people liked.

And you know this, how? Citation needed.

Re:Racist cops.....

[mpe]

I think an openly racist police officer should be fired. If not, you get crap like Rodney King on one extreme and OJ on the other. Things like this make it hard to support cops. The youtube videos of police brutality out there don't really help either. I still believe most are good, but I feel as a whole they are worse than the general public.

The issue here is more basic than one of "race" a police officer who assaults a member of the public should not simply be fired. He/she should belongs in a prison cell.
People who's job is law enforcement need to be held to a higher standard than the general public when it comes to their upholding the law. All too often it appears that they are held to a much lower standard. At the same time things are considered more serious if the victim of a crime happens to be a police officer.

Re:Racist cops.....

[vux984]

First, cops who abuse their power for any reason deserve to be fired.

That's great. But there are a couple issues:

1) The people responsible for firing them are also police, and police like most any other group of workers who must rely on eachother in life-death situations... they get close knit.

2) The type of people that seek to become "cops" is skewed towards power hungry jerks in the first place. So you are picking from a pool that is self-selecting towards the type of people you don't want.

This isn't uncommon... some jobs are best performed by people who don't aspire to the job. From police work to politics to jury duty. Indeed, it seems that any job that gives 'power' is best performed by people who don't aspire to power. But naturally people who do aspire for power will actively seek out those jobs... and then do them poorly.

Re:Racist cops.....

[digitig]

And as for racism, everyone is racist to some degree.

I think you mean Everyone's a little bit racist".

Re:Racist cops.....

[shentino]

The problem is that the pirate bay operators were complicit.

Re:Racist cops.....

[Hurricane78]

No, you understand thin wrongly: It's good that it is news now, where it was so common to be expected before. This would mean it's an exception now.

But of course this only is true, if it actually was an exception. And we can't prove that, or the opposite, can we?

Re:Racist cops.....

[superdana]

The reason it's OK to make an all-black group but not an all-white group is that white people are the ones with the privilege, the ones who bought and sold black people as slaves, and the ones who still, today, enjoy advantages that are invisible to them but plainly visible to everyone else. We teach white history in schools. White people still dominate positions of power in business, law, medicine--you name it. We *just now* finally got around to putting the first Chinese American in Congress, the first African American in the Oval Office, and the first Latina on the Supreme Court. And we still have a long way to go before we have anything that even remotely resembles racial equality. So, no, you can't make an all-white group, because that would only reinforce the existing racial power asymmetries; but it's OK to make an all-black group because they still suffer at the hands of these asymmetries.

Re:Racist cops.....

[fedxone-v86]

denigrating someone based on their race

*Beavis voice* He said "denigrating", heh heh.

I'm not from the USA, mind you. And maybe I'm too sensitive to your customary vocabulary. Just seemed funny to me. In an ironic way. Speaking about cultures and racism and all. You could have used "belittle" or "defame" but you used "denigrate" ;-)

Re:Racist cops.....

[lymond01]

Power corrupts. We have a problem dealing with cultural differences. Both true.

Cops have sucky jobs. Every thing they deal with is a confrontation. A device
driver isn't going to surprise you with a gun and shoot you in the face. It's a concern that the person they are currently talking with is going to pull a gun.

They are here to help. Not always here to help you. Sometimes they are here to help others because of you. If a cop seems antagonizing or belligerent it's likely not because of something you did but to prevent something he thinks you might do. Cops don't give the benefit of the doubt at the beginning of a situation.

Obey the laws you feel you should. Take your lumps for those you want to make a statement about. But please don't generalize about a job you don't seem to understand.

Re:Racist cops.....

[Curien]

My, you have a dark sense of humor.

Re:Racist cops.....

[Curien]

A quintessential non sequitur.

Re:Racist cops.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me preface this with the fact that I've lived in Philadelphia---not the suburbs---for the past 15 years.

While I don't like racism in general, it's hard to live in the city and not slowly become accustomed to not wanting to deal with blacks in any capacity. It's not just the criminal element; yes, the several friends of mine, which have been mugged, have been mugged by blacks; yes, I caught a black man trying to steal my bike today. It's more the quality of life issues.

As general nuisances go, I have yet to meet an aggressive panhandler that isn't black. (No, I cannot "spare" you 80 cents for your fake asthmatic daughter so that you can finally buy a replacement inhaler for that one you found on the ground!) As drivers, blacks are, without question, the most needlessly aggressive drivers in the city---hostile to anything that is in their path. As retail clerks, they provide the rudest, slowest and most unhelpful service possible. As children, the vandalize every square inch of public space with tags, damage property, commit petty thefts, and drain fire-hydrants. As neighbors, they're loud and don't maintain their property. On the trains and buses, they gab away in the most inane conversations on their cellphones at volumes that guarantee that everyone knows about their hot date or, even worse, they play music on their phones without headphones . As police officers, I hope it's not an emergency.

When I came to the city, white liberal guilt would have prevented me from even thinking any of the proceeding factoids. Now, it is the prosaic and inescapable fact of everyday life. Yes, I have black friends and they don't like black people either for more-or-less the same reasons. I'm not advocating a return to Jim Crow era race laws; I am advocating that certain aspects of black culture that put it at odds with a civil, functioning society.

Re:Racist cops.....

[stephanruby]

Your assumption is reasonable, but wrong. My school had an Asian (East Asian) super-majority, but that didn't change the fact that there were plenty of parties and/or organizations for Asians-only, but none whatsoever for whites-only.

I think this stems from the fact that students, even students from a race that's a local majority, see themselves in the larger context of society as a whole. And in that larger context, they still see themselves as a minority.

Also, I think the legal system is poorly equipped to deal with exceptions and degrees of discrimination. Racism is not some binary thing. For instance, an Asian kid growing up in Ohio or Alabama is going to have a vastly different experience than let's say if he was living in California in some East Asian enclave.

Re:Racist cops.....

[billius]

First, cops who abuse their power for any reason deserve to be fired.

The people responsible for firing them are also police, and police like most any other group of workers who must rely on eachother in life-death situations... they get close knit.

Indeed, one would assume that it would be pretty easy to get fired from a position that could involve making split-second life-or-death decisions, but as far as I've seen it's basically impossible. Take for example the cop who stole marijuana from an evidence locker, made brownies with it, ate the brownies, freaked out and called 911. If any normal citizen had called 911 fearing that they had a drug overdose (which is basically impossible with marijuana, but I digress), they would be handed over to the authorities after any medical issues they might be having were resolved. So what happened to the cop who not only did this, but stole the marijuana in the first place? Was he charged? At least fired? No. He was allowed to resign; a bullshit slap on the wrist for something that would have been a huge pain in the ass for a normal person. I've never understood why people in positions of authority seem to have less accountability for their actions than normal people. If a normal person was using their office computer on company to post racist remarks, they'd get fired. If a cop does it, there's a big moral dilemma about what to do. If the manager at a fast food place hires underage kids and has sex with them after the place is locked up, he gets canned. If a Catholic priest (who's supposed to be a fucking moral authority for crying out loud) does it, there's a big hue and cry about the bible and forgiveness and "once a priest, always a priest" and nobody gets properly punished for what they've done. Goes to show that some professions are a little too good at looking after their own.

Re:Racist cops.....

[Uberbah]

[citation needed]

Re:Racist cops.....

[Uberbah]

Yes, since the plural of anecdote is data, that totally absolves southern whites of any racism.

Re:Racist cops.....

[shentino]

Do I really need to link you back to slashdot where TPB got nailed in swedish court?

Re:Racist cops.....

[Uberbah]

I believe the point is that you are the one who is associating beliefs, attitudes, etc. with the color of someone's skin, and that is what actually makes YOU the racist.

Too bad you're projecting. With a cannon.

Re:Racist cops.....

[Uberbah]

Perhaps you missed the minor detail that the current President of the United States is actually BLACK?

Which does WHAT exactly to show that most of the wealth in this country is lily white hands or that racism is alive and well in this country?

Re:Racist cops.....

[fusion9290991]

Clearly you've never lived in a third world country like South Africa, where whites are in the minority. Trying to start up any sort of organisation like this for white people still elicits howls of outrage from the 'previously downtrodden'. Tho when they started up a "Black Journalists' Forum", and gleefully evicted white journalists who tried to attend the opening ceremoney (to report on it), no one said a word. How would this any different?

Please bear in mind that eventually whites will be the minority in the USA, and this kind of thing will suddenly matter a lot more than most people think.

Re:Racist cops.....

[Xeleema]

Word. Although his toxicology report came back negative for PCP, anybody that's shot with a Taser and gets back up is on something in my opinion. He was clearly a danger to himself, the law enforcement officers on the scene, and countless others while he was behind the wheel.

Re:Racist cops.....

[zymano]

Blacks are exploiters using the racecard.

If a black wins a lawsuit about race then more pop up.

it's economics.

Re:Racist cops.....

[Captain Centropyge]

Your argument is invalid.

Just because there was a black student union doesn't automatically equate the normal student union with a "white student union". No one designated it as such. Black students were more than welcome to participate in the student union. Anyone was. They just decided to segregate themselves and make their own. (On a side note: that totally defeats the purpose for which their black brethren fought, like MLK. No segregation! And yet they segregate themselves voluntarily... wtf?!) It's this type of behavior that keeps the divide between whites and blacks. It's stupid.

Re:Racist cops.....

[Captain Centropyge]

I didn't shit yesterday. Does that make me not a person..?

Re:Racist cops.....

[Captain Centropyge]

Someone call the waaaaambulance! Black folk are suffering!

Fine... I'll say it! Most of the time, black people still suffer because they want to still suffer! They want the attention, benefits, and special handouts that come along with being the formerly-enslaved minority. But you know what? If they want equality, they need to STFU and become beneficial and productive members of society instead of whining about how they're being held down. I don't hear too many well-educated African-Americans complaining. It's nearly always the poorer ones that cry about being held back, beaten down, and made poor by ol' whitey. And the more they bitch and whine about it, the more people will continue to feel bad for them and perpetuate these stereotypes and keep them in their segregated groups. There's no formal segregation anymore, but yet they seem to keep it going on their own. The only ones loud enough to be heard anymore are black people. They're milking this for all it's worth, and it's time to just knock it off.

Racism is horrible. But it's not going anywhere when the people claiming they're being discriminated against are the ones perpetuating the racism. These cops are the ones who cry "Racism!" If the racial comments are few and far between, grow some thicker skin. Don't visit the bulletin board. If these comments are made often, then it would definitely be considered harassment. Unless the racism is blatant and highly offensive, playing the racism card is just a ploy to open the door to preferential treatment. If someone's being openly racist, they deserve a beatdown. But being a racist isn't illegal when it's done in your personal life. Look at the KKK! But, then again, look at the NAACP. It may seem they're for a good cause, but they're only helping to continue the racism that lingers.

Now, back to the topic at hand, I don't know the situation between these officers. It may be mild, and it may be very serious. But they need to keep this private. Putting this in the media, again, just helps keep racism alive. Deal with it and move on. Don't make this into a big circus.

i woudln't do this.

[sandmtyh]

starting a lawsuit is the best way to get people to drag their feet when responding to an officer down call.

Re:i woudln't do this.

[rainsford]

It's also probably not a good idea to make racially bigoted comments to your fellow officers, but that doesn't seem to have stopped the white cops...

Re:i woudln't do this.

[AmberBlackCat]

What would you suggest they do?

Re:i woudln't do this.

[Uberbah]

Neither is making obscene, racist comments around minority officers.

Re:i woudln't do this.

[Abcd1234]

Wait wait... so a black cop should turn a blind eye to racism in the work place because, otherwise, he may be *risking his life*?? Wow... apparently law enforcement is an even more corrupt, disgusting place than I ever imagined.

Re:i woudln't do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

starting a lawsuit is the best way to get people to drag their feet when responding to an officer down call.

Because you're sure these fine upstanding examples of police officers would otherwise rush to the aid of their black comrades...?

Re:i woudln't do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah cause if they're racists in the first place they would *never* drag their feet in responding to that call. Better to maintain the status quo.

Solution

[Dread_ed]

Private ownership is private and government ownership is government. Sounds like a simple case of plantiffs going after the deepest pockets and those most easily controlled through political and media manipulation.

Re:Solution

[schon]

Private ownership is private and government ownership is government. Sounds like a simple case of plantiffs going after the deepest pockets and those most easily controlled through political and media manipulation.

And what happens when government employees bring "private ownership" to work in a racist attitude?

Oh yeah, you don't want to address the actual issue here, just quote one small piece and dismiss it entirely.

Re:Solution

[WiiVault]

There is no evidence that they used the site at work. Unless I missed something.

Re:Solution

[AKAImBatman]

FTFA: "The suit alleges white officers post on and moderate the privately operated site, Domelights.com, both on and off the job."

Re:Solution

[c_forq]

Note what the parent to your comment said, evidence. I can allegations are not evidence.

Re:Solution

[Bigjeff5]

FTFA: "The suit alleges white officers post on and moderate the privately operated site, Domelights.com, both on and off the job."

Until our political & judicial system is as bad as it was in Soviet Russia or as bad as it seems Europe is getting, allegations do not equal evidence. The GP specifically said they gave no evidence, and you just backed him up with your quote from the article.

It's a real dangerous world when allegations are considered proof.

For my personal opinion, these people are entitled to host and discuss their personal website at work. Depending on the internet usage policies governing what websites they can or can't visit, viewing a personal website is fine on the job. However, these people must work together in life-or-death situations on a regular basis, and if some of these officers were causing division - intentionally or unintentionally - then management needs to deal with their staff. If it was unintentional (hard to imagine in this particular case), a simple "Hey, quit talking bout that shit at work, it makes your fellow cops uncomfortable" will probably do the trick. If it is intentional, they need to be moved or canned if they won't straighten up their act.

The lawsuit is only the correct way to go if the upper echelon were supporting these cops.

Re:Solution

[D'Sphitz]

What does it matter, anyway? I use slashdot from work, and there are certainly racist pricks around here. Should my employer be open to a lawsuit because of racist trolls at slashdot?

Re:Solution

[WiiVault]

Did you even read what I said? Evidence- as in is there anything to show/prove that they did this from work? I mean the plaintiff putting it in their complaint is hardly evidence, and I somehow doubt they have access to the police internet logs. Thus I think you like many people here have jumped to a conclusion based on the trust of lawyers who are too stupid to even know the difference between government owned and private ownership.

Re:Solution

[WiiVault]

Reading your post I thought of an interesting situation. Since the site is obviously not overtly racist, is it against the rules for an officer to read any site that might contain racist material in the comments? If so Slashdot would be banned from tons of work places. Being a member of a site that has a few racist assholes, does not make you one of them. On the other hand, participation during work in these discussions ought to be punished. If it can be proven of course.

Re:Solution

[iamhassi]

"And what happens when government employees bring "private ownership" to work in a racist attitude?"

I'm not sure what this has to do with the website. I know they read it on a forum, but if it was a weekly flyer or local bar the cops were getting their material from and bringing that to work in the form of racist jokes and comments wouldn't they still be suing work because co-workers had created a hostile work environment?

I don't see how they can enforce the website being taken down, but the owner could be fired if he works in the department. Think if it in another way: if I was running a porn site and told all my co-workers and they all surfed it from work and the female employees complained I would expect to lose my job.

Here's one of the jokes on the website: "Guns don't kill people ... Dangerous minorities do."

That's pretty vague, is that the best example they have? That's not even clear enough to identify who they're talking about, no race was mentioned. The could be talking about Muslims of the terrorist variety since I'm pretty sure Muslims fall into a "minority" category in Philadelphia.

Re:Solution

[ceoyoyo]

Why don't you tell us a bit about yourself, then we'll make fun of you. Then you can imagine that we're your coworkers and that happens all day, every time you go work.

Re:Solution

[brusk]

Slavery was a self-perpetuating free market. It was shut down by laws

Until a couple of generations ago, in much of the US businesses were allowed discriminate, serving only members of certain races. That practice had to be ended through legislation; the free market was not going to solve it.

Re:Solution

[AKAImBatman]

Evidence is presented in courtrooms, not to journalists. Saying, "there's no evidence" is basically a fancy way of saying, "the court has not yet heard the case".

For now we have allegations. They will be proven or disproven in court.

Re:Solution

[Tubal-Cain]

They pay a flat fee for internet every month, and breaks are mandatory. What resources am I wasting at that time?

Re:Solution

[rainsford]

What a bunch of libertarian bullshit. The "free market" by definition will almost always benefit the majority. There is no profit in catering to the minority, thus the free market results in things like slavery and discrimination until laws intervene.

Re:Solution

[True Vox]

Electricity, maybe? Or is that a flat fee too? Or would the monitor be left on anyway?

Re:Solution

[True Vox]

YEAH!

Re:Solution

[SydShamino]

If a coworker ever walked by and saw you reading, or worse, writing, a racist rant, then yes, your employer would be open to a lawsuit. Likely it would be one they'd settle with a bit of cash and a clause that included your dismissal.

Re:Solution

[KharmaWidow]

LOL - why would you want to do such a thing and perpetuate the problem? Two wrongs is a fallacy of logic - your strategy is illogical.

The people who play the race card and wind up in the news tend to be racists themselves. Have you ever watched BET or black comedians on Comedy channel?

Come on, make love - not hate.

Re:Solution

[KharmaWidow]

Or should I say, "What would Martin Luther King Jr do?"

Re:Solution

[ceoyoyo]

You implied that such a thing isn't wrong. Just "grow up." So I'm not advocating doing anything wrong, right?

Yes, I agree many people who jump to the racism conclusion are themselves racist. That doesn't mean everyone who does so is racist though, and it also doesn't mean that there is never truth to the underlying complaint.

I have no idea what the appropriate response is in this case. Perhaps the officers in question should have discreetly mentioned the problem to their superior and he could have shut down the idiots. Maybe a lawsuit really is necessary. I can't see "grow up" ever being the right response though. Either there is a problem that needs to be dealt with, or there isn't. In the latter case, "quit making baseless accusations" would seem to be more the type of response to choose. "Grow up" admits that there is a problem and refuses to do anything about it.

Re:Solution

[ceoyoyo]

Tell that Rosa chick to just grow up, quit making waves and sit at the back of the bus where she belongs? No, wait... that doesn't seem right.

(apologies for mixing time periods)

Re:Solution

[schon]

since when is it wrong to have your own opinion?

Please quote the part of my message where I even implied that, or take your straw man somewhere else.

Re:Solution

[schon]

I'm not sure what this has to do with the website.

Umm - because that's where it starts from?

I know they read it on a forum, but if it was a weekly flyer or local bar the cops were getting their material from and bringing that to work in the form of racist jokes and comments wouldn't they still be suing work because co-workers had created a hostile work environment?

And they are suing work. You know, because management is aware of it, and is allowing it to perpetuate.

I don't see how they can enforce the website being taken down

Where, exactly did I say it should be?

Re:Solution

[KharmaWidow]

LOL - you are comparing a private website - an opinion and words - a constitutional right to free speech ... to forced segregation!? Wow.

Re:Solution

[KharmaWidow]

"implied that such a thing isn't wrong." Um, you inferred completely wrong. In fact, if you read my response as whole - all the sentences together state there are victims, and that the wrong can be over come by learning from another group who's attacked by words...

To some how think I approve of the behavior from what I wrote is completely ridiculous and also laced with fallacy.

Screw'em!

[erroneus]

We have had this sickening pattern of pandering to groups who take the most offense to things. Women in the workplace and black people in the work place. Neither are typically "minorities" and if/when the tables are turned and a group was making "white" or "man" jokes, white men would likely not care at all.

It's time to say "toughen up!!!" It's not like they are in fear of anything. There will always be something to offend people if you dig deep enough. So stop digging and you won't find things. There will always be aspects of humanity and society that seems annoying and offensive. When people take those things too far, you end up living with Taliban rule. What is "too far"? I don't know. But black and female people have long since expired their period of needing special treatment and are fully equal in opportunity and respect as far as I can tell. It's time we all treat each other equally badly.

Re:Screw'em!

[Registered Coward v2]

We have had this sickening pattern of pandering to groups who take the most offense to things. Women in the workplace and black people in the work place. Neither are typically "minorities" and if/when the tables are turned and a group was making "white" or "man" jokes, white men would likely not care at all.

It's time to say "toughen up!!!" It's not like they are in fear of anything.

Actually, men have also files harassment claims, mostly for man on man. I guess they should have just toughened up as well.

The point is that this type of behavior in a workplace is simply wrong; and employers havea duty to take action to prevent or stop it.

Re:Screw'em!

[ScrewMaster]

We have had this sickening pattern of pandering to groups who take the most offense to things.

We pander because those same groups have a habit of hiring lawyers and having laws passed to "protect" them.

My girlfriend is black, I'm not ... and we both feel precisely the way you do. Granted, she wasn't born here, she's African by birth. In spite of that (or, more likely, because of that, she grew up in some damn tough environments) she believes that a lot of people in this country just need to deal with the fact that life can be harsh. Fact is, some people are assholes. Period, end-of-statement. Wasting more than a millisecond of neuron time over that is a complete waste.

Re:Screw'em!

[Stu1706]

I do agree that we are to PC, except in the case of what is said about white men. If Sotomayor was a white guy talking about the plight of white men in this country everyone would have been yelling racism. But when you have an openly racist police officer, that is a totally different than just dealing with people not being PC.

Re:Screw'em!

[erroneus]

I would argue that men filing complaints on men is typically people taking advantage of the system that was built to foster equality in the workplace. And that is yet another problem resulting from the "fixes" put into place.

Women in the workplace and black people in the professional work place "were" new things and needed policies and even laws to make the transition less painful and unpleasant. But it was a //transition// that has been made. All these claims simply aren't needed the way they once were.

Now if something is criminally actionable, forget going to HR. Let one or more people sue one or more people directly. HR has no place in the matter. But if it's jokes and crap like that? Forget it! There will always be groups and cliques and things that make some people uncomfortable. It's standard human ... no, standard animal behavior. It's not something that is going to go away with regulations and policies. Every workplace is "hostile."

Re:Screw'em!

[MacTO]

The issue isn't people taking offense to things. The issue isn't even the website, though it is being used as a tool in this case. So what is the issue?

The issue is people using racism as a means of intimidation, either because they are on an ego trip or because they want to force the "outsiders" out. Toughening up may be an option in the first case, but I would argue that it isn't an ideal solution. The act of toughening up in order to preserve the "freedom to" of one group is at the cost of the "freedom from" of the second group. And once you have taken away the "freedom from" for a group of people, you have effectively taken away their "freedom to" as well. (They do not have the freedom of speech or movement, because they are under constant threat. Heck, they don't even have the freedom to define their own identity because it has already been defined by racial stereotypes as well as your desire for them to toughen up.)

Then there is that forcing out issue. Toughening up in anyway that is perceived as pushback or stubborness will only lead to violence. That is because a particular group of people is trying to purify their fraternity. Pushback and stubborness will escalate the situation because the target is not listening to the message. Or worse, they are fighting back against their fraternity.

Re:Screw'em!

[erroneus]

Read through my posting history. MOST of my stuff is positively rated. I speak my mind sincerely in almost every case.

I am not racist. I am not bigoted. I am for fair and equitable treatment of ALL people and race and gender isn't even close to being the issue. In fact, most people would agree that the problem of "racism" is largely maintained by those who benefit the most from it and isn't nearly the problem at large that it once was.

Re:Screw'em!

[maxume]

Sotomayor is a terrible example, there are/were legions of people yelling racism about her comments.

Colbert did a great bit last week showing Roberts and Alito making vaguely similar comments about their life experience. The Daily Show showed Lindsay Graham making an ass of himself during the Alito hearings, and then doing it later during the Sotomayor hearings.

I don't think she did herself any favors with the remark that she made, but I also tend to think that she was making the remark based on the context of the different life experience that is implied, not based on race itself (the difference in life experience for a minority was probably a bit more significant for someone of her age than it is for someone who is 20).

Re:Screw'em!

[girlintraining]

We have had this sickening pattern of pandering to groups who take the most offense to things. Women in the workplace and black people in the work place. Neither are typically "minorities" and if/when the tables are turned and a group was making "white" or "man" jokes, white men would likely not care at all.

Using women or blacks as an example and how they're allowed to make jokes that others aren't is a specious argument; Two wrongs don't make a right. The issue is that some people are failing to keep things professional. The expectation when you show up to work is that you work. Everything else is secondary to that, and if your color commentary is interfering with my (or anyone else's) work, it needs to stop. It's just that simple. You don't have a right to be offensive. That said, you're right insofar as some people overreact--just because someone else is a douche doesn't mean you have to sink to their level. A polite reminder or a memo is sufficient in 95% of all cases to correct the behavior. You don't even have to involve a manager most of the time. People are dumb, they make mistakes; Don't get worked up about it. For the remaining 5%, we have laws like this. On the clock, everything you do should be related to your job. But if you can't do that, at least have the decency to be mindful of the company you're keeping and making sure they are okay with your side conversation. It's just... being a decent human being.

That said, police work consists of piss poor pay, long hours, high stress, a decent risk of getting a bullet in your ass, and it's a thankless profession. Like EMTs, most emergency services personnel have a dry and/or odd sense of humor that others find morbid, offensive, or downright rude. A lot of them smoke or "self-medicate" to cope. I think it's only natural that they'd need an outlet to express their work frustrations outside of work. And once it leaves the workplace, it's fair game, first amendment and everything. What you do on your own time is your own business, even if it is offensive and derogatory towards your coworkers. As a woman, I expect men to make sexually crass comments when I'm not around. I also know some of them will go home and smoke pot, do drugs, eat hot dogs and hamburgers until their heart explodes... and you know what? I'm okay with that. Just keep it away from me.

People need to be mindful of the social spaces they occupy. I don't go to the bar dressed in a low-cut dress and then act outraged when some drunk creepy guy (or girl) hits on me. That's what bars are for. If the same person shows up drunk at the grocery store when I'm dressed in nothing more than jeans and a hoodie and does the same thing he's playing with fire. Likewise, showing up on an electronic forum for inner-city cops is likely to be full of racist, sexist, and every other kind of -ist and -ism out there, not because those people are somehow inherently evil, but because they deal with the worst examples of those groups on long shifts day after day.

Re:Screw'em!

[bughunter]

I did read your posting history. And I agree with your description of those comments. However, your GGP comment is either a troll, or you did not even read the summary before replying, much less the linked news article. Or you really are that callous, which I don't want to assume - that's why I asked if you were aware how it sounded.

On further reflection, I believe you hurriedly replied to the title of the /. article, and were therefore misled.

Re:Screw'em!

[bhsx]

OK, here's a part of my past I'd rather forget:
I was a waiter at TGIFridays in '97-'98. I had worked there for a year when a new manager came on duty, I'm 5'10", he's 6'4" and the first day I worked with him he "choked" me to the point where I fell on my knees in front of him in a particularly unnerving way. He had a fairly creepy smile on his face while this was happening. This was a "joke" you see? It was supposed to somehow be funny. I was "lovingly" abused as a child (by a Chicago cop, no less), and I didn't appreciate the "joke". I told the General Manager about it, including my own abuse, as if he'd somehow understand. I was told that they'd keep an eye on it and if anything else happened with this manager, that I should let the GM know.
This manager continued to be an idiot, and completely inappropriate; but not in a way that would cost him his job.
A few months later I left TGIF to work at my first DOTcom, a short-lived PeaPod competitor called OnCart(later changed to ShoppersExpress). Within about 8 months they closed their doors for good and it was back to waiting tables... at Fridays(mental images of Chad Lowe giving you the finger are common)...
Within ONE week this old nemesis of mine, the manager "Jeff", came walking-up to me on a Saturday lunch. I was at the POS entering an order when he said "Hey Bobby, let me show you what's been going on since you've been gone" and proceeds to punch me in the nuts. In the middle of the restaurant, in the middle of lunch. (apparently punching each other in the nuts is a joke)
I immediately yelled "What the FUCK?!" and had to go into the bathroom to puke. I went to the doctor and had a fucking lump on my nuts from where he hit me. Considering the history, and his creepy closet issues, this was set to be the first male v male sexual harrasment suit in IL. I never followed through with the suit, but i should have.
I know I've omitted several points, making this less than cohesive; but what happened shouldn't have, and there should have been a court decision to compensate me for my loss (couldn't work there anymore).

Re:Screw'em!

[erroneus]

I can't speak for the police force, but I can certainly speak directly of the military having been there and done that. There are black groups and non-black groups and divisions and cliques and all sorts of causes of friction... and yes, even sexism and problems that resulted when women were allowed into areas they weren't previously. But when it comes to "facing the enemy" or anything dealing with professional performance, all of those other issues are forgotten very quickly. I imagine the same is true of the police force.

And I have to say, from what I have seen, when "police" deal with black offenders versus white offenders, the treatment black offenders is usually more harsh and it doesn't matter if the police officer is white or not! The fact is, the police I know generally experience more violence from black people than from white people. It only takes a couple of incidents before anyone, black or white, becomes more guarded against black offenders. It may "look" bad, but the facts bear out the responses issued. And once again, the race of the police officer does not appear to have much bearing on the general state of things... if anything, black police feel more free to be rough on black perpetrators.

I will make an observation that is somewhat contrary to the point I just made and that is of the former chief of police in the city of Dallas, Terrell Bolton. His behavior was absolutely amazing. He hired, promoted and fired based largely on race. Many of his arrest and charging policies were also based on race. He refused to attend meetings with his superiors and even hired his own personal driver and car for "official business." (He was police chief, not the governor!!) And during his time in office, the crime rate in Dallas was out of control... actually #1 in the nation where prior to his being there wasn't even in the top-10. It took a LOT to fire this black police chief and he is STILL fighting it. Last I saw, he was literally crying in front of TV cameras about racism being the cause of his firing. (No, it had nothing to do with his insubordination, his practices and policies exceeding his position or the fact that the crime rate was wildly out of control or that the hiring and promotion of black officers wasn't even close to being proportionate to the actual makeup of the Dallas police force or the general population being served and protected.)

The PC pandering to blacks and women needs to be pulled back in favor of fairness and equality to ALL. Affirmative actions are still racism.

Re:Screw'em!

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Using women or blacks as an example and how they're allowed to make jokes that others aren't is a specious argument;

Not at all. If women can make sexist jokes that a man couldn't, it's a double standard, which is what we're trying to avoid.

Re:Screw'em!

[erroneus]

The answer starting from the first count of assault should not have been to contact HR or upper management, but to call the POLICE. Assault is a crime, not an HR matter. Any number of civil complaints could have been filed as well, but they don't have to be "racial" or "sexual" and can be filed against the people involved, not the company. This is what you should have done and depending on the statues of limitations in your area, it is what you SHOULD do.

Re:Screw'em!

[girlintraining]

We pander because those same groups have a habit of hiring lawyers and having laws passed to "protect" them.

The laws ARE deficient. Nobody should have to endure racist and sexist jokes and commentary at work. The message these groups want to send is simply: Go outside for that. That's where the first amendment is, not here.

Re:Screw'em!

[Bralkein]

White men wouldn't really get offended by such jokes because they have nothing to fear, but despite your claim to the contrary I think that others do indeed have something to be afraid of. It's easy to forget how recently racism and sexism were the norm, and those two spectres still loom large, even in the light of today's more enlightened attitudes. I think that extra caution is often warranted, especially when an institution like the police are concerned. The idea of a police force who discriminate based on race, sex, nationality or anything is so appalling that I believe extra safeguards are justified.

There may be little harm in a joke about black people shared privately between two friends in a bar, but racist jokes made by white police officers on a website during working hours is at best seriously unprofessional and at worst downright scary.

Re:Screw'em!

[RightSaidFred99]

Oh bullshit. You should have gone to the police. Why should _you_ get money out of something like this when some poor guy or woman who gets raped by unknown assailants in the alley gets jack shit? Civil law in this country shouldn't be used to right all wrongs, it should be used in cases of fraud or negligence. The criminal code is intended for stuff like assault.

Re:Screw'em!

[RightSaidFred99]

People think "at work" is some special "zone" that's somehow owned by we, the people or the big nanny government. It's not. These laws are all stupid and unconstitutional. Alas, we're stuck with them so they should only be used in the most blatant cases.

Re:Screw'em!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a term in social science called "structural inequality". Basically, its implication is that the structure of society creates "haves" for whom the structure is convenient and "have nots" for whom the structure imposes barriers to success. The groups that fall into each category vary around the world breaking differently along gender, racial and class lines in different places at different times, but a common symptom appears in many cases. Essentially, its easy to convince yourself that you are a "have not" when, in fact, many basic social systems are helping you along.

It is likely human nature that we focus on the hardships in our own life. Its difficult to accept that when you have worked your way up from poverty and claimed a better home and job that this was not entirely your own personal accomplishment. It diminishes us to recognize that something nebulous, like social structure, might have lent us a hand that isn't extended to others. Rather it is much easier to say, hey, I worked hard; I succeeded against adversity; I was strong and useful; why does't everyone else just "toughen up". I succeeded why can't they?

However, its often simply not true that where one succeeds others always can. Sure a good portion of any success is personal ability. To ignore that is also problematic. But pretending that there is nothing else at work, that the decades of past social protest and long histories of racial and gender inequity have not consequence today, seems too simplistic an answer to be useful.

Re:Screw'em!

[Anonymous Coward]

My girlfriend is black... Granted, she wasn't born here, she's African by birth.

White Americans treat immigrant Africans as a "model minority" group in comparison to African Americans from slavery. The la times has a decent summary of the sentiment and you can find more in American studies papers.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-chude-sokei18feb18,0,7298828.story?coll=la-opinion-center

Basically just because Minority group X (where x is Asian, immigrant Africans or whatever) seem to succeed and accept racism, it does not generally justify or excuse it. The Civil Rights movement was not for just Blacks. Asians (highest economic levels in the US) and women (majority population in the US) both are protected by that bill.

And more to the point, your opinions are not protected at the WORKPLACE. That's unprofessional and stupid. You dont browse p0rn at work why the hell would you browse racist stuff at work. I say fire the dumbasses.

Re:Screw'em!

[Bartab]

The laws ARE deficient. Nobody should have to endure racist and sexist jokes and commentary at work.

No, they shouldn't. And in this specific case, because their employer is the gov't itself, they should have an internal complaint procedure. It should not involve the courts, and for example if they were working at a grocery store instead of a police department then their only guaranteed resolution would be to quit. At will employment. All these laws to "protect" employees taint the marketplace. If I want to hire somebody to haul live electrical cable around while I smoke cigarettes and blow smoke in their face and an albino midget yells racially crass jokes at them, then that's the job and if they want it we can come to an agreement on pay rates.

Re:Screw'em!

[Abcd1234]

In fact, most people would agree that the problem of "racism" is largely maintained by those who benefit the most from it and isn't nearly the problem at large that it once was.

Said as someone who's never actually experienced racism.

You go tell that to your average Arabic man who's avoided on the street by people who are afraid of them because he "looks scary". Or a black man who's sentenced to death by a court system that hands out such sentences to black men more often than it does to white men.

Sorry, racism is alive and well. Is there segregation? No. But to claim that racism just isn't a big deal anymore is simply absurd. And that's doubly true when talking about racism within law enforcement, for which there should be an absolutely zero tolerance policy.

Seriously, the comments on this article point out one thing very clearly: Your average slashdotter is a middle-to-high income white person who has no idea what the real world is actually like.

Re:Screw'em!

[Bartab]

The issue is that some people are failing to keep things professional

Some jobs simply arn't professional.

Re:Screw'em!

[girlintraining]

Not at all. If women can make sexist jokes that a man couldn't, it's a double standard, which is what we're trying to avoid.

Do you exercise any care at all in what you read or are you in such a hurry that you stomp on other people in your efforts to attain the moral high ground? Go and read my post again and quote where in there I said I supported making sexist jokes at work, let alone double standards.

Re:Screw'em!

[bughunter]

Seriously, the comments on this article point out one thing very clearly: Your average slashdotter is a middle-to-high income white person who has no idea what the real world is actually like.

I've come to that same realization this morning, as well. Somewhat to my dismay. But I also know from experience that slashdotters with more logic and objectivity are also slower to post.

Re:Screw'em!

[hedwards]

That's a huge exaggeration. That's an argument which the Klan was fond of advancing as a justification for getting rid of affirmative action. In fact David Duke was the individual that's credited with coining the term reverse discrimination.

What you're missing is that there is a huge difference between somebody that has a privileged position making those sorts of comments and those that are being repressed. It's not that there's a substantive difference between the comments, but there is a huge difference in the impact, intent and goal.

Ultimately, whether you like it or not, voicing some opinions gives cover and support to supremacist groups. If there's a substantial number of black or other minority supremacist groups that are pulling off and supporting actions like the DC Holocaust museum shooter then it's worth reconsidering the double standard.

Re:Screw'em!

[drinkypoo]

Women in the workplace and black people in the professional work place "were" new things and needed policies and even laws to make the transition less painful and unpleasant. But it was a //transition// that has been made. All these claims simply aren't needed the way they once were.

Too bad you haven't made the transition to HTML.

Snarky asides aside, if you think that white males, any women, and any blacks are equal in the workplace, think again. And if you aren't incensed when your tax dollars are spent to support racism (cops are allegedly using this site during work hours, and the racism is spilling over into the workplace) then you're Part Of The Problem.

But if it's jokes and crap like that? Forget it! There will always be groups and cliques and things that make some people uncomfortable.

The police should be held to a higher standard, as should any government employee, not least because individual citizens don't get to choose where the money goes. Racism begets racism, racist thought begets racist thought, if they're creating this environment amongst themselves, how are they treating The People?

Re:Screw'em!

[girlintraining]

All these laws to "protect" employees taint the marketplace. If I want to hire somebody to haul live electrical cable around while I smoke cigarettes and blow smoke in their face and an albino midget yells racially crass jokes at them, then that's the job and if they want it we can come to an agreement on pay rates.

Fortunately, people with better business sense than you passed laws to prevent this, ostensibly because there's no business reason for you to be blowing smoke in someone's face while an albino midget yells racially crass jokes at them, and perhaps by avoiding these things the job of hauling live electrical cable around would be safer to both the employee and the public at large.

Also, surprisingly enough, business owners have discovered that treating their employees with dignity and respect tends to improve productivity to such a degree that they support anti-discrimination laws, if only because it makes the available labor pool better trained and easier to deal with. I, for one, would not want to enter a line of business where the labor poor was accustomed to having smoke blown in their face and being yelled at constantly. I rather suspect they would be poorly motivated.

Re:Screw'em!

[jjohnson]

But black and female people have long since expired their period of needing special treatment and are fully equal in opportunity and respect as far as I can tell.

You're just stupidly, sadly wrong in this.

Re:Screw'em!

[jjohnson]

It would indeed be a double standard if it existed, and it would be just as wrong if the genders/races were reversed. Having watched a female manager get disciplined for sexually harassing a male subordinate, I'm sceptical that such a double standard actually exists except in the minds of angry white males who imagine they're being oppressed.

Re:Screw'em!

[AmberBlackCat]

I can assure you, in the United States, Black people do not benefit from racism. That is because most people react to complaints about racism the way you do. The black person gets treated bad, complains about it, and gets criticized for it.

Maybe you should stop looking at this as a (race) issue and look at it as a (harrassment in the workplace) issue. If you have to go to work every day and deal with people making fun of you or insulting you, you're in a hostile work environment. The fact that it's white on Black doesn't change that.

Re:Screw'em!

[mpe]

We pander because those same groups have a habit of hiring lawyers and having laws passed to "protect" them.

Whilst ignoring that this sends out the message that if people actually need such "protection" they are somehow inferior.

My girlfriend is black, I'm not ... and we both feel precisely the way you do. Granted, she wasn't born here, she's African by birth. In spite of that (or, more likely, because of that, she grew up in some damn tough environments) she believes that a lot of people in this country just need to deal with the fact that life can be harsh.

Assuming that "this country" is the US she probably dosn't think much of the term "African-American" either.

Re:Screw'em!

[rocker_wannabe]

Nobody has to endure racist and sexist jokes at work. They can quit! I've walked away from awful work environments for less than that. Everyone needs to find a place in this world that works for them and not try to make where they are conform to everything they want.

There are already enough laws on the books. They won't protect you if you're a selfish, self-centered, "feel entitled to everything you want", jackass!

Re:Screw'em!

[jjohnson]

Why is it okay to call to call you a "cunt" outside of work, but bad inside of work?

It's not okay to call you a "cunt" outside of work, but outside of work I'm not required to be in your presence. Outside of work I can walk away. I can refuse to socialize with you. At work, I don't have that freedom, at least not without suffering for it. Why should I have to give up my job to escape your abuse?

Either the speech is offensive or it is not. Either we need to be protected from it or we do not. There is no "kinda-sorta" about it.

There is, however, context to it. A random stranger yelling "cunt" at me from across the street is a very different thing than my boss doing it. When it's my boss, I'm forced to either 1) accept being called "cunt" as a condition of continued employment or 2) find another job, putting a burden on me if I don't want to be addressed as "cunt", and for no other reason than you're an asshole--not for anything I've done.

I mean, seriously, what are you trying to do? Make the workplace the only safe place?

We're trying to avoid forcing people to choose between keeping a paycheck and not tolerating abuse.

Re:Screw'em!

[jjohnson]

I would hope that people think of policing as a job requiring a high degree of professionalism, given the stakes involved.

Re:Screw'em!

[jjohnson]

In fact, most people would agree that the problem of "racism" is largely maintained by those who benefit the most from it and isn't nearly the problem at large that it once was.

I think you're just wrong about this point, but besides that, most people don't suffer from racism, so it's easy to see the hubbub about it as uppity minorities demanding special rights. It looks a lot different from the other side.

Re:Screw'em!

[jjohnson]

Why do you assume that the internal complaint procedure was not used? In my experience at Fortune 500 companies, almost all harassment complaints did use an internal complaint procedure, and were suitably resolved. And you know what? The media didn't print stories on them that got linked by ./ so people like you could judge the validity of the complaint. Your perception that this went from 0 to lawsuit is almost certainly wrong.

As for your example of the job you'd offer, the marketplace is not the be-all and end-all of our society, thankfully.

Re:Screw'em!

[hairyfeet]

Or as my dear dad always says "Son, there will always be men bigger than you. That is why God invented the 2x4. And never forget: The only fair fight is the one you win". If everyone wasn't trying to hide behind lawsuits like giant pussies, maybe douchebags like that wouldn't be so willing to try that shit.

Re:Screw'em!

[drinkypoo]

I love when the antiracists use the "if you're not with me, you're against me" speech.

It just so happens to be true. Racism is a polarizing issue. While I don't think people are racist or not (I'm a shades of grey kind of guy) I do think that you either think racism is positive or you think it's negative. The kind of people who perpetuate oppressive expressions of racism are in the former camp, and they are indeed a serious problem for those of us who would like to get on with the task of fucking until we're all the same color.

Re:Screw'em!

[Will Work For Joules]

While your suggestion of removing workplace legislation could potentially help the economy, it comes at an unreasonable cost to human beings. The problem is, at some point, that most jobs become dangerous either physically or psychologically. Then people would have a choice to either work at a dangerous job or to not work at all, with all the consequences that follow from that. That is why the people of the world have historically supported such laws protecting workers.

Like a true ideal gas, a true free market is an impossibility. No country has ever had one; no country ever will. It is only useful as a simplified model for making some limited predictions.

Re:Screw'em!

[russotto]

Why do you assume that the internal complaint procedure was not used? In my experience at Fortune 500 companies, almost all harassment complaints did use an internal complaint procedure, and were suitably resolved.

Ah, yes, the "internal complaint procedure". Criteria for responding: decide which party is most likely to sue or successfully make a stink in the press, and placate that party, regardless of fault. If neither party is, ignore or cause negative consequences to both, to make them go away.

Re:Screw'em!

[lgw]

Oh come on, you can't expect Slashdot posters to have read the summary! What were you thinking? Not reading the TFA was judged inadequately lethargic years ago, now not reading TFS is the expected level of apathy, and not reading the comment you're replying to is becoming more common.

Re:Screw'em!

[jjohnson]

You win the perennial ./ competition to see who can be the most cynical, irrespective of reality.

Re:Screw'em!

[HiThere]

Unhhh......
I'm not convinced. I'm also not convinced that "racist" is a reasonable description of the basic problem. And I'm not sure how it should actually be addressed.

Here's how I analyze it:
There's a group of people who are a cliche that work together. They support each other, and don't like to associate with those outside the cliche. But there aren't enough of them to do the job that needs to be done, so some extra people need to be added. But the cliche is full. (People can only relate in certain social ways to a limited number of people.) So these new people are an out-group. Occasionally someone from the cliche leaves, and there's social jockeying for position. When that's completed, someone can be added, if there's someone that fits. So if there's anyone of the correct social fit, they're allowed into the cliche.

Now when a cliche is first formed, certain social norms are established. These aren't written, but are understood. And they aren't very subject to change, because nobody's responsible for them, though all members must adhere to them or be stigmatized. If the original cliche established having some characteristic as essential, and denigrated those that didn't have it, then there's no easy way to change it. One easily observed characteristic is race, so race is likely to be one of the features.

This isn't exactly racism, which to me is a generalized denigration (of whatever strength) of individuals because of their race. I'll admit, however, that it can manifest as something which appears quite close to that. Also many things that are called racism are actually discrimination based on economic status.

Don't mistake any of the alternatives for actual racism, or you will be confused about what's happening. I'm not certain that actual racism has decreased in the city where I live. It's interesting that much racism against blacks is manifested by the blacks themselves. One might contemplate just what that implies. OTOH, clicheism, or whatever one might call it, when manifested by blacks is almost always in favor of blacks...some blacks...some particular blacks. And discrimination based on economic status seems to be most commonly exercised by organizations.

If you've read this far, may apologies for excessive length. I hope you at least found this interesting.

Re:Screw'em!

[westlake]

We have had this sickening pattern of pandering to groups who take the most offense to things. Women in the workplace and black people in the work place. Neither are typically "minorities"

But in the police station and fire hall they are often very poorly represented - if they have any visibility at all.

It's an old problem and one that every big city mayor knows can blow up in his face at any moment.

Re:Screw'em!

[Abcd1234]

Do you know WHY things are like that? Blacks generally commit more crime, commit murder

Sorry, fail. The rates I cited are corrected for frequency of offence. The simple fact is, given a black man and a white man committing the same crime, blacks are more likely to be given the death penalty.

Arabs are, for all intents and purposes, THE terrorist ethnicity in the west.

And that justifies racism? No. It doesn't. Or do you look suspiciously at anyone who might be Irish? Yeah... didn't think so.

Hint: You average Muslim extremist most likely isn't living in your cloistered little suburb. They're busy blowing themselves up in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Until blacks and arabs/muslims do something to change the thug/terrorist stereotype by actually telling their kids to quit being a bunch of useless fucks and grow up and be somebody that does more than hurt others or be a leech on society nothing will change.

Ahh... now I get it. You're a racist son of a bitch. Fair 'nuff. But the least you could do is just admit it, rather than trying to couch it in conservative values.

Re:Screw'em!

[linzeal]

Yes, he seems ardently ignorant almost proudly stupid of the reality of this but the numbers of 'reverse-discrimination' are rising rapidly esp in the social sciences and some aspects of education policy making. Yes, men were once dominant in both social work and all levels of education save teaching but that has changed drastically in the past 40 years. The instance with the fire department testing reaching the Supreme Court is one case out of 1000's that are filed each year that any news media outlet dare report on due to the entrenchment and reinforcement of bias against 'white males' in some fields.

Re:Screw'em!

[Dr. Impossible]

Said as someone who's never actually experienced racism.

You go tell that to your average Arabic man who's avoided on the street by people who are afraid of them because he "looks scary".

What does that have to do with racism? Just because he is "brown" (as liberals would say) doesn't mean someone is afraid of him for that reason. Maybe they are more afraid of his presumed religion, Islam, than his ethnicity.

Sorry, racism is alive and well.

If that's the case, why do liberals spend 99% of their time complaining about things that do not actually constitute racism? Kind of like how feminists spend all their time complaining about, or making up, non-issues.

Seriously, the comments on this article point out one thing very clearly: Your average slashdotter is a middle-to-high income white person who has no idea what the real world is actually like.

Middle-to-upper class white people are always made to feel guilty about their lives, as if it was somehow wrong to have a successful and stable life. Apparently we should all strive to emulate black people in the ghetto, because they are authentic and keeping it real.

Re:Screw'em!

[Dr. Impossible]

And that justifies racism? No. It doesn't.

Islam is not a race.

Or do you look suspiciously at anyone who might be Irish? Yeah... didn't think so.

Is there some reason why one should be suspicious of Irish people?

Hint: You average Muslim extremist most likely isn't living in your cloistered little suburb. They're busy blowing themselves up in Afghanistan or Iraq.

The West is crawling with Muslim fundamentalists.

Notice how you are trying to make the original poster feel guilty about him supposedly living in a "cloistered little suburb." Why, exactly, is it wrong for someone to live in the suburbs, and not in the ghetto? Is it more "authentic" to live in the ghetto or something?

Ahh... now I get it. You're a racist son of a bitch. Fair 'nuff. But the least you could do is just admit it, rather than trying to couch it in conservative values.

I didn't see anything racist about his statement. Care to elaborate?

Re:Screw'em!

[ScrewMaster]

I browse porn at work because it is part of my job description.

Interesting. Would that be in the porn industry ... or law enforcement?

Just curious.

Re:Screw'em!

[mundanetechnomancer]

...business owners have discovered that treating their employees with dignity and respect tends to improve productivity...

perhaps without these laws, some business owners would actually discover this information, instead of following the rules they know they have to follow. Too many people in management positions do what they are legally required to do, without knowing anything about respect and dignity. They only know that their activity falls within the guild lines, not why the guild lines were made. They know that their actions are legal, and therefore must be right. The end result is they have a lot of employees that they treat just well enough not to quit. I would love to see more "successful" managers with the people skills necessary to keep employees happy, not just barely unhappy enough not to quit.

Re:Screw'em!

[FunWithKnives]

"Reverse-discrimination" is an oxymoron. It is a nonsensical term that makes no sense whatsoever. The reverse of discrimination is tolerance. Discrimination is discrimination regardless of the recipient's age, race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, et cetera. I understand the point that is being made, but that is no reason to create an utterly ridiculous, almost non-sequitur-like phrase. Being that you've put it in quotations yourself I do not know what you make of it, and my statement is not assuming either way. I have simply noticed this absurdity repeated on news channels and in other venues recently, and it appears to be gaining a sort of traction. Honestly, if Stephen Colbert satirizes it, that should say something.

Re:Screw'em!

[Imagix]

So where's the _criminal_ assault charge and conviction?

Re:Screw'em!

[Dr. Impossible]

And naturally some assclown liberal modded me troll instead of posting counter-arguments. Welcome to Slashdot.

Re:Screw'em!

[MikeD227]

Sorry, fail. The rates I cited are corrected for frequency of offence. The simple fact is, given a black man and a white man committing the same crime, blacks are more likely to be given the death penalty.

do your statistics include money availble to spend on attorney's fees? annual incomes?

Re:Screw'em!

[Abcd1234]

Maybe they are more afraid of his presumed religion, Islam, than his ethnicity.

Uhh...

a) Islam != Muslim extremist. To assume the former == the latter is every bit as bigoted as racism.
b) Ascribing such violent beliefs to someone based on their race *is racism*, you fucking idiot.

Middle-to-upper class white people are always made to feel guilty about their lives

Who said anything about feeling guilty about their lives? The Slashdotters I'm referring to shouldn't feel guilty about their social status. They should feel guilty about their *spectacular ignorance*.

Re:Screw'em!

[Abcd1234]

Islam is not a race.

Work on your reading comprehension. Never once did the word "Islam" even appear in my post.

Is there some reason why one should be suspicious of Irish people?

So are you playing ignorant, or are you really so uneducated that you've never heard of the IRA, one of the most infamous terrorist organizations operating in the western world?

The West is crawling with Muslim fundamentalists.

Uhuh. Sure it is.

Notice how you are trying to make the original poster feel guilty about him supposedly living in a "cloistered little suburb."

No, I'm trying to make him feel guilty for being an ignorant idiot.

Seriously, get over the persecution complex. If you're rich and white, good for you. If you're rich, white, and ignorant of the real world, you deserve to be derided.

I didn't see anything racist about his statement. Care to elaborate?

Given you ascribed a "thug/terrorist stereotype" to two racial groups, I'm sorry, how is that *not* being racist? You literally described those things as stereotypes, and then applied them to racial groups. That is practically the definition of racism, you racist.

Re:Screw'em!

[LihTox]

Ah, yes, the "internal complaint procedure". Criteria for responding: decide which party is most likely to sue or successfully make a stink in the press, and placate that party, regardless of fault.

Sounds like good ol' capitalism to me: whaddya got against capitalism?

Re:Screw'em!

[Doctor_Jest]

Amen. As unpopular as that sentiment is, I feel it needs to be shouted from the rooftops (I'm glad we're adults here in this regard and you were modded as insightful.) Simply saying the offensive word, or laughing about something offensive to someone else does not a hostile workplace make. People have lost sight of the _real_ hostile workplace and used their litigious "victim" sentiments to derail things like free speech and individual responsibility (meaning of course that victims are projecting their faults upon those external factors that should really not affect you when you've become a thinking, rational adult.) Sometimes it's just a word and doesn't reveal a clandestine network of white supremacists who are setting up to undermine civil rights and the peace and happiness of minorities. Everyone is xenophobic and racist to a degree, I don't care what color you are. And no amount of lawsuits, threats to civil liberty, and Al Sharpton speeches will make that go away. Sometimes simply moving on and not being a whiner about it is the best course of action.

Take the Firefighters case from Connecticut. Not enough blacks passed the test... nullify the test and not promote anyone. How is that not discrimination? I guess it would've been if they nullified the results because not enough whites passed. Simply put, the White and Hispanic firefighters were singled out because of their skin color... and no one seems to want to say "yep." *shrug* I'm sure I'll be modded troll or flamebait for this, but I've got karma to burn... and this needs to be said more than anything in the universe. We need to move beyond this petty nonsense and "minorities" need to stop using race as a crutch for their own failures. It's just that simple. The "victim" mentality is getting tiresome and is masking the real injustices by "crying wolf" too many times. Yes, real discrimination and hostile workplaces DO exist, but for every one that does, we have 300000 of them like this which are stupid, over-hyped nonsense that doesn't constitute a "mildly irritating" workplace even if you squint. And, for those who make their millions off the backs of these sorts of hyper-sensitive people, may YOUR millions crush you to a steamy pile of sanctimonious goo. (Al Sharpton, I'm looking at YOU... you prick.)

Re:Screw'em!

[erroneus]

Oh I have been modded wildly all over the place but I never noticed a fall below +3. Seriously, I don't comment for score as should be plain to see here -- the score could have gone either way.

Almost daily I see well spoken, educated, American black people who exist in all walks of life "just like everyone else." They aren't at odds with the system in any particular way. They go to work, they pay their bills and live their lives as pretty much everyone else does. And when I see them, I am happy and proud... and RELIEVED. My ancestors came to the U.S. in the early 1900's. I have almost no connection with the darker history of the U.S. except for my ethnicity and something about the way things are has managed to make me feel somehow ashamed that I am both male and white and that I am somehow the worst person that ever lived. In my logical mind, I know I have done nothing wrong. But in my heart, I feel a lot of guilt. Guilt for what? Shame for what? It's barely speakable but I will say it here. Society has told us we should be ashamed and should make amends for something we (this generation) had nothing to do with now or in the past and nearly every white person in the U.S. likely knows exactly what I am talking about.

But every time I seem a well adjusted, educated and even successful black person, it is also proof positive that all that is REALLY needed is to do pretty much what every other successful person does. Stay in school, keep employed, keep your bills paid, save some money for a rainy day and all manner of other things that people with stable lives do. It's not a racial or a cultural issue. These are facts of life and survival in the U.S. of A. When you don't do those things, your life will be more difficult than it needs to be. (And it goes without saying that even when you DO those things, there is no guarantee you will have an easy go of it, but NOT doing those things pretty much guarantees you will have problems now or down the road. Just look at all the once-famous people who blew their fortunes on rich things and later had nothing to show for it all when the money train stopped rolling?)

And I have yet to say "black people need to" or "black people should or should not" because it's not necessary. These sorts of principles apply to everyone in just the same way that gravity weighs us all down. (some more than others depending on how well you eat) Every soccer mom and every "victim" out there need to start looking to themselves for what it is that they are doing wrong rather than looking to the world to change for them and then blaming the world for what happens when they fail to adjust. The hyper-sensitivity and the over-reactions and the litigiousness of people need to be reigned in before we will start to see any positive results. There will ALWAYS be people who have a hard time in life due to their own attitudes and behaviors. When it's a white person who has the problem, people say it's his own fault. When it's not a white person, people quite often say it was the system that failed them in some way. We need to stop feeling that way because THAT is racism in its worst form. I don't think anyone needs our pity or deserves an easier life than the rest of us. I am truly and earnestly all about equality in all things but we can't have that when some people are treated as if they were disabled or otherwise less capable of doing for themselves.

And I knew about the firefighter thing, but once heard someone say that if "that" was okay, then it should also be okay to have special handicaps for white people in the NBA since they are clearly outnumbered and less capable on the court. I recognize the comment as sarcasm and shouldn't be taken literally. But it does point out something quite obvious in that different people have different interests, skills, aptitudes and inclinations. Countless studies have been done on why there aren't more women in technical and math fields and what it really comes down to is that they [women] don't want to do it! It's no

Re:Screw'em!

[dbcad7]

If the same person shows up drunk at the grocery store when I'm dressed in nothing more than jeans and a hoodie and does the same thing he's playing with fire.

Actually, the amount of drunkenness that you would find unacceptable in a grocery store should also be unacceptable in a bar.. Going to a bar isn't a license to be stupid and out of control... So setting the drunkenness aside it becomes a matter of whether or not it is acceptable for someone to hit on another person in places like the grocery store... The thing is, the answer is probably going to be different depending upon the person doing the hitting.. one person may be thought of as charming and flattering, and another as creepy and scary even if they used the same tactics and words..

Re:Screw'em!

[Abcd1234]

If these two groups did NOT want to perceived in the way they are, they'd do something about it.

Yeah, no kidding. I mean, Arab Americans don't do anything to stop Muslim extremism in the Middle East, therefore they get what they deserve, right? Same goes for upstanding African Americans... if they can't stop their gang-banging brethren from breaking the law, well then they deserve it when racists like you treat them like shit, right?

Re:Screw'em!

[Doctor_Jest]

I think we're in good company on Slashdot, because there's enough of a libertarian tinge to the general commenter/user, if mild in most cases, and I think the consensus is that "more government == bad news". I find that there are at least a few staunchly individualistic commenters who have a personal 'non-libertarian' viewpoint on a (or a few) specific subjects, where the prevailing wisdom would favor a more "liberal" (for lack of a better term) position. Whatever that issue (or issues) may be, it doesn't detract from the overall belief that we are the captains of our own destiny and failure is not necessarily the fault of "the man" or "the system". Granted, "the system" can make things less than ideal, but it's those willing to overcome that who succeed. We, as a collective group, don't do enough to applaud that. We focus on the small, yet vocal, group of people who feel victimized by the prevailing system and/or culture. Consequently, the festering resentment that people who have overcome feel towards those less fortunate tends to surface in the least likely of places. I am not so callous as to say that anything we do to help the less fortunate is somehow an "enabler" of their misfortune and habits, but I do think we can overdo it and institutionalizing it sometimes leads to a self-perpetuating dilemma. And I think there's a reason for that sentiment....

The problem exists when there are organizations that exist solely on the notion that there is no solution to (insert ailment/dilemma here). Those organizations are not going to go gently into that good night, and in spite of us outgrowing past biases and oddly reactionary sentiments, these organizations will continue to fight tooth and nail to keep the wound festering. It's inevitable that whoever gets rich off the misery of others is going to do his damnedest to make sure the dough rolls in in perpetuity.

Perhaps one day we will look back and laugh at the idiocy of the past. :)

Re:Screw'em!

[Dr. Impossible]

a) Islam != Muslim extremist.

That's exactly what Islam is.

To assume the former == the latter is every bit as bigoted as racism.

This is a completely arbitrary and nonsensical statement.

b) Ascribing such violent beliefs to someone based on their race *is racism*, you fucking idiot.

Did I say race has anything to do with it? No, but you just did.

Who said anything about feeling guilty about their lives? The Slashdotters I'm referring to shouldn't feel guilty about their social status. They should feel guilty about their *spectacular ignorance*.

And naturally, only white middle-to-upper class people can be ignorant, unlike those noble savages in the ghetto who are keeping it real.

Re:Screw'em!

[Dr. Impossible]

Work on your reading comprehension. Never once did the word "Islam" even appear in my post.

The guy was obviously referring to Muslims.

So are you playing ignorant, or are you really so uneducated that you've never heard of the IRA, one of the most infamous terrorist organizations operating in the western world?

So I should be afraid of Irish people based on one terrorist group that doesn't even really exist anymore?

Uhuh. Sure it is.

It is.

No, I'm trying to make him feel guilty for being an ignorant idiot.

Then why bring up the suburbs?

Seriously, get over the persecution complex. If you're rich and white, good for you. If you're rich, white, and ignorant of the real world, you deserve to be derided.

What if someone is rich, black and ignorant of the real world? Why are you turning this into a racial issue anyway?

Given you ascribed a "thug/terrorist stereotype" to two racial groups, I'm sorry, how is that *not* being racist? You literally described those things as stereotypes, and then applied them to racial groups. That is practically the definition of racism, you racist.

The original poster did not say that blacks and Muslims behave in a certain manner because of biological reasons, or because of some other inherent factor that they can't change. I still don't see the supposed racism. You're actually being more racist than he is by making this a racial issue and then essentially claiming that blacks and Muslims are inherently incapable of doing any wrong, or that they deserve special treatment.

Re:Screw'em!

[Dr. Impossible]

Yeah, no kidding. I mean, Arab Americans don't do anything to stop Muslim extremism in the Middle East, therefore they get what they deserve, right?

They don't even do anything to stop Islamic extremism in their own neighborhoods. Some of them actually travel to conflict areas like Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan to join the Jihad, or at least try to support it in some way. Muslims do little if anything to improve their reputation, but will cry an ocean of tears whenever someone is suspicious of them. Then they start issuing threats. Their problems are completely self-inflicted.

Re:Screw'em!

[Schadrach]

Sometimes someone needs to stick their nose in, usually when one side effectively holds all the cards. Look at the old "coal towns" in Appalachia: You worked for the mine, you were paid in mine store credit (can't change that, requiring business to pay people in actual money would be sticking your nose in) and live in mine owned housing that you were renting (they won't sell, and you don't have real money anyways so you'll rent from them and like it or be homeless). So, unless you wanted to be homeless and starving you would continue to work for the mine, whatever hours the mine asked, under whatever conditions the mine required, with no way out of it that didn't involve "homeless and starving" as a major transition phase. That is the kind of thing that happens when business/industry aren't kept on some kind of leash.

Re:Screw'em!

[drawlins]

I also know some of them will go home and smoke pot, do drugs, eat hot dogs and hamburgers until their heart explodes...

Hot dogs are bad?

Re:Screw'em!

[Arcleo]

Your average slashdotter is a middle-to-high income white person who has no idea what the real world is actually like.

I find this statement to be seriously flawed in general. I agree that the average slashdotter at this point seems top be a middle-to-high income white person (most likely male by all the "reverse-racism" posts), but the statement that this group has no idea what the real world is like.

I have spent parts of my life in Section 8 housing where I was the only white person in the building. I've worked at inner-city schools where the IT department was the only department with white people working. Racism still exists, though it is definitely not restricted to white men. Black men and women are racist too, so are hispanics, and while working in said inner-city school I found out that Black older women are more racist (especially against hispanics) then any other racial group I had the chance to work with. Everyone builds prejudices of some kind, it is how our minds work. We look at people and put them into groups, and it takes extreme willpower not to do this and I commend anyone who is capable of not judging any groups on stereotypes.

That being said, I would not say the world of section 8 housing and racism is the "real world." It is a world that is different from the world lived in by white middle class suburbia but that does not make it any more or less real. Hell, if you want to say white middle class people don't know what the "real world" is like because they don't see racism, then poor blacks don't know what the "real world" is like because they did not survive the holocaust, ad infinitum. There is always a group that got dealt a better hand, and there is always a group that has it worse off; this does not in any way invalidate the experiences or lives of the group that was dealt the Full House.

Re:What's up with black firefighters in the USA?

[casings]

How about not mentioning the joke at all? Or would that be joke discrimination?

The Solution Here

[fragmentate]

A lot of people misinterpret what "freedom of expression" means.

People believe they have the write to "express" themselves as they please in the workplace. That simply isn't the case. Our rights -- our freedoms -- are protected against government interference not private interference. Your employer -- even a government office -- can silence you. There are laws for the workplace that take precedence over your rights. The law protects employees against being discriminated against or being harassed because of their ethnicity, religious beliefs, disabilities, sexual orientation, and gender. Those aren't rights, however. You don't have a right not to be harassed. You are protected by laws.

Quite simply, these officers are out of line, and have broken laws. They don't have a choice but to change their behavior. If they want to frequent this site from home in their private time that is when their right to express themselves is enforceable. However, we all know there are consequences to actions in our private lives as well. But trying to make people behave to serve their best-interest is just a futile effort at protecting "stupid."

The comments about this story are already ridiculous (search news.google.com, and blogs.google.com). Everyone thinks they know their rights, but I can tell by the comments none really know what their rights are, or what a right is.

Re:The Solution Here

[WiiVault]

I don't think it is clear at all that they were posting whileon the job. Where did you come to that conclusion except based on the random guess of the plaintiff? I have yet to see a shred of proof. Its dirty and mean, but not illegal.

Re:The Solution Here

[chaoticgeek]

I actually had a class that dealt with workplace harassment and discrimination, and sexual orientation is not protected under any of the laws. Although it should be but it is a common mistake many people think.

Re:The Solution Here

[vivaelamor]

Who were you replying to? The post I just read doesn't mention anything about posting while on the job.

Re:The Solution Here

[vivaelamor]

Nevemind, I'm blind, it's here: "If they want to frequent this site from home in their private time that is when their right". Still, I don't think they were saying that going on the site was illegal (or they are really ill informed). At worst it would be against the workplace policy but that should not be in itself illegal. I think they were referring to the expression of views from the site in front of people who would likely be offended by them. Which would be analogous to sexually harassing someone in the workplace.

Re:The Solution Here

[mckinnsb]

I'm not sure if I agree completely with your rights vs. laws discussion, but I agree with the general sentiment of your conclusion. If they visited the website at the police station and then used the website to conduct or even discuss police business while those discussions contained racist comments, then they are *way* out of line should probably be reprimanded in some way, either by suspension, demotion, or termination.

Even if they didn't post these messages at the station, and did so within their private residences, there seems to be strong evidence that it directly related to their police work and this should trouble everyone. It's fine for everyone to have opinions, and technically its not illegal to have 'racist opinions' or ethnically stereotype people, but hate crimes and discrimination are very much so against the law and that is exactly what the police are charged with upholding. Members of the police force have to be held to a higher standard (just like the Armed Forces) than the common citizen, and as a result must forgo some of the rights the rest of us enjoy - but they understood this sacrafice, or should have, they day they took the badge. If you could call the 'forgoing the right to be racist in your opinions' a sacrifice.

Re:The Solution Here

[ceoyoyo]

A further point of confusion is that the US constitution talks about right without regard to precedence. Supposedly these are rights that cannot be infringed, which is silly. As other bill of rights documents acknowledge, rights are hierarchical and, when they come into conflict, the one with higher precedence wins. Your right to freedom of speech ends when it begins to conflict with my right to security of person. An imprisoned murder's right to freedom of movement is curtailed because it conflicts with the rest of the population's right to life. These cops' right to freedom of speech does not overrule a coworker's right to a safe, respectful workplace.

Re:The Solution Here

[markdavis]

I wasn't aware the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights addressed having a "respectful workplace".

We should all expect one, and we should all strive to make it that way. And most HR offices will have policies about it. But it is not a "right".

Re:The Solution Here

[Like2Byte]

You know, I agree with you 100%. However, this whole affair reminds me the movie "Stripes".

When Sargent Hulka was allowing the men to introduce themselves to everyone else one of the men, Francis, told everyone how he'd kill them if they touched him, his belongings or called him Francis. Call him 'Psycho.'

Sargent Hulka reminded Francis that one of these days one of the assembled men might save his life.

Bill Murray quipped, "Then again...maybe one of us wont."

Think about it. No matter what...EVERYONE that is party to this lawsuit, on *either* side, loses.

Re:The Solution Here

[ceoyoyo]

Yours probably doesn't. Others do. Even in the US constitution there's that pesky little 9th amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

So I hate to tell you, but in very many places, including in the US, a safe and respectful workplace is most certainly regarded as a "right," and generally one that is important enough to limit others, such as freedom of speech.

Re:The Solution Here

[mpe]

A lot of people misinterpret what "freedom of expression" means.

The thing is that it is necessary for unpopular, non-PC and even "offensive" points of view. Popular, PC and "inoffensive" things don't tend to be subject to censor.

There are laws for the workplace that take precedence over your rights. The law protects employees against being discriminated against or being harassed because of their ethnicity, religious beliefs, disabilities, sexual orientation, and gender.

At least in theory. It isn't easy to such draft laws in such a way that makes it difficult to abuse them for discrimination and/or harassment. e.g. having a false complaint attract at least as strong a sentence as a conviction.

Re:The Solution Here

[Jay L]

rights are hierarchical and, when they come into conflict, the one with higher precedence wins.

Ah, but what if I put the lower-precedence right in parentheses?

See, that's how they get you.

Yeah..

[mikkelm]

Less QQ, more pew pew

judgement

[bugs2squash]

Someone in possession of the full facts needs to exercise some judgment and if this behavior is unbecoming of a police officer, the officers should be disciplined. I would be surprised if the officers involved did not have some contractual requirement to maintain at least an appearance of impartiality.

in other news

[Anonymous Coward]

Santa Claus is suing Philadelphia and its pro sports teams for fostering a hostile work environment.

It's a public site...

[Doug52392]

After browsing the site in question, there doesn't seem to be any rule that states that only law enforcement officials may register and participate in the discussions. Moreover, the site used to allow registration (it's been disabled due to so many users registering over the past day, however).

Re:It's a public site...

[Jack9]

I believe it's moderated by aforementioned cops, according to the summary. It's unlikely you can troll it successfully for long.

Re:It's a public site...

[moskrin]

Looks like it's completely disabled now... Think maybe the cops don't want the general public reading everything they've been saying?

Cry me a river

[WiiVault]

While it is certainly in bad taste to have officers voicing these opinions on a forum, what is even more absurd is the lack of integrity of these lawyers to file such an insane lawsuit. Was anything illegal even committed? Also worth noting that these same lawyers are tacking the "pool kids" case. I can't help but think that perhaps that story is a similar pile of "I'm a victim" bullshit. Its sad when people abuse race, because it leads to distrust of those who are actually being discriminated against and need help.

Re:Cry me a river

[snowgirl]

While it is certainly in bad taste to have officers voicing these opinions on a forum, what is even more absurd is the lack of integrity of these lawyers to file such an insane lawsuit. Was anything illegal even committed? Also worth noting that these same lawyers are tacking the "pool kids" case. I can't help but think that perhaps that story is a similar pile of "I'm a victim" bullshit. Its sad when people abuse race, because it leads to distrust of those who are actually being discriminated against and need help.

So, a bunch of black officers in a police station begin to distrust those other officers around them, because those other officers keep making racially bigoted statements.

Look, legal fact here, is that there is a question of fact about if the actions of the white officers have violated the law by creating a "hostile work environment" for black officers. One is not allowed to promote a work environment, where a protected class is feels that their status in that protect class is being used to harass them.

Questions of fact go to a jury or judge for decision, in this case, likely a jury. Just because you don't agree, or the public at large doesn't agree, does not mean that the case is a frivolous one.

Now, don't get me wrong, I could argue this from both sides. The police department could declare that since the website is a 3rd party website that they have no ability to enforce work policies upon it, and that filtering out the webpage would impose a prior constraint upon the rights of the individual officers, and thus would be illegal. It would also be important to stress that the police department has an anti-discrimination policy, and that the department neither endorses nor condones the behaviors of the individual officers.

The 3rd party to this is the bigoted police officers. Unfortunately, the only way that I would be able to argue that is that, sure the individual officer may be bigoted, but he kept it to himself, and didn't talk about it at work... oh wait, they did.

Re:Cry me a river

[XantheKnight]

You misunderstand the basic fabric of the legal system. Lawyers don't initiate lawsuits-- plaintiffs do. It's not a lawyer's fault that his client has a stupid case or wants to go to court over something inane. It's only his job to discern whether there is a legitimate cause of action under the law (even if it is extremely stupid, rests on a weird interpretation of the law, or has almost zero chance of success). So don't blame lawyers for stupid plaintiffs or stupid lawsuits.

Seems pretty obvious

[MikeBabcock]

If a man goes to a private website like say, Playboy in private and then discusses it in front of female co-workers, they may be charged with harassment. Guess what, just because its a private website, magazine, or bar doesn't mean you should repeat those thoughts or experiences or stories in front of your co-workers who could most obviously be offended.

Re:Seems pretty obvious

[Aladrin]

Bingo. This has absolutely nothing to do with the 'online forum' and everything to do with inappropriate conduct in the workplace. If these people didn't read it on the 'online forum', they'd have read it elsewhere instead and the same thing would have happened.

Re:Seems pretty obvious

[asdfman2000]

Your comparison is completely wrong.
The situation is more akin to a programmer going to slashdot.org (a community website for people of their trade) and mentioning it to coworkers.
Just because there are a few assholes on slashdot that hate on women, etc, it doesn't make every user of slashdot racist / sexist.

Re:Seems pretty obvious

[spnz]

Sure, if they were not suing the city then I agree - where this case looses all credibility for me is that they're not suing the individuals but the city. As someone else stated - if I'm at work and I view something offensive to a co-worker, I'm the one at fault, not my employer.

Re:Seems pretty obvious

[Haxzaw]

Yes, but if someone is offended, that someone should say so. Then if it continues seek stronger measures. However, it seems certain people jump straight to litigation rather than solving it at the lowest level.

Re:Seems pretty obvious

[ceoyoyo]

That's not what the article or the summary says the suit is claiming.

The suit alleges white officers post on and moderate the privately operated site, Domelights.com, both on and off the job.

Domelights' users "often joke about the racially offensive commentary on the site ... or will mention them in front of black police officers," thus creating "a racially hostile work environment," according to lawyers for the all-black Guardian Civic League, the lead plaintiff in the suit.

(emphasis mine)

So his analogy is completely right. It's like a programmer going to slashdot, at work, posting sexist comments, then joking about it in front of his female coworkers.

Re:Seems pretty obvious

[nurb432]

Everyone is offended by something, by your suggestion we should all exist in a box and not speak to any other human.

If you are offended by what i say and you don't walk away, its your problem, not mine. Im really tired of all this "PC" garbage where we are expected to walk on eggshells all the time. What happened to the so called victim taking some responsibility?

Re:Seems pretty obvious

[jjohnson]

If I'm a woman and you're a male coworker who likes to describe in detail to me, every day, how he jerked off to bigtittedbitches.com the night before, how is that my responsibility? Why should having to listen to you be a condition of doing my job? How am I supposed to walk away when you're in the next cubicle to me, or you're my boss?

If you think you have to walk on eggshells now, that's probably because you're a complete asshole in the workplace who has trouble comprehending why people get offended. Me, I've never worried about walking on eggshells in my Fortune 500 workplaces. I just don't say stupid shit that's likely to offend, and I still manage to have a rich and interesting social life in my workplace.

Re:Seems pretty obvious

[jjohnson]

It depends on what the programmer chooses to mention. If he likes to start discussions on the content of technology stories posted here, it's not harassment. If he likes to report on how many 'gay nigger' comments there were the day before, that's harassment. See the difference?

Domelights.com has a serious problem with racist cops posting there. If you like to tell your black coworkers the racist jokes that you saw on domelights the day before, it's pretty much the same as if you just tell the jokes.

Re:Seems pretty obvious

[jjohnson]

It only seems certain because you don't hear about these issues until the press picks up on a major lawsuit. Just because you don't see news stories about employee A complaining about employee B, and management reprimanding employee B's for their behavior, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

Re:Seems pretty obvious

[mpe]

If a man goes to a private website like say, Playboy in private and then discusses it in front of female co-workers, they may be charged with harassment.

If a woman was to go to somewhere like Playgirl then discussed it in front of male co-workers would she be equally likely to be charged with harassment? Aside from possible sexism, what if a sports fan were to discuss his/her sport in front of non fan co-workers...

Re:Seems pretty obvious

[nurb432]

Walking away was in the figurative sense and includes 'please stop', or 'i don't like that'. If the request is made, sure one would not include them in the future. Its the initial 'oh, we cant offend someone' attitude that i'm irritated with.

Personally i don't walk on eggshells because i really don't care what people think of me. ( and it so happens that little of what i say is actually offensive, but that is just the way it is, and not due to some grand plan to avoid offending people ). and NOTHING said would offend me, as i'm not that thin skinned. I expect nothing less ( or more ) from others then what i do myself.

Re:Seems pretty obvious

[mpe]

Sure, if they were not suing the city then I agree - where this case looses all credibility for me is that they're not suing the individuals but the city.

This appears to happen all too often in cases involving the police. Instead of suing (or prosecuting) misbehaving police officers the police force itself is sued. Which is likely to be counter productive long term even if the police/city loses. (Either taxes will be raised to pay for this or the number of front line police are likely to be cut.) The only unusual thing here is that the people complaining are themselves police officers.

As someone else stated - if I'm at work and I view something offensive to a co-worker, I'm the one at fault, not my employer.

Or maybe they are, e.g. they have a grudge against you are are looking for an excuse. Maybe you both are at fault...

Re:Seems pretty obvious

[jjohnson]

As I pointed out to someone else, the perception that every potentially offensive comment is met with a lawsuit comes from the fact that you never hear about the internal disciplinary action that addresses it otherwise. The media only reports on major lawsuits against major corporations and public institutions. Why are you assuming that this issue of domelights.com and black officers went from 0 to lawsuit overnight?

In both Fortune 500 companies I've worked at, I've seen harassing behavior addressed by managers, everything from telling a dirty joke to cornering a subordinate and touching them inappropriately. In all cases, the behavior was changed or the person was fired. No lawyers were involved and the media didn't report on it. That's the vast majority of harassment problems right there.

Let's continue my hypothetical above: I ask you to stop telling me about your websurfing, and you don't. I go to my manager and say "please tell him to stop" and my manager says "toughen up, baby." I go to HR and they do nothing about it. I go to my manager's boss and he says "let your boss and HR deal with it." What are my options then besides suing the company?

Re:Seems pretty obvious

[dorsey]

Yes, but if your employer is aware of the situation but does nothing to rectify it, then your employer is also at fault. In fact one could argue that you would no longer be at fault because by doing nothing your employer is implicitly condoning your behavior.

Re:Seems pretty obvious

[Brian_Ellenberger]

If a man goes to a private website like say, Playboy in private and then discusses it in front of female co-workers, they may be charged with harassment. Guess what, just because its a private website, magazine, or bar doesn't mean you should repeat those thoughts or experiences or stories in front of your co-workers who could most obviously be offended.

From the article:

McQ is also listed as a defendant in the lawsuit. Asked why McQ bears responsibility for the racist remarks of his site's anonymous commenters, Mildenberg said it was because "he started it."

So is it also OK to sue Playboy because some idiots discussed it in front of female co-workers because Playboy "started it"?

You know I noticed your blog Mike's Chaotic Mind allows comments. Does this mean that if someone leaves a racist comment on your blog you can (and should) be sued and fired? How convenient it would be for someone who doesn't like you or who wants to extract some money to post some anonymous comments then sue you and your employer for them.

Re:Seems pretty obvious

[Pentium100]

What are my options then besides suing the company?

Quit. If you sue the company, no matter the outcome, you will not work there for long. While it is illegal to fire somebody just because they participated in a lawsuit against the company, the company will find something that it can fire you for.
For example, if you work with clients, the company might have a policy that says if you receive $number complaints from the clients you are fired. How long do you suppose they would take to arrange for $number-$complaints_you_already_have people to come to you and be offended by something? I suppose they would wait for a few months after everything has settled down to do it, but still.

Well, at least this is how it usually is in my country.

Re:Seems pretty obvious

[prichardson]

Actually, when say something that's obviously offensive to someone who is required to be proximate to you for their livelihood, they can't just walk away. That's why it's generally considered merely ridiculous when someone spouts racist garbage on the street, but as soon as you bring it to the workplace, you break the law.

"Walk away" is not a possible solution when you're trapped in a squad car with some bigot.

Re:Seems pretty obvious

[jjohnson]

Quit.

This is exactly the outcome to be avoided: You harass me to the point of suing, and the burden is on me to find another job.

More practically, suing is effectively quitting, but it at least grants a sufficient severance payment that the burden of being forced to quit for someone else's behavior (and the company's indifference) is alleviated.

If you sue the company, no matter the outcome, you will not work there for long.

This is true or false depending very much on your circumstances. Basically, the larger the company in North America (and, I think, Europe), the safer you are from retaliatory firing, because they run things in a more organized, formal way, and it's easier to relocate you within the company. The problem with suing a small company is that everyone gets pissed off. In a large company, you can go to other departments where the people don't have anything invested in getting rid of you.

I can speak from experience that employees who go through formal complaint procedures against a company (meaning the U.S. National Labor Relations Board) can and do remain employed.

Re:Seems pretty obvious

[MikeBabcock]

More importantly, it appears to be a well-known behaviour on the part of multiple officers. Are you going to sue all the officers involved, or their employer for not disciplining them?

Re:Seems pretty obvious

[MikeBabcock]

I'm quite certain that any comments made about being offended were greeted the way they always are "quit taking things so seriously" or "its not personal" or "its just a joke, lighten up" or worse.

More importantly perhaps, the media would never have reported on those situations, and that's the only reason you haven't heard about it happening. You can't say it didn't.

Re:Seems pretty obvious

[MikeBabcock]

You've obviously never been a minority or a woman.

Most such statements are greeted with jeers and ignorance (like yours) that somehow the person shouldn't be offended.

Re:Seems pretty obvious

[MikeBabcock]

If you can't figure out why one is offensive and the other isn't, you're a moron.

Thanks for trying out though.

Re:Seems pretty obvious

[nurb432]

You dont know who or what i am, so keep your assumptions to yourself. Also, I dont care what you are, if you are offended by words, you got issues.

Re:Seems pretty obvious

[Dr. Impossible]

Please illuminate us. Why is it alright for women to talk like that to men, but not okay when it's the other way around?

Re:Seems pretty obvious

[MikeBabcock]

Most people are offended by words, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I'd like to point out that just as talk therapy can cause real bio-chemical changes to the brain, insults and the like can too.

Re:Seems pretty obvious

[MikeBabcock]

Because the definition of offence requires one to be offended. If the man were offended, the woman would be in the wrong. As most men wouldn't be, most of the time the woman wouldn't be in the wrong.

Re:Seems pretty obvious

[MikeBabcock]

You completely failed the 'x is to y as a is to b' concept there, so I won't dignify your question with a response.

That said, you can name anyone you like as a defendant, judges work out the guilty or not.

How much are they asking?

[Tubal-Cain]

How much money are they trying to get?
$23,148,855,308,184,500?

Fire their asses. Simple as that.

[EWAdams]

You're allowed to hold any idiot opinion you want in the USA. You are not allowed to express it on the job. Workplace harmony trumps freedom to be an asshole. This was settled long ago; it's a dead issue. It goes double for cops, who need both to be sensitive to the public AND to have the full confidence and support of their fellow officers.

Don't like it? Go be a cop in Saudi, where I'm sure you're allowed to be as racist as you like.

Re:Fire their asses. Simple as that.

[mpe]

You're allowed to hold any idiot opinion you want in the USA. You are not allowed to express it on the job.

With the exception of elected officials where it appears to be a requirement :)

Don't like it? Go be a cop in Saudi, where I'm sure you're allowed to be as racist as you like.

So long as your ethnicity is acceptable in the Saudi police force and your form of racism is PC there. Ditto for Zimbabwe...

Re:Fire their asses. Simple as that.

[antirelic]

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," said Judge Sotomayor.

"Don't like it? Go be a cop in Saudi, where I'm sure you're allowed to be as racist as you like."

Or New York, where you can become a judge on a circuit court.

How about "white folks' greed runs a world in need" -- BHO

And this article is tagged Republican? Republicans run their racists out on a rail, Democrats try to put them into the supreme court and elect them to president.

Re:Fire their asses. Simple as that.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're allowed to hold any idiot opinion you want in the USA. You are not allowed to express it on the job.

And yet, somehow, everyone feels free to diss members of my minority group.

  -Phil the middle-aged, straight, white, male, Republican, conservative, evangelical Christian

The solution

[fearlezz]

[...] Philadelphia police officers [...] What is the solution here?

Make sure police officers in the rest of world get to know the site as well?

If the cops wanted...

[Anonymous Coward]

...a forum to anonymously post racist remarks, why didn't they choose 4chan?

One way discrimination

[ATestR]

Ok, if the white cops post their opinions about the minority (black) residents of their city, it's discrimination. Does anybody want to lay odds that a similar comment made by a minority officer about a white resident would NOT be considered discrimination? Or that if an accusation of racial discrimination was made against the minority, that a charge of discrimination against the accuser would be leveled?

I did RTFA. Some of the sample comments that the article displayed were a bit over the top, and the officers that made them should be censured, but calling the statement: "Blacks and other minorities frequently don't have the resources that white people have. Consequently, blacks may not be able to keep their vehicles inspected, registered, and roadworthy." racist is bogus. This is an observation of fact. You could have made the statement more racially neutral by saying "Lower income groups don't have the resources that white people have. Consequently, those groups may not be able to keep their vehicles inspected, registered, and roadworthy." The only difference between the statements is that the first presumes that Blacks and other minorities are lower income. This is a statistic, sad but true. Preventing someone [even a public employee like a police officer] from publicly posting this kind of statement will not change this.

Re:One way discrimination

[hamanu]

Um, dude. That statement by itself isn't racist. The policy that the statement is meant to defend by camouflaging it, RACIAL PROFILING, is racist. And the statement is wrong. Studies (that I do not have links for, sorry) have shown that after dark when the race of a person driving a car is harder to see the racial disparity in traffic stops decreases.

Re:One way discrimination

[Bigjeff5]

Ok, if the white cops post their opinions about the minority (black) residents of their city, it's discrimination.

WTF? That's not discrimination. Do you even know what the word means? It came to be used in regards to minorities in the work place for a reason. It actually means chosing one thing over another. For example, when deciding whether to eat an apple or an orange, you discriminate between them and choos the apple because you like red better, or you may choose the orange because it has more vitamine C. That's discrimination, the meaning doesn't changed when applied to minorities, just the criteria. When it relates to race, "descrimination" means choosing one person over another based solely (or largely) on their ethnicity. It's choosing the apple because it is red rather than for any nutritional value it may have. That's the kind of discrimination in the work force that is illegal.

You are right that discrimination is illegal when it comes to employer-employee interaction. Harassment is also illegal, though they tend to focus on certain criteria (like racial harassment). It is very difficult, however, for an employee who is not in a position of authority over another employee to discriminate them in a way that would be illegal.

At best this is a case of harassment, and even then it seems more like "what they talk about makes me uncomfortable" rather than going out of their way to intimidate their co-workers. I could be wrong, and if I am management should be taken to the cleaners for allowing such behavior in the workplace.

Solution

[KharmaWidow]

Grow up. Its just words. The "victims" give the words power, not the racists. Learn from the gay movement.

I can relate to that...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can relate to that and I'm not even black. I was born in Africa and got my first job in North America as a 'Token Black'. My new employer was rather surprised to see that I was white. Since then, I have on numerous occasions been turned down for a job as soon as the employer learned that I was born in Africa. When I mentioned to a friend that being an African American White causes trouble while job hunting, he said that I have nothing to complain about, since he is an African American White Jew... The only solution to American racism is to start your own company.

Re:I can relate to that...

[kenh]

You don't have to answer the question, and if you do answer the question "African American" is not a race, just as "Latin American" is not a race.

Care to share your citizenship status with us (not legal/illegal, I assume legal, but are you a naturalized citizen, are you working on a visa, etc.? Many employers won't hire foriegn nationals simply because it involves too much paperwork - your "imagined" race issues are likely just that, imagined.

Re:I can relate to that...

[Stiletto]

I had a friend originally from South Africa (white) who, on a lark, applied for a bunch of "African-American" scholarships for grad school, and got a few. I never learned how that ended up since I moved, but I would have loved to be a fly on the wall in school admissions when those conversations (inevitably) happened...

Awk-ward!

Anything to make politically correct buffoons squirm who use the term "African American" as a surrogate for black.

So.....

[Nidi62]

"management has a responsibility to enforce the law fairly and equitably across the city and among their own workforce." ...what law have they broken again?

Re:What's up with black firefighters in the USA?

[pembo13]

These are grown men and women, not little children in a playground. The should be able to take a joke -- they don't have to enjoy it themselves.

Dignity of the Office

[b4upoo]

Usually police function under rules that make reference to the dignity of their position or of the police department. Operating or even participating in any site that is clearly racist might be enough to terminate an officer or just about any public employee.
            As a matter of fact there are laws about members of the public insulting the dignity of an officer as well. If you decide to call a cop a bloated, blue, doughnut swilling creep you can probably be arrested under a similar law in your area.

Laws

[nurb432]

Sometimes are so ludicrous they should be ignored.

Re:Good thing you're white

[Abcd1234]

A-frickin-men. It's truly baffling, to me, that people can defend this kind of behaviour. Uneven enforcement of the law thanks to racism is a big enough problem, already. The last thing we need is the public tolerating outwardly racist cops.

Re:Good thing you're white

[jeffliott]

Quote's work better when you want to accuse a community of such a taboo act.

Re:Good thing you're white

[dickbot]

oh please, enough with the preaching already.

"good thing you're white I guess", bleh, you obviously haven't even read some of the comments, including the one made by someone who isn't black but whose girlfriend is, and who all happen to find this bullshit revoltingly idiotic.

The simple fact is that most of us are aware of racial factors, just like most of us are aware of social, political, sexual, and younameit factors which happen to MATTER in our lives and jobs. Most of us also tend to make fun of essentially two things : ourselves (self-derision) and OTHERS, i.e people and things with substantially different backgrounds, natures, ways of life, etc.

If you can't live with your own humanity, try the Borg. You sound like an 8-yo left-wing convert with the appropriate zeal.

As for the article you linked, I find it very refreshing, especially in our era of self-doubt, total relativism and utter lack-of-ballness.

Also, I am an arab from north Africa. Yeah. Cops are racist indeed ; so are we all.

Re:Good thing you're white

[snowgirl]

The quoted article is interesting. It's interesting because it shows that people can deal with bigoted people.

Guess what? That Neo-Nazi had to take orders from black officers. Blacks actually constitute a disproportionate part of the military, because it's an opportunity to bring themselves out of the disadvantaged situation that they disproportionately hold.

I find it interesting that people would try and push this story as something being done wrong. People want gays in the military? Well, grats, you get neo-nazis, too. Here's the difference, and the one and only thing were this doesn't apply. If any particular group of people create an environment where employees don't want to be in, then it's a violation of US law. (Whether you think it's moral or not is irrelevant.)

If that neo-nazi in the story had been offensive and harassing of his fellow soldiers, then his superior officers would have done something about it. Rather, they realized it was just a view of his, and joked around about it. Why? Because he did his job, and didn't let his opinions get in the way. This is obvious, because if he had refused to obey a superior officer who was black, which over the course of 2 years is a certainty, then they would have drummed him out of the military.

Make the Taxpayers PAY!!

[MarkvW]

So the taxpayers of the city ought to pay for stuff dumbass cops do? Not only that--the lawyers get attorney fees for this case if they win!

You can't fire the dumbass cops, because they have all their contractual and Loudermill (civil due process) rights.

Racist bullshit is intolerable in a police force. The key for me in this case is whether or not the plaintiffs really tried to work within the system to get the dumbass racist bullshit to stop--and whether police admin. gave stopping the bullshit their best shot.

If cop admin did the best they could or if the plaintiff's didn't really try to use existing procedures to get the bullshit to stop, then the plaintiffs and their lawyers are greedy assholes who should go to hell.

Otherwise . . . the taxpayers will pay. Unfortunately, unfucking a fucked up police culture is one of the most impossible things in the world to do. So, the taxpayers pay and pay and pay--and nothing gets fixed. The system is fucked up.

But, there is a bright shining lining to all of this---THE FUCKING LAWYERS GET PAID!!!!!!!!

BTW IAAL!!

Interesting source for the claims

[DaveV1.0]

all-black Guardian Civic League

So, these black officers belong to an all-black, and presumably black-only, group are claiming racism. I guess they should know as they belong to a racist organization. Imagine the outcry if there were an all-white group.

Re:Interesting source for the claims

[Abcd1234]

If said league made a habit of posting anti-white hate jokes, and the members of said league proceeded to tell said jokes in the workplace, then you might have a point. Given there's no evidence that's the case, I'd say your argument is specious at best. Nice job creating a false equivalency, though.

Re:Interesting source for the claims

[DaveV1.0]

Including or excluding people solely because of their race is... racist. Thanks for playing, you lose.

Isn't this already covered by existing rules?

[kenh]

The assertions are that:

a) A police officer owns/runs a website that sometimes hosts racist humor/statements.

b) Some police officers access this site and tell others what they saw/read there while "on the job".

c) Some police officers update the website while on the job.

d) Some police officers access/read the website while at work.

The first point (policeman running the website) is perfectly legal - assuming he isn't violating any city ordinances (no pictures while in uniform, representing himself as speaking for the department, etc.).

The Second point (quoting from the site), well, hate speech is hate speech, the source of it is immaterial - would the black cops feel better if the racist comment was being sourced from a Chris Rock concert? Bill Cosby? Police who are found to be harassing fellow officers should be punished, and I'm sure there are ways of making that happen *inside the department*.

The third and fourth points (updating the website from work and reading the website at work), well, if they are on break, and they don't use department resources (for example, they use a PDA/smartphone, not a desktop computer), what is the offense? If they are not on break, again, there are methods for punishing these infractions inside the department I'm sure.

Is there a reason the PD doesn't simply block the webiste in question? Issue a policy saying the website is not to be accessed during work hours or at anytime on police department equipment? Hate speech is already covered, I'm sure.

Re:Good thing you're white

[superdana]

Agreed. The responses to this article are revolting. :/

Re:Racist government.....

[Anonymous Coward]

"enjoy advantages that are invisible to them but plainly visible to everyone else" Or really? Like set asides, quotas and score boosts based on the color of your skin, which cannot be white in order to receive those? So the middle class black kids deserve more help than trailer park white kids? As for equality - what you are demanding is completely stupid and off base = you are demanding equality of outcome. Sorry, no such thing. Try again - your argument is shot full of holes.

Is this comment racist?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it ironic that the random quote at the bottom when I viewed this page read, "'Laugh while you can, monkey-boy.' -- Dr. Emilio Lizardo."

On another note, I'm not convinced that the quote from "McQ" was intended as a racist, offensive statement. It seemed more like an attempt to tactfully discuss a racial issue. He was not making a generalization about minorities, and his statement about many people of minority groups frequently not having the same resources as whites can be backed up by census data. If anything, he was trying to defend minorities. There is definitely a difference between this comment and the "ghetto monkey faces" comment.

However, this was taken out-of-context, and for all I know, the guy could be a complete asshole. I also realize that patronizing minorities is just as racist as making fun of them.

Assault and battery

[charnov]

Why the hell didn't you call the police and have him prosecuted for assault?

Re:What's up with black firefighters in the USA?

[dogeatery]

Or maybe it's just because most black Americans live in or around poverty, which leads to an increased willingness to take risks both for economic gain (ie., crime) and social justice and support (ie., gangs). After a generation or two of these community institutions, the community's most visible leaders will be those who gained from them, thus leading younger members of the community to adopt practices of the role models at hand. But, you know, that sounds too complicated and your simplified explanation devoid of any context makes a lot more sense.

Where is HR?

[rgviza]

In most companies (I would assume state or municipal authority has the same rules) inappropriate racial comments are forbidden by HR policy. Referencing a forum post is no different since everyone knows what's in the post and can see it.

Inappropriate comments from co-workers are inappropriate whether or not they are in "code language". It's usually a termination worthy offense.

My 2 cents...

I'd report it to my boss. If he didn't do anything I'd pull rank on him (and his boss, and so on) until something got done. If they fired me for it, there'd be a wrongful termination suit and I'd win.

-Viz