SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
[Update. It appears the original submission was skewing the facts. From the What You Should Know about EEOC and Shelton D. v. U.S. Postal Service (Gadsden Flag case) on the EEOC (US Equal Employment Opportunity Commision) web site:
What You Should Know about EEOC and Shelton D. v. U.S. Postal Service (Gadsden Flag case)
- This decision addressed only the procedural issue of whether the Complainant's allegations of discrimination should be dismissed or investigated. This decision was not on the merits, did not determine that the Gadsden Flag was racist or discriminatory, and did not ban it.
- Given the procedural nature of this appeal and the fact that no investigative record or evidence had been developed yet, it would have been premature and inappropriate for EEOC to determine, one way or the other, the merits of the U.S. Postal Service's argument that the Gadsden Flag and its slogan do not have any racial connotations whatsoever.
- EEOC's decision simply ordered the agency - the U.S. Postal Service - to investigate the allegations. EEOC's decision made no factual or legal determination on whether discrimination actually occurred.
The original story follows. --martyb]
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has determined in a preliminary ruling that wearing clothing featuring the Gadsden Flag constitutes legally actionable racial harassment in the workplace. In short, wearing the Gadsden flag while at work can earn you the title of "racist", earn you harassment charges, and cost you your job. The ideological witch hunt started back in 2014 when a black employee at a privately owned company filed a complaint with the EEOC when he saw a co-worker wearing a hat featuring the Gadsden flag and the words "Don't tread on me." The EEOC has decided to side with the over-sensitive employee, despite already admitting that the flag originated in a non-racial context and has been adopted by multiple non-racial political groups, countless companies and more, since it was created.
The ruling is a preliminary ruling and has not yet been made "official" but the preliminary ruling says that you can be charged with "racial harassment." They have not indicated when an "official" ruling will be made and it is ongoing.
Source: American Military News
Better Source: Washington Post
Facts: EEOC
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday August 08 2016, @10:42PM
Bloomberg notes [bloomberg.com] that the complainant argued that:
They also note that:
And the EEOC itself did not, in fact, rule against the the US Postal Service (the workplace in question) or the wearer of the hat in question. [eeoc.gov] Rather, they requested that the Postal service perform additional investigation, and when, in the EEOC's estimation, they did not do so, said that:
So. In the end, it was a dubious (if not unprecedented) claim that was dismissed by the employer. The EEOC has ruled that it was a claim that met the standard for making a claim, but did not rule on the validity of such a claim.
This is just a bunch of bullshit being trumpeted as the gub'mint "treading" on us, when it's no such thing. Don't we have many *real* issues to deal with?
tl;dr: overly-sensitive person makes dubious claim of harassment. Employer dismisses employee's concerns. EEOC says more investigation is warranted. Batshit crazy "journalist" blows it all out of proportion.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday August 08 2016, @11:38PM
In his complaint to the EEOC, the anonymous writer objected to a co-worker wearing a hat bearing the flag “because the flag was designed by Christopher Gadsden, a ‘slave trader & owner of slaves
That's a pretty weak argument, as Bloomberg and others rightly point out. Not only were slave owners common among the early residents and government of the U.S., but racist views were almost universal back then. Even when you get to the Abolitionist cause in the mid-1800s, most Abolitionists would be considered "racists" by today's standards. It was commonly thought -- even by Northern liberals -- that blacks were inferior, and very few people argued for true equality until the 20th century. (It's a distinction often lost today, but many Abolitionists thought slavery was wrong in the same way that today we might think that beating a dog is wrong. One can be against animal cruelty without necessarily thinking that dogs are equal to people. Even among Abolitionists during the Civil War, there were debates about whether blacks were truly deserving of "equal rights.") So, basically everything in the U.S. that was created or designed before 1900 was likely done by racists, according to today's standards.
But the complainant added the assertion that the flag has come to be “a historical indicator of white resentment against blacks stemming largely from the Tea Party.”
And that would be most relevant if it were the dominant and only association of the flag today. But it is also a common historical flag of the American Revolution, and the motto ("Don't Treat on Me") and the snake have been appropriated into numerous other patriotic symbols and miscellaneous cultural symbols today. Frankly, until I read this story, I wasn't even aware of the Tea Party usage of the flag, since I don't really pay attention to the Tea Party. And even if it has become an association of the Tea Party, the Tea Party is not fundamentally a racist organization (even if it has racist members).
All-in-all, I don't see how one can completely determine the intent of the flag used today without the context. Unless there was some other racist behavior accompanying the use of this flag, I'd have mostly just assumed I was in the presence of a libertarian or a history buff. And thus, in the workplace, perhaps this might be cause for discussion if someone is offended by it, but absent evidence of intent to intimidate or other racist behavior, this seems a pretty hard case to make.
Batshit crazy "journalist" blows it all out of proportion.
Have to disagree on this one. The "crazy 'journalist'" of the original Washington Post piece is Eugene Volokh, a law professor and rights advocate, who was more concerned about the legal ramifications of such a complaint even getting this much attention. As Volokh rightly points out, there are two troubling aspects here: (1) an EEOC investigation that could find wrongdoing here isn't just generating a ruling on this case but rather setting a precedent that all employers must follow or face massive legal penalties, which could create a very chilling atmosphere on workplace interactions, and (2) even if we're willing to grant this particular flag is problematic, is it any more problematic in terms of "racially problematic symbols" than a Trump hat or shirt? Trump has explicitly denounced Mexicans, Muslims, etc. as rapists and terrorists respectively, and his comments on women have on many occasions been downright misogynist. If this complaint deserves further investigation, should we also be investigating every person who mentions support of the Republican nominee in the workplace, regardless of context?? (And even if you personally think political speech should be limited in your workplace, shouldn't that be a matter for an employer to determine, not a universal restriction on free speech throughout the U.S.?)
Volokh has written a lot more on the problematic aspects of government interference with workplace speech here [ucla.edu]. Harassment law that actually prohibits speech is akin to government censorship, since private employers are forced to adhere to it. Yes, the EEOC is merely investigating this claim, but the very idea that they even have the power to rule this flag out-of-bounds for all people in all workplaces in the U.S. is potentially concerning.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @11:59PM
Indeed, the problem here is the presumption that it could be racist instead of having to demonstrate how it is racist. It's a measure of where the burden of proof should lie, where the claimant only has the most tenuous justification.
So now the onus is on the other party to prove that it is not racist. That's not how these things should work unless you want create a climate of fear.
As mentioned elsewhere, the postal service already made a determination. The EEOC is saying that was wrong and isn't good enough, you have to investigate more thoroughly.
If that isn't calling for a witch hunt, nothing is.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday August 09 2016, @03:20PM
As mentioned elsewhere, the postal service already made a determination. The EEOC is saying that was wrong and isn't good enough, you have to investigate more thoroughly.
The postal service dismissed the claim, apparently without investigation, saying it did not meet the standard of a harassment claim. The EEOC said it did meet that standard and should have been investigated. Apparently a few more forms need to be filled out, that is all.
(Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Tuesday August 09 2016, @12:53AM
Eugene Volokh
Oh, that guy!! Conspiracy right in the title. Ukranian? Orange Revolution? Ayn Rand? It has been interesting to watch this entire attempt at a post on SoylentNews unravel so quickly. Reality has a well known liberal bias, or at least all the right wingers are going of into la-la land.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @05:19AM
The "crazy 'journalist'" of the original Washington Post piece is Eugene Volokh,
Not just "crazy" journalist, not even journalist; in fact, lawyer, and a batshit crazy lawyer at that. Why do so many of these ravings from the asylum make it onto the front page of SoylentNews? If only we could detect the source, and stick a weiner in it.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday August 09 2016, @06:09AM
Batshit crazy "journalist" blows it all out of proportion.
Have to disagree on this one. The "crazy 'journalist'" of the original Washington Post piece is Eugene Volokh, a law professor and rights advocate, who was more concerned about the legal ramifications of such a complaint even getting this much attention.
The original story posted contained a link to only one "news" story [americanmilitarynews.com]. The "batshit crazy" appellation was given to the owner of the byline (in this case, "Editorial Staff") of that story.
The WaPo and EEOC links were added (along with a much more balanced look at the case) to the published story later on.
The only opinions I provided in my comment were that the original complaint was "kind of silly," that the complainant was "overly-sensitive" and that the "journalist" responsible for the American Military News piece was "batshit crazy."
I am also somewhat familiar with American history since 1700 or so as well, and am aware that the prevailing view in the United States was one, not only of white supremacy over non-white (don't forget our native american brothers either) *and* non-Protestant minorities well into the 20th century.
Regardless, my issue was with the tone of the original TFS and with the original FA. They were both inflammatory and, more importantly, got the facts wrong.
Check my posting history, friend. You won't find anyone else here who is more supportive of free speech, regardless of the context. You will find that many here are just as supportive of free speech rights as I am. And I'm pretty rabid about it.
Whatever your views are on free speech, in the workplace or otherwise, it's always best to get your facts straight. The original posting and the linked article did not do so. As is evidenced by the complete re-write of TFS. This is almost certainly because numerous people (myself included) called the original out as bullshit. Which it was.
I'm pleased that the editors took the time (and it wouldn't be the first time -- nor will it be the last) to correct the original posting.
I'll say it again. Don't we have *real* problems WRT free speech to address, without ginning up a bunch of fake outrage about some moronic complaint that won't amount to anything? Sigh.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday August 09 2016, @08:19AM
I'm a bit at a loss as to what they might investigate. There's no controversy that the employee displayed that flag and there's no context to believe it is a symbol of racism. So what can they investigate if that's all they've been given?
"That's a table!"
"Uh, yeah..."
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:02AM
I'm a bit at a loss as to what they might investigate. There's no controversy that the employee displayed that flag and there's no context to believe it is a symbol of racism. So what can they investigate if that's all they've been given?
I thought about that myself. It's probable that we don't have the whole story. "Harassment" is a pattern of behavior. Wearing a hat isn't a pattern. As such, I imagine that, if there was in fact harassment, there were other incidents which add up to a pattern of discrimination/marginalization/etc.
Or something else was/is going on, very likely a dispute (whether racially motivated or not) between these two employees.
It's apparent that the Gadsden flag has not, historically, been a symbol of oppression or of white supremacy groups.
However, that doesn't necessarily mean it is not a symbol of bigotry for somebody. Context and intent are paramount, but we don't have any real understanding of those aspects of this case.
To answer your question, the USPS can investigate whether or not there was, in fact, harassment. Which is what the EEOC instructed them to do. If they find harassment, then there will be other issues at play, and the Gadsden flag hat is just a carnival sideshow to the real issues. If they don't find harassment, then no action will be taken and the point is moot.
If there is an issue, the Gadsden flag won't be it, IMHO.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday August 14 2016, @05:49PM
I considered that as well, but the complaints about the shirt are explicitly called out and they are specious at best. The ruling seems to focus on the shirt as well. If it was part of a pattern of harassment, surely they would be interested in the non-shirt aspects and able to come to a decision based on those without needing to delve into the meaning of the shirt.
I sure hope there's more to it.