White Workers Should Not Complain That They Are Being Forced Into Political Correctness

I was speaking to someone, who mentioned a conversation she had with a White, male coworker. He was complaining about political correctness and saying that he thought some people used it as a crutch to play the victim because they were overly sensitive and wanted to control everyone by being part of the so-called “word police.”

Here’s my take on political correctness (especially at work)…

You can’t say what the f*ck you want to say!

Period! This goes for the workplace or anywhere else. There are consequences for running your mouth a certain way and offending people, such as getting your a** kicked, getting written up at work, hiding from your neighbors (so you don’t get your a** kicked), losing respect from people you were friendly with, losing your job, etc.

Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but everyone doesn’t have the right to go around saying the most offensive things to any and everyone and then getting upset, when the person tells them off, confronts them about their language or makes a formal complaint about what they’ve said.

We live in a country, where Blacks were called “ni**er,” “boy,” “coon,” “spade,” and anything under the sun by Whites. This was in and out of the workplace. So, now, that people can’t be as fast and footloose as they want with demeaning language, racial innuendo, and flat out bad manners, they want to complain that people are policing them and violating their right to insult others.

This whole political correctness thing came out of the fact that Blacks, gays, women, the physically and mentally challenged, etc. were all being very vocal about what they would and would not tolerate regarding language and labels. Everyone was fed up! It was part of an attempt to censor those, who obviously cannot censor themselves.

You should not have to be told that you can’t say certain things to or in front of certain people. If you had any fair portion of a decent upbringing, you wouldn’t even have to be told that you have to watch your mouth. We all know people say all sorts of things in private conversations. But, once you leave your home and, particularly in the workplace (representing someone else and receiving money for your skills), you do not have a right to show every inch of your ignorance.

Blacks and others are tired of hearing people defend bigots and other miscreants with arguments that we so-called misunderstood what they said or meant or that we are taking it the wrong way or that they didn’t know any better or that they didn’t mean it that way, etc. Everyone in the workplace needs to stop defending people who repeatedly say things that would fall into the category of being politically incorrect.

If you say it more than once, regardless of how you may change the words up a bit, then you meant it. It’s not about political correctness. It’s not about so-called joking around. Watch your mouth!

As far as management in the workplace, everyone must be held to the same standard. I guarantee you that a Black person being politically incorrect and calling a White coworker or manager a “cracka” or “ofay” or something else would quickly escalate into the Black person being written up, suspended, terminated, etc. So, we need to see that kind of vigilance in dealing with foul and offensive language on both sides.

If someone finds it hard to work 4, 8 or however many hours they work per day without saying something that isn’t politically correct, that person has a real problem! They are sick. It should not take any effort to be respectful of everyone around you. If you are having issues, that is on you and has nothing to do with anyone being sensitive, hypersensitive or ultrasensitive.

It takes a lot of nerve to get angry because you’re used to saying what the f*ck you want and now you can’t do it. Just be glad you got away with it for as long as you did and call it a day. Get your stuff together and behave like a decent human being. Give everyone the respect they deserve and that you would demand and you will never have to worry about being politically correct. You will never cross that line!!!

Update: Reporting and Documenting the Pro-Discrimination Conference Call

A short post at the end of the week to update you on what’s happened regarding the conference call I mentioned on Monday. The call promoted discrimination/segregation of work. I will remind you that my coworker asked me to stay out of the situation, since I was not on the phone call. I will also remind you that my coworkers do not want to go to EEOC at this time. Anyway, here’s what’s happened:

1. My coworker documented the call, including who specifically said what about the intentional discrimination and segregation of work assignments;

2. My coworker conducted research into anti-discrimination laws;

3. My coworker wrote a memo to our supervisor, which included the specifics of what happened, strong language regarding how offensive the call was (including statements made by White coworkers and our supervisor), and highlights of Federal law and company policy, which state that discrimination is illegal and that segregation of work is illegal—with examples from the EEOC;

4. My coworker asked for an official explanation for the discriminatory conduct being promoted/encouraged;

5. My coworker asked for an official phone conversation about her memo and concerns; and

6. My coworker followed that up with a memo to the Regional Director of our group. She explained what happened and that the policy was illegal. She asked for a copy of the official policy on transitioning work, in writing.

Analysis of the Race-Based Conference Call

Yesterday’s post included a near verbatim transcript of the race-based portion of a work-related conference call. The conversation took place between 8 of my team members/coworkers and our supervisor. If you didn’t read yesterday’s post, you should probably check it out because I am about to make a list of some of the issues I have with what was said on the phone call. Starting with:

1. It’s clear Black workers are being denied assignments based solely or primarily on race and/or color;

2. Using race-based assumptions to justify discrimination. It was directly stated that “White yuppies” wanted to see people who are just like them. Therefore, it was recommended that no minorities be sent out to this neighborhood;

3. Using perceived reality to justify discrimination. Even if it is so-called reality that those “White yuppies” wanted to only see people like them, it doesn’t mean an employer—let alone a Federal contractor—should pander to those desires;

4. It is illegal to assign workers to projects simply because of client, customer or coworker preference. We might not find Blacks or other minorities working on most projects at any company if clients, customers, and/or coworkers could dictate staffing based on their biases and so-called comfort level;

5. Race/Color based prejudices were openly shared on that conference call. A White worker openly recommended excluding Black workers from assignments and said that a White person wouldn’t be successful in a Black neighborhood AND that someone “dark and strange” should be sent out for interviews. What does color have to do with anything? Even if it were a legitimate argument to exclude people based on race—and it is not—would that mean that you could also exclude people based on color? So a Black person had to be what shade of “dark” to get that assignment? And what did this White woman mean when she said the interviewer should be both dark and STRANGE?;

6. Using racially offensive language. See #1 and #4;

7. Defending workplace segregation and telling a complaining Black employee to lighten up about the issue (and then making a color-based joke about the Black woman’s complexion and “lightening up,” when she is believed to be off the conference call);

8. The supervisor never corrected either White subordinate. In fact, he defended their comments and made the Black worker out to be hypersensitive or not understanding of how “we work around here.”His actions and inaction on the race- based conversation only serves to encourage the White workers to continue to share these biases and to influence the distribution of work on a race-based basis;

9. The supervisor bad-mouthed the complaining Black worker with her White coworker. He thought he did this behind the Black worker’s back, but she was listening to the conference call with a phone on mute. The supervisor is clearly showing where he stands on this issue and that he is unprofessional and racist;

10. The supervisor even went as far as to “joke” with his White subordinate that he’d hoped she would have called the Black worker the “n-word.” Nothing else needs to be said about his racial biases, lack of professionalism, and every indication that he clearly has no qualms with violating Federal statutes that prohibit discrimination in the workplace;

11. The White workers are ensuring that they never have to interact with the Black community. In fact, one White worker was overheard saying she was “scared of these people [Blacks].” This is clearly a contributing factor to their desire to establish “White work” and “Black work.” There is also a safety issue. For instance, sending Black men and women to dangerous neighborhoods, but not requiring White workers to interview in neighborhoods with higher crime rates. Contrary to popular belief, just because someone is Black doesn’t mean they are accustomed to or are unafraid of violence!

12. To reiterate on #4, it is illegal to discriminate in the workplace. This includes segregation of work assignments, which is at the heart of this issue, as well as race/color discrimination.

Those are the first 12 points, off the top of my head. What do you think? POST A COMMENT!

A Supervisor is Overheard “Joking” About the N-Word with a White Subordinate

This post is based on actual events relayed to me, S. Mary Wills, this morning.

I just started a new job and received a phone call from a Black coworker, who was very upset. She’d just been on a morning group conference call with our supervisor and 8 other team members. FYI, I participate in the nightly conference call. So, I can only tell you what has been relayed to me by 3 people on that morning conference call.

The work we do is field work in support of a government contract. We are out in the community, each assigned to different areas. Near the middle of our quarterly field assignments, we will sometimes (I am told) switch assignment areas to see if someone else might have more success in that location. So, that’s the background. You should also know that I have changed the real names of the people involved, but the content is dead on.

Keep in mind, this is not everything said on the call, but those comments related to race. These are the people involved:

JOE (a White, male and supervisor of everyone on the call)
BECKY (a White, female field worker)
SUZY (a White, female field worker)
DEBRA (a Black, female field worker)
CHRISTIAN (a Puerto Rican, male field worker)

Becky, Suzy, Debra, and Christian are all on the same level in the same position. Debra and Christian are new employees.

Here’s what was said: (I am paraphrasing except where you see quotes)

Joe: So, Becky, are you ready to transition your work to someone else on the team?

Becky: Yeah, but “just make sure you send someone White" to my area.

Debra: “Excuse me, but are you saying that Black people or minorities can't work in your area? That’s not right. That sounds racist to me."

Becky: Where I’ve been working is "just young White yuppies and that's what they want to see." That's all I'm saying.

Joe jumps into the conversation and asks Suzy about who should cover her area. Suzy replies:

Suzy: My area isn’t really White like it says on the listing sheet. It’s mostly Black. "You should send a Black person to my area, but make sure that they're dark and strange."

Debra. “Hold on. I'm taking offense to this. Black and strange? What does Black and strange mean?"

Joe (to Debra): "Well, we have to match the people with the community."

Becky (to Debra): "You are taking this all out of context and all out of proportion. You just need to lighten up a bit.” This is how we do things around here.

Debra and Becky go back and forth on the issue.

Christian: “Look, I'm not Black. But, what she said was wrong. It was wrong. To use the word "strange" that wasn't professional and it wasn't right."

Joe: "Let's move right along. Any other questions?"

Debra: "You can't just sweep this under the rug, Joe. You can't let people take offense and keep moving along."

Joe: I’ll speak to everyone on your individual calls. Does anyone in the group have any questions or issues?

So, the call goes on and Debra hangs up. But, Christian doesn’t. Once Debra hung up, and Joe and Becky thought Christian did, Joe and Becky beginning talking about the race conversation.

Christian puts his phone on mute and hears Joe and Becky talking about Debra and race. Christian puts his house phone on mute and calls Debra on his cell phone. He places his cell phone on the speaker setting so that Debra and another person can also eavesdrop on the conversation.

Becky: "You need to tell them about that [assigning people to locations based on their race]. They need to know. I am scared of these people.”

Joe: "In NY it's not just a race thing, but a lot of ethnic racism, like Haitians against Jamaicans and Puerto Ricans against Dominicans.”

Becky: I didn’t know that.

Joe (laughing): “I was really hoping that you would call her the n-word (laughing)…And, you were telling her to lighten up. She probably took offense that. She’s Black and you kept saying lighten up. (laughing)"

Becky: “I don't know what her complexion is. I’ve never even met her!"

Joe: "She's a dark skinned woman and you kept saying she needed to lighten up!"

Joe and Becky both break into hysterical laughter.

There was exchange between Joe and Becky where they said that another field worker shouldn’t be sent to a certain neighborhood because she was Black (that was okay), but she had a British accent and Haitians in the neighborhood wouldn't like her and she wouldn't do well. But, the Jamaicans would like her.

I will post my analysis on all the things that went horribly wrong on this call and regarding the portion of the call that was overhead—and confirmed to my by 3 people!

In the meantime, what do you think about this conference call? Post your comments.

The Sean Bell Murder Defense Team Uses Similar Tactics as Workplace Employers

When Sean Bell was murdered by NYPD undercover officers, I quickly wrote a post about how the smear tactics used against him, starting the day after his murder, were quite similar to tactics used by employers, when they face charges of racism against Black workers.

When I opened the newspaper this morning, I was again reminded of that connection. Here’s how the defense team characterized Sean Bell during the opening day of the trial:

-- Sean Bell wasn’t described as “inebriated” or as having had “one too many” or as having been “drunk” or as being “two sheets to the wind” or as having gotten “sh*t-faced.” No. Those expressions weren’t good enough for the defense. So, they called this dead Black man “pissy drunk.”

-- The defense wondered what kind of man held a bachelor party at a place where patrons, “watch women shake their booty and fulfill a sense of twisted sexual prowess.”

Boy! Talk about using racism and racial stereotyping to cloud the real issues that are being examined. Listening to this defense, you could mistakenly surmise that:

1) White men don’t get “pissy drunk;”
2) White men don’t drink at bachelor parties;
3) White men don’t get “pissy drunk” at bachelor parties;
4) White men don’t go to strip clubs;
5) White men don’t have bachelor parties at strip clubs;
6) White men don’t get strippers to perform for them at bachelor parties outside of strip clubs (e.g., in hotel rooms, etc.); and
7) White men, in general, don’t like to observe women in sexual situations AND they don’t like to see their “booty” or breasts, etc. (e.g., watching strippers, watching porn, etc.)

A man is being attacked for having a bachelor party that features strippers and drinks (and the prosecution says he had ONE DRINK)?! Are you kidding me?

Likewise, in the workplace, routine and normally accepted behavior is often twisted and used in a sick campaign to discredit a worker or to justify discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation against them.

That’s why this defense reminds me of workplace racism. The defense boils down to an overwhelming reliance on racial stereotyping, twisting reality, and character assassination!

I’ve said it before, when employers have a race-based issue happen with a Black worker, many times they become ultrasensitive, they stereotype the Black employee to defend themselves and justify their actions, they over-rely on character assassination, they will paint the Black employee as having brought any actions and consequences on themselves (blaming the victim), they will say there were communication problems with unintended results, they will defend the offending employee and will declare them unaccountable for any actions that resulted as a consequence of their behavior (even if it was illegal or unethical), and they will often refuse to display even the slightest bit of remorse for any loss (reputation, promotion, salary, the job itself, etc.) suffered by the Black worker.

There is no gutter many employers aren’t willing to roll in and no reality that many employers will not twist to suit their needs.

In my case, and in the case of a coworker, I was attacked for playing a radio in my office. This was done after I complained and participated in an external investigation of my employer. There wasn’t a single policy against radio playing. In fact, even executives and VPs often listed to the radio or played CDs in their offices. But, I was called out for this, as if I committed a great act of unprofessionalism or did something unethical or illegal. I wasn’t even accused of playing the radio loudly, of singing along loudly or doing anything inappropriate. The argument was that I played a radio, as if that somehow opened me up to corporate attack in some legitimate fashion.

In another attack, my employer went after me for shutting my office door. This is also normally accepted social behavior at my workplace—and was never an issue before I complained of mistreatment. However, my employer said that it showed that I was “closed off,” wasn’t manager material, “was unavailable,” and that closing my door somehow justified me being denied a promised promotion. I was told by an executive, “If you crack your door, that’s the final piece in you getting a promotion.”

A few problems for my employer, included; a previous supervisor told me that I could shut my office door, I worked with confidential salary information and always had staff trying to stare at salaries on my computer screen, I was being subjected to a hostile and offensive work environment (including being told that I was being “watched” by members of management), and White staff routinely shut their doors.

When White staff shut their doors, they were just busy or assumed to be on a conference call or tight deadline. But, I was supposed to be up to no good, even though there was never a written or unofficial policy stating that office doors had to remain open. Despite that, my employer stated they had an “open door policy,” even though everyone knows that means that staff must have access to management and not that all doors must remain open!

This is how low some employers will go to twist reality and to alter perceptions. This is how far some people will go to discredit a good employee and to protect an employee, who’s exposed the company to financial and legal jeopardy. I was attacked because of a radio and a door! I wasn’t accused of lying about my allegations. I was accused of misunderstanding the racists! I just somehow suddenly came under attack and somehow brought it on myself, even though there was no evidence of real behavior or work-related problems on my part.

When it comes to racism, this trial (like so many others) shows that racists and those that defend them seem to work from the same blueprint. It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about the workplace or the criminal justice system. All you have to do is:

-- Blame the victim
-- Engage in character assassination
-- Don’t accept any responsibility for your actions
-- Rely on stereotypes
-- Pander to racist impulses
-- Twist events to suit your whims
-- Warp “perceptions” into reality
-- Claim misunderstandings and miscommunication
--Turn normally accepted behavior into character defaults

Nice plan of defense, huh?

This is why many Black workers remain silent, rather than fight back against workplace racism. The attacks are often so overwhelming and so baseless that it makes fighting back seem like a useless endeavor.

But, some battles are worth waging, regardless of the outcome. Sometimes you have to throw down the gauntlet and say "enough is enough."

African Americans have a proud history of triumphing over adversities. We will not succumb to anyone's blueprint!!

Playing To Race In Politics And In The Workplace

Hillary Clinton is a desperate housewife.

She felt entitled to the presidency and thought she was just going to waltz back into the White House without breaking a sweat. But, life and reality got in the way and she saw that she might not get her way. Sen. Clinton tried to tout experience to the masses, miscalculating that this was the theme for the ’08 elections. She lost Iowa.

Then, she tried to steal Obama’s theme of change saying that she had experience that could lead to change. She barely won New Hampshire—Clinton country. So, she panicked. She called together big-wigs in the Democratic Party, so they could figure out what was going wrong and how she could slow down or stop Sen. Obama’s campaign. In doing so, she showed her true colors. That’s why I’ve come up with a list of 5 top-of-mind ways that Sen. Clinton’s actions are similar to tactics companies use against complaining Black employees:

1. She devised a “scorched earth” plan similar to the way corporate execs or HR staff develop a “scorched earth” plan to use against an employee complaining of race discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation. “Scorched earth” is used to silence, destroy, and seek the termination of a complaining employee. “Scorched earth” is an onslaught designed to be so unbearable that almost any reasonable employee would shut up or resign, rather than continue to be subjected to its wrath. (See www.hillaryis44.com for what is alleged to be a possible “backdoor” to Hillary Clinton’s war room)

2. She and her surrogates are using racially-based slander and innuendo to sully Sen. Obama’s reputation and to reinforce stereotypes. There have been at least 3 instances of Sen. Obama being accused of being a drug dealer by Clinton’s surrogates/supporters, including Robert Johnson (formerly of BET). Each time the remark has been subtle, but very clear…Sen. Obama used drugs and may have sold drugs. The repeated mentioning of drugs and drug dealing could only be done with the sanctioning of Sen. Clinton. It is her campaign. Clinton and her surrogates are engaging in race-based shenanigans that are similar to workplace campaigns that are designed to destroy the reputation of Black workers, to turn them into pariahs, and to cut them off from any potential support groups. Unsubstantiated claims are often made and are possibly retracted, but the damage is done.

3. She’s accusing Sen. Obama of being racially divisive and of causing the fuss that is permeating the airwaves. Just as is often the case in the workplace, she is making the Black person the troublemaker and the “race-baiter.” A friend of mine was accused by an HR manager of being a “segregationist” and a “race-baiter” because she tried to stand up against false attacks by her White supervisor and a White coworker. She was told she was playing for race because she was probably planning a lawsuit. That’s the trick…Whites play up the Black person as the one with racial issues and pretend to be innocent of any racial biases or motivations.

4. She is trying to get Sen. Obama off message. Just as in the workplace, complaining employees are often forced off the issues due to the workplace bait and switch. For instance, you start a meeting trying to explain that someone called you a monkey and end up discussing whether or not you are sensitive. Before you know it, you are never discussing that you were called a monkey and are only defending yourself against being sensitive, hypersensitive or of misunderstanding the events that transpired. This is the switch Clinton is trying to pull on Obama, trying to get him talking about Black vs. White, instead of about America as a whole.

5. She’s playing on the African-American habit of hating on other Blacks—to the benefit of Whites. She can count on attacking Sen. Obama, even racially, and STILL feel confident that some prominent African-Americans will publicly defend her. They may criticize her or warn her behind the scenes about her tactics, but the public face of these Blacks will show support for the White establishment. For instance, Robert Johnson (will discuss him tomorrow) called Sen. Obama a drug user and drug dealer through innuendo. This is similar to the workplace. Black employees are often coerced (through bribes, fear, etc.) or will volunteer to isolate/ignore or assist in targeting a Black coworker for the benefit of the Whites. Blacks are must decide if they will participate in the campaign against a targeted Black worker or if they will “sit it out” and stay on the sidelines—pretending not to hear, see or know anything about anything.

Some have asked if Hillary Clinton made the MLK remarks to lead to this point of racial debate. Who knows? But, she has played this at every turn to escalate the racial overtones. Clearly, she sees this discussion as a benefit to her long-term goal of winning the Democratic nomination. Wall Street Journal Writer, Peggy Noonan, says that Hillary Clinton is willing to do anything to win (read: destroy Barack Obama) and will deal with the fallout [with Blacks], when she gets to that point.

Yet, for some reason Blacks are willing to overlook all of these race-based tactics. We are still salivating at the chance to vote for her!! This is not about Blacks being sensitive. If Sen. Clinton misspoke, with the Lyndon Johnson vs. MLK comment, she should have said so. Instead, she chose to accuse Sen. Obama of planting thoughts and words in the ether, like he and his campaign staff have some sort of mass Black-people mind control apparatus at their fingertips.

Hillary Clinton has played the race-card to perfection. Sen. Obama has been running as an American candidate. Focusing on race has never been his intent because (as anyone with common sense can tell you) focusing on race virtually guarantees he won’t get into the White House. America will never vote for a Black man, who they feel is “racially polarizing.” You know what I mean…like Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton, who both ran for president and failed to get the nomination. White Independents and Republicans, like the sort who’ve voted for Sen. Obama in Iowa and New Hampshire, will now feel much more comfortable considering him as “unelectable” because they will now focus on his race and not his message of “change.” Sen. Obama talked about doing things differently and now he is being entrapped into a race-based discussion that will get people thinking…see it’s just more of the same…he’s full of sht*t!

Black people…WAKE UP!

Sen. Obama has a reason for trying to keep things out of a racial focus. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose. He will NEVER be president, if he runs a campaign that seems to make everything a Black this vs. a White that.

This days-long debate, started by Hillary Clinton, benefits her in the long-term. She can rally Whites to her side because it’s her side they will pick, when it comes to a race-based issue. Whites, who’ve shown they are open to voting for Sen. Obama, will now think even harder about supporting him because he now looks like another run-of-the-mill, chip on his shoulder, angry, drug dealing Black man, who is militant and sees racial issues in the clouds!

Some of us have been so focused on labels (wondering why Obama doesn’t talk about being Black and why he doesn’t bring up Black issues every 2 seconds). Well, you wanted labels…

Go ahead and thank your “girl” Hillary for coming hard with them. In one fell swoop, she’s taken Sen. Obama from a viable candidate to a street-corner, drug slinging ni**er. How about that label?

Did your “girl” do you proud?

As I mentioned earlier, there’s a web site, which is alleged to be a “back door to her [Clinton’s] war room.” The link is www.hillaryis44.com. This site includes a post that is asking if Federal Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, is going to “destroy” Sen. Obama for some connection to an “indicted slumlord” and because of “shady [land] deals.” The more you look at the site, the more it reads less like some regular blogger and more like a politician or political aide fronting as a blogger. It’s way too strategic and the negative information is really out there as far as character destruction. Check it out and then feel real proud about your candidate.

Have a great time pulling the lever for her in the primaries and general election.

I for one will NEVER vote for Sen. Clinton now. Her race-based politics hit way too close to home for my taste and I don't believe any of it is an accident. I don’t care who the Republican nominee is…Hillary Clinton ceases to exist in my book. She can't count on this Black person!

Tomorrow, I want to deal with Robert Johnson having the audacity to go to the drug issue, when he gave us all the stereotypes and former-drug dealing rappers on BET! Talk about timely…this fits right into my Blacks Hating on Blacks post from a few days ago!

Supreme Court Back in Session: Taking on Crack Cocaine

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court is heading back in session, they will be dealing with a number of controversial issues. One of those issues will require the court to decide whether sentences given out in crack cases are harsher than sentences given out in cocaine cases.

There have long been claims that crack dealers receive harsher sentences than cocaine dealers. Some believe that the sentencing disparity is caused by Federal guidelines that more harshly punish Blacks for drug offenses.

According to estimates, more than four-fifths of crack offenders are Black. Conversely, only about one-fourth of cocaine offenders are Black. Spelled out, almost seventy-five percent of cocaine offenses are committed by non-Blacks (read: those who are White or some other race). However, under Federal guidelines, many Whites will qualify for lesser prison sentences.

A 1986 law was passed in response to violent crimes committed to get money to feed crack habits. The law includes what critics have called the 100-to-1 disparity: Trafficking in 5 grams of crack cocaine carries a mandatory five-year prison sentence, but it takes 500 grams of cocaine powder to warrant the same sentence. Thus, the disparity in sentencing guidelines was born.

The sentencing commission, an independent agency within the U.S. judiciary, voted (in May) to reduce the recommended sentencing ranges for people convicted of crack possession, a step toward lessening the disparity. The recommendation will become effective Nov. 1 unless Congress acts.
I’ll post any updates on this issue in the future.

Source: www.law.com

Black New Jersey Kids Ticketed for Jaywalking!

Black kids in Teaneck, New Jersey are being issued $54 jaywalking tickets by the police. The kids are students at the predominantly Black Thomas Jefferson Middle School. The youngest child to get a ticket was 11-years old. Not only did these kids get jaywalking tickets, they were also placed into police cars and driven back to school.

The police say they aren’t singling kids out based on race, so why then the presence at this particular school? And, why aren’t they having police wait outside all middle schools to ticket all children committing the same offense? Certainly this school has been singled out for a reason. There’s always a reason for everything. It’s not just chance that police are targeting this school.

The police also say they aren’t trying to traumatize the kids by placing them in squad cars. They say they just want to “get them back to a responsible adult.” Stopping a child to write them a ticket is going to be traumatic no matter how you try to justify it. If I were an 11 year old stopped by a cop, my heart would be beating out of my chest and I’d be completely terrified. Of all the crimes occurring in Teaneck, NJ and all of the ticketable offenses, this is what the police want to focus on?

The police have tried to justify the ticketing by saying they were only responding to “complaints from neighbors.” Okay. So, the predominantly Black students at this school are the only students in Teaneck, NJ, who jaywalk/walk off the sidewalk. Yeah, right. Point me to a school, where this isn’t commonplace. I see it everyday of the week.

I guess there aren’t enough murders, robberies, drugs being sold, etc. for the police to occupy their time.

TELL US ABOUT IT: Do you think the actions of the police in Teaneck, NJ are reasonable? How would you respond…as a parent? Post a comment or send an email to blackonthejob@yahoo.com.

Source: http://wcbstv.com/local/local_story_269184939.html

I Just Want To Work With Someone Like Me!

A friend of mine (Black) went on an interview and called me afterwards because of a comment that was repeatedly made by the interviewer (White). The interviewer kept saying: “We really like our culture here. We like how things are.”

Why did my friend feel this was worth repeating? The company she was interviewing for had about 11 employees. Out of 11 employees, only one was Black…and she was the receptionist. It was also worth repeating because she went in to interview for a senior research analyst job, but as soon as the interviewer got a look at her…all of a sudden the job was being down-graded one component at a time. The more the interview went on, the more junior the job became. Finally, it was to the point where my friend would have wound up having research-related note-taking and word-processing as major components of this potential job. She was also told she would have to take a salary cut.

I remember working for an employer, where—more than anywhere I’d ever worked—I’d hear staff talking about finding people that “fit” or saying that someone was a perfect “fit” on the job. In fact, there seemed to be a high concentration of staff in one department, who were more likely to make theses comments than employees and managers in other departments. The department? Conference Services. The employees and managers making the remarks? White women.

And, boy, did they ever “fit.” They shopped at the same stores, talked about their nannies and housekeepers, gave tips on doing window treatments and Martha Stewart style home improvements, bragged about their homes and their husbands, and they dressed like carbon copies of each other. Heck, they even got to the point where many of them spoke the same way. If you closed your eyes, you really wouldn’t know who you were dealing with. They were so similar, generalizing works pretty well on them. They were elitist, sarcastic, arrogant, and dismissive. And, they each had a say in hiring decisions because they were part of the mid-level and senior management structure in their department.

Whenever it came time to bring anyone new into their department, they only cared about one thing…finding someone that “fit.” When minorities interviewed, they could never quite put their fingers on it, but something just wouldn’t be right. The more people got hired, the more you could easily see that to “fit,” you had to be just like them--White, from money (or married to money) and female. They wanted someone else to go to DSW with, someone else to get margaritas after work with, and someone else, who could keep an eye on their cat, when they were out of town.

Some would argue: Maybe these people weren’t stereotyping and maybe they weren’t racist. Maybe they were just looking to create a great team that worked harmoniously and efficiently. Maybe they just hired the best interviewees. Maybe the Black or other minority candidates weren’t the best “fit.”

I say this…if you are a White interviewer or someone who has input into hiring decisions and you can’t imagine many circumstances in which a minority applicant would “fit” in at your company or within your corporate “culture,” then you are probably a racist and—based on that—you should not be rewarded with the power to impact anyone’s livelihood. If you are prone to thinking that a minority staff member will disrupt the harmony, efficiency or any other aspect of department, group, etc…again, you are probably a racist. And, you don’t deserve the ability to have a say so about any employment decisions.

Let me tell you about those women, who were preoccupied with “fit.” They went out of their way to make a Black, male Meeting Planner appear to be incompetent. They would go to the director of the department and claim that he botched nearly every assignment—by leaving steps out, skirting away from instructions, and displaying other performance deficiencies. They even went as far as to start the rumor that he had a learning disability. He was a college graduate. And, he didn’t have a learning disability. They also routinely called him lazy. This Black man was never eligible for promotion, based on their attacks on his work performance, work effort, knowledge, etc. He was a dumb, lazy Black man—according to them.

You want to know the real issue? They didn’t want this Black man promoted to their level, making the same or similar money, having more of a voice within the department, etc.

Within 2 years of resigning his position and working for a new employer, this Black employee was promoted twice—something that hadn’t happened once in the nearly 5 years he was at our job. And, he became a manager. Clients were requesting him for projects. He was traveling around the world, far surpassing anyone of these women. Still, when he worked at our job, they fixed him good. They made a coordinated effort to stifle his career and they succeeded. Stopping his opportunity to advance hindered his overall employment opportunities (and his pay) and probably represented intentional discrimination.

According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, intentional discrimination occurs when an employment decision is affected by the person's race. It includes not only racial animosity, but also conscious or unconscious stereotypes about the abilities, traits, or performance of individuals of certain racial groups.

And, as far as the question about whether or not it’s okay to hire people or assign people to projects based on who people would like to work with, report to, be served by, etc., Title VII also says this: Basing employment decisions on the racial preferences of clients, customers, or coworkers constitutes intentional race discrimination. Employment decisions that are based on the discriminatory preferences of customers or coworkers are just as unlawful as decisions based on an employer's own discriminatory preferences.

It is illegal to hire people simply because they look like you or are perceived to be like you or who are perceived to “fit,” while intentionally denying employment to minority candidates. It isn’t okay and is illegal to deny someone a promotion, raise, etc. in favor of giving these things to people who are like you, look like you, and who “fit.”

You should listen to the language being used at your job and look at who is benefiting from policies, practices, unofficial guidelines or tolerated attitudes and behaviors (stereotyping, etc)., which may be illegal. If you believe you are the victim of unequal treatment, intentionally or unintentionally, you should consider your options. You may want to pursue the issue by filing an internal or external complaint.

Why Non-Work Related Posts are Covered on this Blog (and another Sean Bell case update)

I have another update on the Sean Bell case. For anyone wondering why I provide updates about Sean Bell’s murder on a blog about workplace racism, there are 2 reasons: 1) There are sometimes non-work related issues that are important to Blacks and that still deal with the general issue of racism in America and 2) There are usually parallels between racist activity taking place out in communities and racism that takes place in offices.

For instance, the Sean Bell police shooting:

-- Stereotyping was one of the first responses to the Sean Bell shooting. Bell and his friends, although they had police records, were hyped up even more as dangerous thugs—even though they didn’t possess weapons. Now we see the new angle I mentioned here earlier this week, that is turning Bell and his friends into dangerous AND oversexed thugs. Bell and his friends alleged wanted sex so badly that night they followed a woman to her car to ask her to sleep with all of them at a hotel. This is despite the fact that the police were doing an undercover sting at the strip club because the strippers were allegedly doubling as prostitutes. If that is the case, Bell and his friends could have gotten “specials” right inside the establishment.

The same way stereotyping was used against Bell and his friends to make them seem worthy of being fired upon more than 50 times, many Blacks fighting racism in the workplace have to deal with stereotyping that often portrays them as being lazy, mean/rude/angry/defensive, insubordinate, overly sensitive, etc. These stereotypes are used to justify whatever doom has befallen the Black worker. The Black worker must be painted as having earned exactly what they got: denied a promotion, suspended, fired, demoted, etc.

-- There was an overreaction to the Black men before and during the shooting. No matter where you fall on this case, one cop firing more than 30 times (stopping to reload), and many other cops firing there weapons—all at unarmed men—is clearly an overreaction. The shooting was so wild that shots hit an elevated train (almost hitting a transit cop) and bullets went into parked cars.

Similarly, when race-based issues come up at work, White staff and members of management are often prone to overreacting to the Black worker and, therefore, are prone to overreact to the situation, in general. Instead of being honest about what’s happening at work and having someone apologize for abuse or attempting to rectify abuse, some Whites decide to overreact and they go on an all out assault that is WAY OVER THE TOP for the situation.

-- As with the Bell case, there are credibility issues. For instance, police said there was a 4th man with Sean Bell and his friends and this man fired his weapon at police. However, the record of police radio transmissions never show a 4th man was present, doesn’t say a suspect fled the scene and is armed and dangerous, doesn’t give a description of an alleged suspect, etc. It smacks of lies without putting much thought into it.

Similarly, Blacks dealing with race-based issues in the workplace often run into White staff or members of management with credibility issues. Despite gaps in logic and a lack of evidence to support claims against the Black worker, these offenders are willing to continue to engage in behavior and to continue to make excuses for actions that defy logic and require a suspension of disbelief in order to be accepted at face value.

I could go on, but I think you get my point. There are parallels to watching a dead Black man get a similar smack down as Black workers often face. Let’s be honest, racism is racism. The tactics are going to be the same, but the field of battle is what will change.

Anyway, you’ve got my reasoning for non-work related posts on the blog. Now, back to the Bell case:

The police have recently revealed the surprise accusation that Sean Bell was trying to get sex from a woman (the police actually referred to her as a “prostitute”), which supposedly led to an argument with the woman’s male companion. The alleged argument between Bell and this man supposedly caused the police to suspect that Bell and his friends were carrying guns, and/or about to get a gun, and/or were possibly about to engage in a drive by shooting.

I’ve already gone on the record with my belief that this new claim is nothing more than bullsh*t!

The latest from Sean Bell’s family is that the woman he was speaking to is actually a relation of his—by marriage. More importantly, the woman is a witness against the police. She witnessed Sean Bell’s murder and says that he and his friends NEVER received a warning from the police, before the cops opened fire on the group.

She also says that the police have caused her to lose her job by repeatedly showing up at her place of employment. The woman claims she’s receiving death threats telling her not to show up in court or “her a** was out.” She’s had to move because of the threats and fears for her life.

The police insist they are not the ones making the threats. However, it’s worth noting that her testimony is damaging to the police. Who’s got something at stake, as far as a reason to silence this witness? Not Sean Bell’s camp! Enough said.

Where's the Weed?

That’s the question a 19-year old Black teen was asked after he was stopped (by State Troopers in Long Island, NY) for allegedly speeding. But, check this out…not only did the troopers want to know where the kid, Ricky Walker, was stashing “the weed,” the troopers also forced him to throw his car keys out of the window and onto the ground.

How often does that happen in a routine traffic stop—even for speeding? Talk about racial profiling. The troopers instantly thought they would find drugs and assumed they had just encountered someone about to lead them on a high-speed chase. But, they also stereotypically thought they had found a real threat for violence in the baby-faced teenager.

One trooper told the teen that if he looked at the trooper (in the rearview mirror) one more time, “I’ll shoot you in the back of your head…You [expletive] bastard – you move – I’ll kill you!”

This wasn’t about a kid speeding. This was about a Black teen driving a Mercedes. He was DWB (Driving While Black) and doing it in a nice car. This made him a drug dealer, to the troopers.

Just as an FYI, the car belonged to the teen’s mom—a traffic enforcement officer for the NYPD. The trooper that made the stop apologized to the teen, after he left the station a few hours later (with a speeding ticket).

Ricky Walker has retained a lawyer because it appears he was racially profiled by the troopers.

Source: The NY Daily Post, June 20, 2007, Black driver’s ‘bias’ ordeal, by Kieran Crowley