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.

Race, Politics, and the Workplace

This week, former Vice Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro made controversial comments, which caused an uproar in the race for the White House. In an interview, Ferraro, a Hillary Clinton supporter, said that Sen. Barack Obama was “fortunate” to be Black because his race was the reason for his success in the presidential race. Ferraro said that if Obama was a White man, “he wouldn’t be in this position” and if he were a woman (of any color), “he wouldn’t be in this position.”

Members of the media, pundits, and some Obama supporters immediately denounced the comments and the suggestion that race and not merit was the sole reason behind Obama’s success. Ferraro responded to the criticism by saying that she didn’t say Obama’s success was “only” due to race. However, Ferraro explicitly left out mention of any other factors that she contributed to his success up to this point in the campaign. By default, her comments suggested that race was either “only” or “primarily” responsible for his success. She said, point blank, that he was fortunate to be Black and that the country was swept up in the concept.

In what concept?

The concept of a Black president?

Well, weren’t women swept up in the concept of her being the first female vice president? Aren’t women swept up in the concept of Sen. Clinton possibly being the first female president?

So, what’s the problem?

Why is she hating on Sen. Obama for the same “concept” (being the first) that has given her candidate many advantages? Sen. Clinton has gotten a majority of the female vote in many states. Sen. Clinton has mentioned, many times, that she looks forward to being the first female president. She is using her gender as a selling point, when we don’t see Sen. Obama using his race as a selling point.

Obama, when asked to respond to Ferraro’s comments said that he felt the comments were “divisive” and represented old-school politics.

This led to a response from Ferraro that is typical of responses that many Black workers hear in the workplace, when they inform a White coworker, supervisor, manager, etc. that something said was racially insensitive or offensive. Ferraro said, “I am not a racist.”

So, I ask…

Who called Geraldine Ferraro a racist?

Her comments were characterized as “ridiculous,” “absurd,” “divisive,” etc. But, at no point did anyone say she was a racist.

This is reminiscent of what happened in my former workplace, when a Black manager approached a White manager to discuss comments the White manager made that offended EVERY Black person in a departmental meeting. The Black manager said that she came to discuss the White manager’s comments at the meeting and the White manager immediately blurted out, “I am not a racist.”

The Black manager responded by telling her that she didn’t say she was a racist and wasn’t coming to do so. She just wanted to remind her that we all live in a diverse society and that we have to be mindful of the impact of what we say. Well, the White manager ended up in tears and used her friendship with the director of the department and the director of HR to make the Black manager’s life a living hell. The Black manager ended up resigning based on constructive termination (being forced out).

So, the second I heard Geraldine Ferraro go right to “I am not a racist,” I was immediately transported back to that time period in my career.

Why couldn’t Geraldine Ferraro simply restate what she intended to say, if she meant something different from what she actually said? Would that have been too difficult? No! It wouldn’t have been difficult. Instead, Ferraro upped the ante, as is done in the workplace, and said that Obama was playing the so-called “race-card,” that he had a pattern of playing the race card, that no one could criticize him without being called a racist (he and his campaign are sensitive), and that she was being attacked because “I’m White.” The next day, Ferraro said that she was “absolutely not sorry” for her comments.

Ferraro seems to have gone through the workplace checklist for Whites who want to spin a situation to make themselves the victim, when they are the ones who’ve offended someone.

When Black workers make a complaint of discrimination, harassment, retaliation, racial insensitivity, etc., all of a sudden we hear that we are playing the “race card.” This label is attached to us even when we’ve worked at a company for years and have never injected race into any dispute with a White coworker or if we’ve never made an informal or formal complaint of racism in the workplace. Even when we have no history of “playing race,” we are accused of being race-baiters!

Then we are often accused of being sensitive and/or defensive. We may be told something along the lines that people (White) feel like they have to walk on egg shells, when they work with us. In other words, they can’t say anything to us without us getting a so-called attitude or accusing them of targeting us based on race.

We are also often accused of misunderstanding what was said, such as the excuse used by Ferraro. Whenever a race incident jumps off, we suddenly can’t understand common English.

Many of us may also be falsely accused of having a problem working with Whites, even when we’ve been employed for years with no incidents involving race. We may be told that we have communication issues with Whites, even when we’ve worked with Whites without incident throughout our careers. In other words, we are being accused of making a complaint out of racial malice and with intentional disregard of Federal statutes! We are allegedly making complaints, not in good faith, but solely because the person in question is White.

After everything has exploded into a racially charged mess, we are often told by management that no one is going to apologize for the incident, including the person who made the offensive comments or engaged in potentially illegal activity.

It’s amazing, but Geraldine Ferraro hit all the points. To summarize, she went right to the workplace blueprint. She:

1. stated she wasn’t a racist, as if someone Black (Obama and/or his representatives) accused her of being one;
2. accused the person she intentionally marginalized and offended of using the “race card” against her;
3. stressed that the racial sensitivities of the person she targeted with her comments were the issue, not her remarks;
4. said that she was either misunderstood or that her comments were intentionally misconstrued;
5. made herself into the victim of reverse racism; and
6. refused to accept responsibility for the chain of events she set off.

I should add that Sen. Clinton, who insisted that Sen. Obama reject and denounce Rev. Louis Farrakhan for saying that Obama was good for the country, initially wouldn’t reject and denounce Geraldine Ferraro. She thought it was sufficient to simply “disagree” with comments. Again, this was after she tried to score political points against Obama based on the words of someone in favor of his candidacy.

Again, this is reflective of issues that Blacks face in the workplace. There is often a double-standard, in which Blacks are expected to follow one set of rules, when Whites aren’t expected to follow the same rules. Blacks are often asked to or are forced to apologize to White coworkers for any manner of often petty offenses, such as a White person simply declaring that they thought a Black coworker was rude to them. Yet, White workers often don’t have to apologize for serious/egregious offenses, which may violate Federal statutes.

Sen. Obama’s candidacy is definitely giving the world a front-row view of issues that all Blacks face on a daily basis. If someone makes a racially-loaded remark, it becomes his fault for criticizing the remark and he’s characterized as being unable to take criticism. It doesn’t matter if the criticism is false because it is based on distortions or outright lies. Sen. Obama is treated as though he has no right to clarify what he feels are misrepresentations and lies. That makes him sensitive!

I think we will see many more similarities between political tactics and workplace tactics during the remainder of this campaign. Sen. Clinton and her surrogates are desperate. Since so many of Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton’s policies are very similar, Sen. Clinton has nothing but racial polarization to fall back on in order to divide the vote in her favor. It is not an accident that we keep coming back to race (and gender) in this election. And, it's no accident that Sen. Clinton's campaign staff are upset that they can't use outright racially charged language, racially coded language, etc. against her rival.

Stay tuned!

Johnson and Rangel: Examples of Blacks Taking Other Blacks Into the Gutter!

Last week, I wrote a post about the ways that Black people often hate on other Black people. I started by discussing comments that Black coworkers have made about Sen. Barack Obama as a way to diminish his candidacy and prop up the candidacy of Sen. Clinton. My point wasn’t that they didn’t have a right to support whomever they chose to support. My point was that they weren’t using any facts and there was a race-based edge to what they were saying about Sen. Obama. I then tied that to the way Blacks mistreat other Blacks in the workplace and how we sometimes assist racists by engaging in “crabs in a barrel” antics at work.

Today, I want to talk about Robert Johnson, the former owner of B.E.T. network and Rep. Charles Rangel of NY. First, to Robert Johnson who stumped for Sen. Clinton over the weekend and went on a nasty tirade against Sen. Obama. Robert Johnson said he was offended by any insinuations that the Clinton’s were racist or diminishing Dr. King. He said:

“And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood –­ and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book –­ when they have been involved.”

And, then he referred to Sen. Obama as “Sidney,” in reference to actor Sidney Poitier’s portrayal of any righteous and noble characters throughout his movie career.

“That kind of campaign behavior does not resonate with me, for a guy who says, ‘I want to be a reasonable, likable, Sidney Poitier ‘Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.’ And I’m thinking, I’m thinking to myself, this ain’t a movie, Sidney. This is real life.”

"What has happened, in my opinion, is that what we have created is the quote-unquote 'perfect candidate' that's like in the movies, that has absolutely no blemishes," a vision that is unrealistic, said Johnson. "White America is saying, 'He's safe for us, he should be safe for you guys,' " Johnson said, referring to blacks. " We're letting other people pick our leaders."

Why is Robert Johnson a hater? It’s not because he supports the Clintons. It’s because he went into the gutter—in a national platform—against another Black man. He went to drugs and drug dealing and he went to the image of “Sidney the super ni**a” to tear down Sen. Obama. Then, he used some race-baiting trying to convince Blacks that voting for Obama was akin to giving White people what they want by letting them “pick our leaders.” If that’s the case, why did Sen. Clinton and not Sen. Obama win in New Hampshire? Clearly, not all Whites are trying to use some Jedhi mind-trick on Blacks folks, if we go by Johnson’s warped logic.

Is that the best Johnson can do? Don't vote for Obama because he "think he White," "act White," "ain't real enough," or "isn't ghetto enough?" What is he talking about?

At first Robert Johnson issued a statement—not an apology—saying that he was talking about Sen. Obama’s work as a community organizer. Only and idiot would believe that, yet Sen. Clinton and former President Clinton said they took Mr. Johnson “at his word.” Yes, they want Blacks to put them back in the White House. Yet, they initially wouldn’t be accountable for one of their surrogates playing to stereotypes and resorting to mentioning drugs (again). Later, Pres. Clinton said that we’d have to ask Bob Johnson what he meant. And, at the Las Vegas debate (on Dr. King’s birthday), Sen. Clinton said the remarks were regrettable. Apparently, she put some pressure on Bob Johnson because he finally issued a formal apology the other day. Bob Johnson called his comments “uncalled for” in his prepared statement. Clearly, this apology supports the belief that Bob Johnson was talking about drug use and not community organizing because community organizing wouldn’t require an apology.

Still, I want you to think about what Bob Johnson had to say.

In the movie Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner who’s afraid? White people. What are they afraid of? A Black man. Why? Because he’s invading the innermost circle of their lives. He’s getting too close. He’s threatening their race. And, he’s threatening their legacy. They were afraid of him. They were mistrustful. They were offended by his presence. Etc.

This is the argument that Robert Johnson chooses to use against another Black man? Crab in a f*cking barrel!! I don’t care about how they movie ended…Robert Johnson went to the White man’s historical fear of Black men. He conjures up the image of a Black man with a White woman in order to defend the Clintons (even though Sen. Obama has a Black wife). This is just as bad as the ads Bob Corker (Rep. Sen. of Tennessee) ran against Harold Ford, Jr. (Black).

Robert Johnson refers to Sidney Poitier. Super ni**a? Really? When has Sen. Obama presented himself as the “perfect Black man”? If anything, he’s been too damn honest about his flaws, when everyone else around him is lying and refusing to admit to any of their mistakes. Sen. Clinton’s Iraq war vote, anyone?

Sen. Obama wrote about his indiscretions and his life—honestly. More honestly than most people, especially politicians, ever have. Contrary to that, we have former President Bill Clinton saying that he “never inhaled.” Sen. Obama has openly said about his marijuana use, “isn’t that the point.” So, this character attack on Sen. Obama clearly diminishes President Clinton rather than Sen. Obama. I should say, to anyone who thinks this argument through.

By saying Sen. Obama is not a “perfect Black man,” Bob Johnson is essentially telling White people, “this is just another ni**a! He’s no different than the rest of us! You should be afraid of him. You should be suspicious of him. You should be concerned about him coming into your lives.” That is the nutshell of basically calling him super ni**a and openly chuckling about it.”

Now to drugs…Robert Johnson is more of a drug dealer than Sen. Obama. What did Bob Johnson do to our “neighborhoods”? Robert Johnson has propped up how many former drug dealers through his network B.E.T.? He thinks he can bring up drugs, when he’s made his money off of people who brag about slinging cocaine and weed and people who brag about being shot and people who push images of Black women as whores? Robert Johnson has done much more to harm Blacks and perceptions about Blacks—worldwide—through his network, B.E.T. than Sen. Obama. And, he thinks he’s better than Sen. Obama?

Are you kidding me?

If Hillary Clinton had to defend Bob Johnson or Charlie Rangel, do you think she’d attack another White person on such terms? Do you think she’d go to the carpet like this for them? “Oh, that’s just the White man!” Do you think she’d go there?”

Crabs in a barrel!!!

He took it so hard to race, to defend the Clintons, that it sickens me. Now to Charlie Rangel, who said:

"How race got into this thing is because Obama said 'race.' But there is nothing that Hillary Clinton has said that baffles me. I would challenge anybody to belittle the contribution that Dr. King has made to the world, to our country, to civil rights, and the Voting Rights Act. But for him to suggest that Dr. King could have signed that act is absolutely stupid. It's absolutely dumb to infer that Dr. King, alone, passed the legislation and signed it into law."

Charlie Rangel was DEAD WRONG! Sen. Obama NEVER said anything about Sen. Clinton belittling Dr. King AND he never introduced race into the campaign—he was going to great lengths to keep race OUT of the campaign. Sen. Clinton was on the stump and in interviews mentioning Obama and race (FOX News and Meet the Press). She repeatedly brought up race! You didn’t have any quotes from Sen. Obama until he was asked about Sen. Clinton saying the race debate was his fault and created by his campaign. He responded by saying he found it baffling that Sen. Clinton was blaming him because his campaign didn’t release an official statement. He didn’t say that Sen. Clinton was diminishing Dr. King or anything else. He surprised and baffled that he [Sen. Obama] was being blamed for the fallout.

Rangel went on to say that Sen. Obama was a fool for mentioning his previous drug use and said that Obama probably did it just to “sell some books.” However, Sen. Obama wrote the book after graduating from Harvard Law School. The book didn’t become popular until AFTER he made a speech at the DNC convention for John Kerry and John Edwards! Get it right, Mr. Rangel. It wasn’t until that speech that everyone wondered who Obama was and wanted more information on him.

Mr. Rangel was wrong. He knew it or should have known it before he started running his mouth. In the end, he had to go all over TV saying that he “regretted” making all of the statements. But, why did he do it in the first place and why did he have to go so hard on behalf of Sen. Clinton? Why did he have to go to the gutter against Sen. Obama?

There he was using words like “dumb” and “stupid”—on a national platform—against another Black man. Everyone knows the stereotype of Blacks being of inferior intelligence to Whites. But, here we go playing into our own stereotypes and bringing ALL OF US down in the process!!

“Dumb” and “stupid.” Is that how he should refer to one of our few Black senators? Why resort to name-calling? Why play into stereotypes? Was he that offended for Hillary Clinton that he would resort to making attacks that were slap in a face to all Black people?

I can’t tell you how sorry I feel for Sen. Obama. The Clinton camp is being nasty and poisonous enough to him. They’ve played up race, intentionally, after what may have been an unintentionally offensive comment. They wanted to make Sen. Obama talk about race.

Black people think about it. If he’s talking about race, he is a Black man. He’ is not an American. He is a n*gger. Period! He’s the candidate ONLY for Black people and he can’t possibly win. That is the sole reason why the Clintons kept this going.

To see people like Bob Johnson and Charlie Rangel playing into racially divisive strategy—intentionally or unintentionally—just goes to show how so many Black people in the workplace get caught up selling out, tearing down, diminishing and destroying another Black person. I can’t tell you what I’ve seen Black people do to each other at work. How hard they’ve intentionally stabbed them back. You’ve probably got your own stories of being sold out or torn down by a Black coworker or having seen them do it to someone else. Heck! Maybe your own of the backstabbers or crabs I’m talking about?

Are you?

To watch these prominent Black men publicly eviscerating our FIRST VIABLE BLACK PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, just makes me think that we (Black people) may not deserve to have one!!

That is not a misprint.

Maybe we need to get what we have coming to us…a Republican president or Sen. Clinton as president. A republican will typically have policies that ignore or harm some Blacks, especially the poor. And, Sen. Clinton is going to govern from the center, so that she woill be reelected in four years. She won’t pander to Blacks because it would harm her chances for a 2nd term.

“I don’t hear enough from Sen. Obama? What’s he going to do for us?” What have Clinton or Edwards told you they’re going to do for Blacks? Have you called on them to speak to it? Have you looked at C-Span or cable news or online to see/hear his speeches? Yes, there are links you can click on. You can go to Obama’s website (www.barackobama.com) to click on his speeches. Did you make the effort? Did you click on the links to his papers containing the details on how he will fight poverty, his plans for the environment, energy, etc.?

No? Right? You don’t want to do any work to find out more about him. You just want to complain about him not being Black enough or more specific, etc. Right? Hillary Clinton doesn’t have to tell you anything about “Black Brown” issues as she calls them. You just assume she’s gonna have your back and you assume the worst about Sen. Obama—that he won’t. Keep looking for excuses.

Once we’ve helped derail and destroy Sen. Obama by bringing up drugs over and over again, bringing up stereotypes over and over again, calling him names over and over again, how long before we get another viable Black candidate? I don’t want to hear that one day we’ll have a Black president or hear people telling their kids to dream about it. We’ve had our chance!! And, look what many of us are doing with.

I am so sick of hearing Black people hate on Sen. Obama on such non-issue related terms. We are truly crabs in a barrel. We talk a good game about equality and all the like. But, when push comes to shove, maybe we just want what we’re accustomed to. Maybe we don’t want to hope. Maybe we don’t the ultimate dream to come true.

And, when he’s been done in—with our assistance—we’ll say, “See, White people would never let a Black man be President.” We’ll wash our hands of our role in this! The Obama campaign really makes me wonder about our people. And, what I hear and see saddens me.

Crabs in a freaking barrel!!

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!

What Would You Know About the Race-Card?

Many Whites will throw around accusations that Black workers just play “the race card.” Most times, they never know the full facts about what a Black worker has suffered, but they still feel it’s okay to throw around “the race card” and “race-baiter” labels as if Blacks have nothing better to do with their time.

Do they ever stop to think about the additional mistreatment that a worker will often encounter after filing a complaint of race-based discrimination, harassment or retaliation? Even a victim of sexual harassment can tell you that accusers are often subjected to additional mistreatment, following a complaint.

So, I ask…who willingly puts their life into chaos simply to make a false claim? The number of workers willing to file false complaints and to put themselves in a position to have an even bigger bulls-eye painted on their forehead has to negligible.

When I filed my complaint with a state agency, alleging race-based retaliation and discrimination, the case worker strongly suggested I not file the complaint until I’d left employment with the company. She said that her agency found that attacks and illegal misconduct often escalated AFTER a person filed a complaint.

She said many employers would often document all sorts of false issues and get witness statements against a complaining employee in order to discredit them. In fact, she came right out and said that many employers looked for ways to “set up” complaining employees, while they were still employed.

She said these actions were taken because employers hoped that any evidence (false or real) that they could come up with would create a pretext or cover story for all of the decisions that had been made against the employee in the workplace. There was also hope that creating patterns of poor performance or bad attitude, etc. would justify why an employee was being targeted by HR staff, managers, directors, etc.

Stated plainly, even when being investigated by a state or Federal agency, many employers continue to engage in illegal abuse against complaining employees.

Again, who puts themselves in this position simply to be a race-baiter or to play the so-called race card? It is not worth it from an employment/financial, physical or emotional standpoint. Depending on where a worker is geographically location, they may have an issue of dealing with courts that don’t like to take on these cases. So, there’s always an uphill battle, when making race-related complaints at work.

People shouldn’t focus on petty labels like “race-baiter” and accusing someone of playing the “race card.” Unless you’ve experienced the trauma that many workplace complainants are subjected to, you should not be so quick to judge anyone’s motives for filing a grievance.

Real racism and real cover-ups and real targeting of complaining employees makes it nearly unbearable for many workers to see through the process of vindicating their rights through an investigatory agency or by legal means. Many workers walk away and start a career somewhere else. This is often easier than being subjected to continuing race-related mistreatment at a job.

If anyone assumes that many or most Black workers, who complain of race-based misconduct at work are playing the “race card,” then they should look in the mirror and ask themselves about their own race-related biases against Blacks.

No one chooses to be victimized at work.

The number of people willing to “play the race card” and to see it through an internal or external investigation and/or legal scrutiny is probably close to zero. A liar will be exposed!!

You couldn’t pay me to subject myself to the trials and tribulations I’ve endured. I’d rather be left alone to do my job! I’m sure I speak for many others.

By the way, accusing Blacks of playing the race-card (without knowing the facts of a case) amounts to playing the race-card yourself.

Blacks Hating on Blacks

I walked into a room to hear a Black coworker telling another Black coworker, “I don’t know Barack [Obama] from Jack. Bill [Clinton] is Black enough for me. I’m voting for Hillary [Clinton] because that’s like voting for Bill. That’s my girl! I don’t even want to hear what Barack has to say.” She said that she couldn’t stand when Blacks acted like they were your “brotha” or “sista,” when “I don’t know them.” Yet, she couldn’t identify a time when Sen. Obama behaved that way.

She then went into a workplace campaign about the joys of Hillary Clinton becoming President. Not a single issue was raised. The point was that “Bill is Black enough,” “blacker than Sen. Obama,” and “good enough for me.”

This worker was making the point that she didn’t know anything about Sen. Obama, so it was fascinating that she was choosing to go out of her way NOT TO HEAR HIM and that she was going out of her way trying to convince other workers to side with her choice of a White candidate.

This worker got me thinking about something many Blacks often talk about in private—how some of us love to be against other Black people, even when our only defense is “just because.”

Although Whites are often pointed out on this blog about workplace racism and discrimination, we have to deal with some harsh realities. One of those realities is that some Black people like to make life difficult for other Black people in the workplace. Some Black people use their own race-based stereotypes about Blacks to determine how they will judge and treat other Black workers.

Black people can make each other miserable at work by being the proverbial crabs in a barrel. I can’t believe some of things I’ve seen Black workers do to each other over the years. For instance, evidence of Blacks hating on each other and making each other miserable includes:

--Having a preference for reporting to a White manager because they can so-call “do more for you” and are “just better,” which results in some of us being resentful for being “stuck” with a Black manager;

--Engaging in a work slow-down, when given an assignment by a Black supervisor/manager;

--Intentionally holding on to an assignment in order to cause work delays for a Black supervisor/manager and out of a sense that you have to be “begged,” which makes you feel important;

--Intentionally turning in sloppy work to a Black supervisor/manager or coworker;

--Pretending not to know how to do something or how a process works, when asked about it by Black coworkers;

--Accusing Black coworkers of being “fake,” a “wanna-be,” etc. because they have been deemed not to be “ghetto” or “real” enough and making these statements to Black AND White coworkers;

--Knowingly spreading false gossip about Black coworkers to White coworkers or actually telling their personal business to White coworkers.

--Being complicit in targeting a Black coworker for mistreatment after they’ve complained of abuse;

--Accepting money and/or a promotion or some other reward for false testimony against a Black coworker;

--Lying to investigators about what happened to a Black coworker (e.g., saying you don’t know anything), not out of fear for your job, but because you don’t “owe them anything;”

--Intentionally making false statements about a Black coworker, who has complained of race-based discrimination, harassment or retaliation;

--Openly finding humor or getting pleasure out of a Black person being targeted by management; and

--Saying there is no racism in the workplace, just because a Black person has complained about it and not because it is true;

These are just examples. I’m sure some readers could greatly expand on this list.

The sad truth is many of us still have a plantation mentality. Instead of focusing on our condition, we focus on what’s petty and we may treat each other in an intentionally harmful manner. We set up false competitions with each other. We envy each other because of success or reward. We seek to bring someone down, who we think believes they are superior to us (e.g., they “talk White,” went to a “good school,” etc.). We find reasons or don’t need reasons to be uncooperative. We feel a loyalty to Whites because we’re grateful they “let us” have a job. We’ve seen friends and family treat each other this way and treat other Blacks this way. We simply may not know any better. There are all sorts of reasons for Blacks hating on each other and walking around with a “that ni**er ain’t shit!” attitude about another Black person.

We need to stop being so quick to tear each other down. We need some self-reflection…a moment to stop and ask why we engage in this behavior. We need to strive to change what is internally wrong with how we think about and treat other Black people. We need to treat each other with the same respect we demand from Whites in the workplace.

It’s fine not to deal with someone and develop a reasonable rationale for why you don’t care for them. But, with Blacks, from my experience, you have people sniping and carrying on with people they don’t know enough not to like.

“That b*tch think she cute.”
“That motherf*cka thinks he’s so smart.”
“He ain’t gonna tell me what to do.”
“She thinks she can boss me around.”
“She don’t mean sh*t to me.”

I’ve heard it all before and more than once. Just trying to be difficult and trying to find a way to cause some grief. Many of us don’t mind being crabs in the barrel.

Going back to politics, some people raise legitimate issues with Sen. Obama and some just seem to be repeating what they’re hearing White people say. They can’t go into any deep discussion about their criticisms, at least, not more than what they’ve heard. Of course, there are questions about the Senator. And, there should be.

But, I hear Sen. Obama being torn down by many Blacks on a regular basis. “He ain’t this.” And, “He ain’t that.” And, “He thinks he’s all this.” And, “He’s not saying he’s that.” And, “His mother is White.” And, “He’s not really Black.” It goes on and on.

Anyone who thinks Sen. Obama can count on Black people to vote for him solely based on race, doesn’t know enough Black people. I don’t care if all Black people had their concerns or fears resolved. They would STILL find a reason not to support this man because, just like in the workplace, there are Black people who are going to be difficult with Sen. Obama…just because. Some of us seem to be hard-wired that way!

When it comes to the workplace, we will never free ourselves from discrimination and other illegal behavior, when we choose to focus on needlessly destroying and being difficult with the Black people we work with. This reinforces our targeting by those in the workplace, who would choose to treat us in a disparate and unequal fashion.

We can’t fight the real battles that need our intention, if we simply desire to focus on petty squabbles of our own making. Let’s all look inside ourselves this year and identify how we may be contributing to any issues in the workplace and how we can make things better. And, let’s strive to stop being difficult with each other for reasons that are without merit!

Black-on-Black Work Relationships Are Often Impacted by White Perceptions and Interference

I’ve been blogging about how the White media has been speculating about Sen. Barack Obama’s relationship with Black voters. It’s been:

--Is he Black enough?
--Is he too educated to appeal to Blacks?
--Will Blacks abandon their loyalty to the Clintons for him?
--Will Blacks vote for him simply because he’s Black?
--Blacks shouldn’t vote for him simply because he’s Black because it will show how far the country has come.

It boils down to White analysis of Black relationships, which is not something that’s confined to politics. In many workplaces around the country, there is also speculation about Black on Black relationships. There is often analysis of Black on Black relationships. And, there’s sometimes interference in Black on Black relationships...

particularly if one of the Blacks involved is a supervisor or manager.

I’ve heard many complaints from Black managers about having their authority and decisions questioned by White counterparts based on how their relationship with Black subordinates and staff is perceived by Whites.

For instance, when Black managers have Black subordinates, they report feeling pressured to have a distant relationship with their workers and to be strict with them. Specifically, they’ve felt that Whites perceived they would be easy on staff, let them goof off, allow the quality of work to slip, and would allow a party atmosphere in the workplace out of need to show same race preferential treatment or loyalty. They felt that Whites were just waiting for anything that showed they “favored” Black staff. They also spoke about a feeling of having White staff watch them. By “watch” I am referring to a sense of heightened surveillance of Black managers. I can give you three examples of heightened scrutiny based on race:

(1) I’ve spoken to a Black manager, who was assigned to an office where certain staff (read: Black and Hispanic) were being pigeonholed into performing work that should have been shared with their White counterparts. The White counterparts did not like these assignments, which needed to be performed on a daily basis. Because they didn’t have to do this work, they were free to tackle cases and other duties that significantly improved their performance charts and went a long way in securing them a superior performance evaluation, compared to their minority counterparts. As a result, all of the bonuses for this classification of employees were going to White staff.

This Black manager came in and saw the unfair process and its impact on that classification of employees. She completely revamped the process, so that everyone was performing these duties—as they should based on their job description. Immediately, the White subordinates complained to a White director that she was showing preferential treatment to minorities based on race. But, the issue was that she was balancing out inequity that was established on racial lines, by the former White manager. When Whites didn’t have to perform this work because they complained and had the work removed from their list of duties, it was all good. When the workplace became fair, there was a problem.

The White director immediately sided with the White staff and called the Black manager into a meeting. He asked why she changed the procedure and told her it looked biased because it seemed to favor the Black and Hispanic employees and would hamper the productivity of the other (White) staff, who were excelling.

She explained that it was unfair and potentially illegal to have only Black and Hispanics performing the most mundane portions of their job descriptions, while freeing their White counterparts to do the more significant work, which they all were supposed to be performing. She reminded him of the unfair impact on performance evaluations and bonuses. And, she reminded him that their office was scheduled to be audited on an employee-by-employee basis. Productivity was going to be examined and, if it was found that the office—as a whole—wasn’t pulling its weight, the office might be closed! By freeing up everyone’s time, so that everyone could tackle cases, everyone was able to contribute to the overall productivity in the office. As a result, all of their jobs would be more secure. Finally, she again reminded the director that her decision was the only fair decision to make and she made it within her authority as manager of all those employees.

The White director looked at her for a moment and said, “You’re right. I didn’t think about it that way.” The procedure stayed in place, but those White subordinates began making false claims against this manager out of a desire to retaliate against her because they were forced to do assignments they thought were beneath them.

What struck me the most about this is how easily the White director was lured into questioning fairness. No one was being asked to do anything they weren't supposed to be doing. He should have immediately recognized that there was NO ISSUE!!

(2) I’ve mentioned before that my good friend was a manager at our former place of employment. She was responsible for supervising many staff. At first, her subordinates were both Black and White. Eventually, they were all Black. It wasn’t until her staff were all Black that Whites in the department (including the director) began to raise the issue with the Black manager that she needed to appear “impartial” with her staff.

The problem was that, at the time, all of her staff were Black. She was encouraging her staff to learn new skills and seek out training opportunities, as she always did. And, she was really pushing for them to gain the confidence, skills, and experience needed to improve their job performance and to advance within the company. This caused problems because there were same-level White workers that were already being promised promotions. Since she no longer had White subordinates at that point, any promotions in her section would involve a Black person.

It was at that point that this Black manager was perceived as being a “segregationst” and that she was accused of a lack of “impartiality.” In fact, this Black manager was told that she was perceived as having an inability to “differentiate” between her level and the level of her Black staff. She was accused of being “too friendly” with her staff, possibly because she didn’t intimidate them and they were comfortable speaking to her and working with her.

This manager was instructed to avoid going to lunch with her Black subordinates because it increased the perceptions among staff (White) that she was engaging in favoritism and couldn’t distinguish her management level. This was despite the fact that every White manager in her department and around the company (including in my department) often went to lunch with their White subordinates. Even more telling, some of them engaged in after work activities with their subordinates. But, there was no warning for anyone except this Black manager because the assumption was that Whites would be so-called “impartial” with their staff.

When it was all said and done, this Black manager was stripped of her staff. Her staff were reassigned to work for White managers. They divided them up like splitting poker winnings! The Black manager had her assignments stripped from her and divided among these new managers AND her former subordinates, leaving her with no work and attacks on her employment.

Apparently, some Whites think that only other Whites have the ability to be fair, impartial, and unbiased with their staff. There is no expectation that there will be favoritism on such an egregious level that it must be monitored. This is sometimes an issue for Black managers. Whites show preferential treatment for each other all the time except it’s always justified, when they do it.

(3) I have personal experience with White interference in my relationship with a Black manager. When I was employed in the HR Department at the headquarters of a national bank, my Black supervisor gave me a great year-end performance evaluation because I had a great year. This was in regard to my productivity, professionalism, meeting or exceeding deadlines, being proactive, preparing procedures, working large amounts of overtime, etc.

When my supervisor submitted my review to our White VP, he was told point blank, “I don’t believe this.” He handed the evaluation back to my supervisor and told him to rewrite it “for real” and with more criticism of my job performance. At the time the White VP made this request, he’d only worked at our company for several months. He didn’t know me from Jack and knew nothing about my work effort and performance for the previous year. So, on what basis could he dispute my performance evaluation?

On nothing but race! I can be assured of this because this VP made racist jokes in the HR department, including outside the Director’s office door. I was the only one to tell him that he wasn’t funny and I found his jokes offensive. But, getting to my performance evaluation…

This same VP didn’t question the performance evaluation of a single White person in our office! But, he disputed mine and wanted my review rewritten because he thought my Black manager was trying to "hook me up."

What did my Black supervisor do? He asked me to sit down with him to write criticisms of myself to include in the revised review. He said we wouldn’t include anything “too bad” because it wasn’t true, but just enough to “satisfy him.”

I refused and said that I was going to resign. I started to write my resignation letter. My supervisor had an immediate change of heart and said he would stand up for me and stand by my review. Why?

I asked my supervisor if any part of my review wasn’t true. He said, “No.” I asked, “So, why would you change it.” Then, I came right out said, “If you were White and I was White, this would not be happening.” He said, “You’re right.” He refused to rewrite my review. So, this White VP rewrote it himself. Now, remember, he never worked with me. So, he rewrote it without specifics and made claims that I had the all-famous personality issues that many Black workers are falsely accused of. I was accused of missing deadlines, with no specifics. Other false claims were made. I was told that I should have “anticipated things” that had nothing to do with my job, my job level or anything within my authority. A review was submitted with no input from my immediate supervisor.

I contacted the HR director and challenged this review. The White VP stood by and engaged in more activity that was even more revealing of his racial animus toward me. The VP prepared a 10-question survey asking questions about me (my personality and work) and sent it around to several departments in our company. Talk about disparate treatment! Even White staff called to inform me that the survey was being circulated and to ask me what was going on. I couldn’t believe I was the target of a questionnaire whose sole purpose was to solicit negative commentary on my job performance and to slander me around the company.

But, it didn’t work. The questionnaire confirmed my original performance evaluation. The original evaluation was resubmitted and the fabricated review was stripped from my employee file. I never got an apology, not a bad deal since I don’t value insincere words.

But, the VP got one of his agendas established. He strained the relationship I had with my Black supervisor. From there on out, we both felt a bit of paranoia about our positive working relationship and felt that it was harder being congenial with each other. Once, when we were both ill, we were “jokingly” accused of making out in the parking garage. I guess Black men and women are so sexual that we are perceived as just not being able to keep our hands off each other. For a time, my supervisor was very stiff and uncomfortable around me because he felt his job as a manager would be in jeopardy because of the amount of attention my performance evaluation received around the company.

These are just three quick examples of how White pressure, perceptions, and interference can change how Blacks are able to interact with each other at work. In many ways, it is like being on a plantation. On the plantation, everything Blacks did—and even thought—was under the control and influence of Whites. Blacks were pitted against each other based on skin-colored, roles, etc. This was all the doing of the slave master (look up Willie Lynch).

We continue to face pressure and heightened scrutiny, when it comes to our working relationships. The same way the White media has expressed the fear that some Blacks will favor Senator Obama based on racial loyalties, some Whites in the workplace have those same fears.

And, unfortunately, some of these people will do anything in their power to act on those fears and to unduly influence the thoughts and actions of managers and workers. This goes a long way in perpetuating some of the many double-standards that Blacks deal with in the workplace, as well as in other venues.

A Black manager shouldn’t have to fear making positive employment decisions for a Black worker because it will be viewed as reverse racism or favoritism. A manager shouldn’t have to fear being stripped of their position because a racist is accusing them of reverse racism. White managers make decisions every day, which are accepted at face value. The same respect should be given to Black managers.

Finally, Blacks in the workplace should be able to work in a positive, peaceful, and productive atmosphere without White assumptions and interference in those relationships. Unfortunately, if Blacks aren’t acting like crabs in a barrel, some people just aren’t satisfied!

It's None of Your Business!

We all go to work to perform a job function and to be paid for it. It doesn’t matter if we’re in a “job” vs. being in a “career.” And, it doesn’t matter whether or not we’re working to promote social changes and to improve the world. In the end, we go to work, we perform our duties, and we get a check for our services.

It isn’t required that we go to work to make friends. I think we can take a look at all of the anti-social a**holes at work to validate that point. No one is paid to be the life of the workplace party or to socialize with some, most or all of their coworkers. If you choose to, it’s okay to foster friendly relationships at work. But, some people--regardless of race—are simply very private individuals, who don’t intend on being part of many social networks. These people want to keep business about business. They don’t come to work to spread their business. So, let’s get to the point of this post…

Stereotyping and privacy issues sometimes combine to make false and unnecessary “communication issues” for Blacks in the workplace, such as being “unapproachable,” “distant,” and “unfriendly.” Why do I say this?

It’s been my workplace experience that far too many White people want to play the game “20 Questions” with their Black coworkers. They want to know if we are from the “ghetto,” if we were raised by a single parent, if we are married or intend to get married, if we’ve ever been shot at/been in a drive-by shooting, if we know any rappers, etc. It’s a criticism I’ve heard many Black coworkers make…that their White coworkers ask many probing and/or offensive questions about their personal lives.

But, does anyone in the workplace really have the right to ask these questions, especially questions with their roots in stereotypes?

Some Black people feel okay about answering these sorts of questions. While some Black people don’t feel okay about answering them, but do so anyway out of fear of being labeled as “unfriendly” or “unapproachable.” But, the reality is that not every Black person wants to share their life story or stand around socializing when they should be working. Many Black people who have gotten the “unapproachable” or a similar label at work are often simply people who don’t feel the need to tell their personal business at work.

Maybe workers have watched too much Ally McBeal, Desperate Housewives, Grey’s Anatomy, etc., so they think their existence boils down to everyone sitting or standing around sharing extremely personal information and psychoanalyzing themselves. However, those who don’t choose to be Ally or some other TV character, shouldn’t be labeled as antisocial or rude for not joining in the social networking. If a person is respectful to coworkers, that should be enough for everyone involved.

African Americans should not be stuck with labels for maintaining their personal privacy at work. I’ve had a number of Black coworkers be hit with various labels about being “unapproachable” or “distant,” including labels that showed up on their performance evaluations. The labels just weren’t based in reality. Nevertheless, the examples of their so-called negative behavior reinforced that the expectation was for them to be more “social.” For instance, one coworker was told she spent too much time in her office and that it would be nice if she would “chit-chat” with coworkers more. But, we are not paid to chit-chat. Besides, when does that type of language end up on a yearly performance evaluation? “We think you work too much, so PLESAE stop and talk in the hallways!” That was the gist of the conversation. Come on!

I also had a Black coworker talk about her life experiences with White staff, only to end up having these personal conversations shared with other White staff in a laughing manner. This was all done behind her back, but in earshot of other Black workers. “You know, she’s from the ghetto,” was one of the wise-cracks. And, they also shared very personal details I won’t repeat here.

This is what some Black workers want to avoid. Just like many other workers, we don’t all want to be fodder for office gossip. So, a desire to keep personal business personal should not result in a Black worker being accused of having communication issues with White coworkers. We are at work to work. We don’t have to tell our business. Point blank!

Some Final Things To Think About

Here are a few more things to think about, if you decide to make a race-based complaint at work. We’re up to #7:

7) Give serious consideration to your choice of words because your words can come back to haunt you. Any common expression in the English language can be manipulated into some other warped translation that can be used against you. If you know you are going to attend a meeting about a race-based issue, prepare a list of talking points as if you were preparing for a press conference and fielding questions from a skeptical media. Write down the issues you want to hit on and the specific points you want to make. Don’t leave this to chance…think about what you want to say and the best way to say it!

8) Think about being “Dr. Phil’ed.” If you’re making a race-based complaint, don’t be surprised if you’re treated like you’re on a shrink’s couch. Be prepared to hear critical analysis of your psyche and inner most thoughts as if the strangers you work with know you better than you know yourself. Be prepared to hear claims that “We know you’re very…” and “Everyone thinks you are…” that are not supported by any facts—just alleged perceptions. Speaking of perceptions, remember that perceptions ARE NOT reality—no matter how much everyone pretends they are! Reality is reality.

9) Think about how you will cope with possibly becoming a pariah at work. If you rock the boat, some of your coworkers—even other Black workers—may decide they want to toss you overboard. You may find your lunch buddies ignoring you. Everyone may be in a meeting or going to a meeting, when you approach their cubicle or office. Coworkers may take the stairs, instead of sharing the elevator with you. You get the picture. Make sure you have a strong network of friends outside of your job because your work friends may be fair-weather friends. You can email these outside of work friends from your Internet account. Keep in mind, your employer may be recording your computer keystrokes. If you call your outside friends, do it from your cell phone and not the office phone. Keep the calls quick and discreet--even if that means stepping outside for a few minutes.

A Few MoreThings to Think About!

Continuing with yesterday’s post, here are more things to think about prior to making a complaint of race-based misconduct or abuse. We start with tip #4:

4) Think about not appearing defensive. Always remember that on many jobs Whites explain and Blacks “defend.” The “you’re being defensive” line is often thrown around left and right, particularly against Black workers who are making complaints. You can’t stop someone from using this stereotype-driven argument against you, but you can definitely hurt their cause and take away any ammunition they might use against you by being very clear about what has happened and by not showing anything that can be construed as an “attitude.” Is that fair? No, it’s not. Do you have a right to be angry, frustrated, etc. because someone who has treated you in a racist manner or discriminated against you? Of course! But, reality is reality.

Having had to respond to a company’s arguments against me, including the “defensive” stereotype, I can tell you that I definitely helped my cause by never actually behaving in a defensive manner. This made it harder for my employer to prove the claim was true and it hurt their credibility. There’s nothing they could point to that I wrote or said, which could actually be called defensive. As a result, they had to describe behavior that would require a huge stretch of the imagination before it would truly fall into what anyone perceived as defensive behavior.

You should focus on being clear in your writing or speech, making point-by-point arguments to prove your point of view, and taking any so-called questionable language out of your writing or speech (e.g., name-calling, etc.).

5) Think about not portraying yourself as “sensitive” because sensitive often goes hand and hand with “defensive.” As a Black worker, you should try not to be overly emotional. If you aren’t described as being unable to take so-called constructive criticism (read: you are labeled as “defensive”), you will likely be described by another stereotype, which is “sensitive.” When a Black worker complains of race-based mistreatment, they are frequently morphed into someone who is either a loose cannon or a person who is overly sensitive and incapable of dealing with the most rudimentary conversations/feedback. Fight those stereotypes by being mindful of these employer-based red herrings. Don’t give your employer ammunition.

6) Think about not portraying yourself as “defensive” and “sensitive.” Yes, you can be portrayed as both a loose cannon and a person with childlike emotions, who turns to melodrama at the drop of a hat. Conduct yourself professionally at all times and think about the fact that you are always being watched. It doesn’t matter if you are being watched or not. However, being mindful of the fact that you might be under heightened scrutiny can help you keep any bursts of emotion in check. Remember, being under a race-based attack is like being subjected to psychological warfare. Your enemy is looking to exploit your weaknesses. They will often do that by lying, exaggerating reality/twisting facts, and by relying on stereotypes. Don’t give legitimate ammunition to any false claims being currently made about you. Know the stereotypes and stay away from behaving like one. In other words, no eye-rolling in meetings, etc. Yes, that’s a stereotype, but I’ve seen it used as ammunition against a Black female worker in employer-written documentation.

More things to think about will be discussed tomorrow.

Bill O'Reilly: "Taken Out of Context"

Fox News Channel commentator, Bill O'Reilly, is using a spin-off of one of the most common defenses used in the workplace by Whites, who’ve said something that they’ve been told is racist, offensive, stereotypical, demeaning, etc.

Discussing his recent dinner with Rev. Al Sharpton at the Harlem restaurant Sylvia's, Bill O'Reilly said that he "couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, [and has a] primarily black patronship."

O'Reilly added: "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea.'" He also said that going to Sylvia’s was like going to an Italian restaurant in White suburban America.

Based on those remarks, it’s obvious what mindset Bill O’Reilly had and has about Blacks. He obviously questions our level of civility, table etiquette, social skills and upbringing.

HOW EXACTLY DID BILL O’REILLY EXPECT BLACKS TO ACT, WHILE THEY WERE OUT AT DINNER? Were the patrons supposed to eat, while swinging from vines? Were patrons supposed to eat with their fingers…all while dancing to rap music?

What’s scary is that Bill O’Reilly’s comments can’t be excused as isolated comments or as the comments of a crazy right-wing conservative commentator, who loves to be provocative (see yesterday’s post on that issue).

The fact of the matter is, I’ve had coworkers—plenty of them—make comments that are just as ignorant and racist as Bill O’Reilly’s comments. I’ve heard some say his comments were “passively racist” or “casually racist.” However, racist is racist and ignorance is ignorance. If a person can marvel at the fact that they went to a “Black restaurant” (and not just a restaurant) and no one SCREAMED for motherf*cking Iced tea, that person is a racist. Point blank! Just as a coworker making similar comments is a racist.

Mr. O’Reilly has since claimed that his comments were “taken out of context.” In the workplace, you don’t hear so much that comments were “taken out of context” because the preferred excuses are:

-- “I didn’t mean it that way.”
--“That’s not what I meant to say.”
--“I’m not like that.”
--“You misunderstood me.”
--“It was miscommunication.”
--“I misspoke.”

For Bill O’Reilly it’s just “taken out of context.” Bill O’Reilly says he just wanted White people to know that all Blacks don’t subscribe to the gangsta mentality, when it comes to behavior, dress, and speech. That defense is racist. If what he is saying is true, most Whites expect most Blacks to ask for motherf*cking iced tea, when they go out to eat. Thinking most Whites believe that is racist. And, if most Whites do believe that, it is racist!

But, the fact that someone (claiming to be educated) can believe that these comments are positive of Blacks, just goes to show how warped many American minds are, when it comes to acknowledging racist and stereotypical perceptions.

I’ll say it again…people who think this way are always someone’s coworker, boss, etc. And, they think that this sort of so-called “passive racism” is really okay and they think it’s defensible. And, these types of people usually won’t apologize, when confronted about their comments. They’re too busy defending why the comments aren’t racist, when they should be responding to the damage and offense they’ve caused.

Blacks are asked (and even forced) to apologize to Whites all the time. I’ve worked at a number of jobs, where Blacks were forced to apologize to Whites and I’ve had demands made of me in attempts to get me to apologize to White coworkers. I worked at one job, where an outside investigator—checking into complaints of race-based harassment and retaliation at our company—noted that members of authority at our company always required Blacks to apologize for incidents and couldn’t find one instance of a White person being required to apologize to Black workers.

Here’s a tip…if you’ve said something offensive and you’ve been called on it…just apologize. Hopefully the apology is sincere. If not, it’s not worth a damn. Bill O’Reilly would rather make himself the victim of a witch hunt, than apologize for what he said. Similarly, Whites in the workplace will often turn themselves into the victim of a hypersensitive Black coworker or will say they are the victims of political correctness gone wrong.

The anti-harassment policy at my former employer stated that the intent of the person causing offense was unimportant…what mattered was the impact on the victim. The comments made by Bill O’Reilly were offensive and racist—casually or not. That is why they are receiving attention.

By the way, Mr. O’Reilly also said that he went to a concert at a Radio City Music Hall and noticed that the Black concert-goers were “neatly dressed.” Again, the proof is in the pudding.

TELL US ABOUT IT: What do you think about Bill O’Reilly’s comments? Do you think they are outright racist or passively/casually racist? Do you make a distinction and why? Or, do you believe that Bill O’Reilly was really just defending Blacks, as he claims?

Source: www.mediamatters.org

ISSUES IN THE WORKPLACE: Racial Provocateurs Can Cause Tension and Future Problems in the Office

Outright racists can cause a lot of problems in the workplace. But, there are other types of people that can initiate race-based problems in the workplace. And, these individuals sometimes present more of a challenge, when it comes to proving allegations of race-based misconduct/bias. I’m referring to racial provocateurs in the workplace.

The problem, as I’ve witnessed it, is that far too many people don’t think about what they are saying in the workplace. The problem also includes far too many people who are intentionally provocative and going out of their way to push race-related hot buttons at work. There are a lot of so-called “innocent” comments made that cause a whole lot of race-related tensions to jump off in the office.

I’m not sure how often White workers really give deep thought to the racially loaded things they say to their Black coworkers, as well as the racially loaded questions they ask. And, don’t get me started on racially-laced comments that some Whites will openly make about their Black coworkers. I have often been amazed at how freely some Whites will make comments in the workplace, which have racial overtones. Their comments can be very provocative (a.k.a. insulting, incendiary, confrontational, etc.)

Racial provocateurs are the types of individuals, who while they haven’t done anything blatantly racist, may have said certain things that tap dance along the line of what is racist and what is not. These individuals continuously say things that are slightly or moderately troublesome to Black workers, but that won’t raise any suspicions among Whites. As a result, these are the types of White coworkers, supervisors/managers or executives that will prompt the defensive response, “Oh, I don’t think he/she is like that” following a complaint from a Black worker.

The reality is that some Whites know how to work and manipulate that borderline better than others. While some outrights racists are so full of loathing for Blacks that they don’t take any precautions in trying to hide their motivation for denying a promotion, recommending a suspension, etc., others are more savvy and covert. In fact, they can even throw off many of their Black coworkers. The racial provocateur is often artful at dodging the label of an outright racist.

Nevertheless, these individuals are capable of initiating a chain of events that quickly take on a prominent race-based tone and that can spiral into a race-based issue that impacts one staffer, an entire segment of a department or even larger numbers of employees.

When Black workers must have a continued relationship with Whites who REPEATEDLY make racially incendiary comments, tension often builds and an environment of suspicion can begin to develop. The Black worker rightly or wrongly may perceive this person as a closet racist and the person very may well be. However, there isn’t any explicit proof that will be acted upon by an HR department or supervisor because many of their comments will be explained away or the Black worker will be labeled as hypersensitive and overreacting to their White coworker. And, often, the White worker presents a reasonable pretext to explain away any racial intent or harm caused by their words or actions.

Here are real examples that I’ve seen or heard about causing tensions to rise between Black and White coworkers or within a department:

-- A white mid-level manager walks into a room, where only Black low-level workers are present, and says, “I came to crack the whip.” The White manager even flicks her wrist and makes a cracking noise after she makes the comment. She then laughs. When Blacks complain, the White manager says that it’s just an “expression.” There’s an attempt to downplay the historical context and to downplay that everyone in the room was Black. However, after hearing of the complaint from Black staff, this same White manager CONTINUES to make this remark solely to the same Black workers—and never to Whites (although it is supposedly one of her common expressions). Why? What is the purpose of repeating something that has negatively impacted your coworkers? Repeating remarks, which you don’t feel are offensive, but have been told are offensive is a very provocative action.

-- A white coworker walks up to a Black coworker, who wears dreadlocs, and reaches out (without permission) and grabs one of the locs, sneers her face, and asks, “Eww! What is this? Can you wash it?” The “Eww!” and “What is this?” are clearly an offensive way of reacting to an ethnic hairstyle. The Black worker is almost forced into a defensive reaction regarding the hairstyle. Following the exchange, the White worker makes it a point to openly stare and frown at the hairstyle and to stand an exaggerated distance away from the Black worker—as if she is too disgusted by her to dare go any closer. The comment and behavior after the exchange are very incendiary and will have served the point of creating the perception that this White person has issues with Black culture, and, therefore, Black people. The comment about hair combined with the negative reaction will serve as a piece of background noise in future exchanges between these individuals.


-- When Black workers complain about the manner in which they are given an assignment, a White mid-level manager comments that she doesn’t understand the problem because the Black workers are only doing “monkey work.” Obviously, this remark doesn’t go over well to a group of Black people. Blacks have lived with the comparison to apes, monkeys, and other primates. Go and look at the early depictions of Blacks in cartoons and other visual mediums. Blacks have long had their intelligence questioned by Whites with a superiority complex. So, any monkey remark is going to bring appearance and intellect into question—regardless of the so-called intent of the person making the comment. To compare work solely being done by Blacks as “monkey work” is not cool and is likely going to cause problems in future interactions between the people involved.

In each of these examples, the individuals involved began to have issues working together and the issues often escalated in nature. The White worker never apologized and often became defensive about the implication that they made a racist or insensitive remark. They wouldn’t take ownership of the issue and actually began to behave in a very indignant manner. The Black workers often figured they had the White person begged as a closet racist and began to see and hear racist actions and comments with more and more frequency. One thoughtless comment and a reaction that adds fuel to the fire or marginalizes any damage caused by careless remarks can send everyone down the path of future race-based confrontations.

That's why employers must be vigilant in policing their workforce and they must be truly vigilant, when listening to and addressing complaints from employees. Something that sounds "petty" can spark a much bigger problem in the future. Racially insenstive remarks aren't usually forgotten--at least by Black workers. Employers must not marginalize racially-loaded language. They must reinforce that they do not tolerate racist behavior or comments and must take action if someone persists in being racially provocative.

Unfortunately, dealing with racially provocative comments from intentionally and unintentionally ignorant coworkers is just one more issue—and distraction—that Blacks must deal with in the workplace.

TELL US ABOUT IT: Has a White coworker made a comment with racial overtones that derailed your relationship or caused you to be suspicious of this person’s perceptions and attitudes towards Blacks? If so, tell us about it. Post a comment or send an email to blackonthejob@yahoo.com.

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.