Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-17-2019, 09:34 AM
BrianDime is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 16

NC Probation office is member of Sons of the Confederacy. Is this a problem?


https://www.wral.com/chatham-county-...ties/18391859/

On the one hand, I can see how folks might feel like being a member of SoC would make some folks uncomfortable. On the other hand, the stated purpose of the group is historical and heritage. I guess at least one of the questions I ask (as a lifelong Southerner) is: Can you be a member of a group that celebrates the Confederacy without tacitly endorsing the fundamentally racist nature of the Confederacy?

To be clear, I don't know this guy, and I'm not making a value judgement about him personally.
  #2  
Old 05-17-2019, 09:40 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianDime View Post
Can you be a member of a group that celebrates the Confederacy without tacitly endorsing the fundamentally racist nature of the Confederacy?
No, you cannot.
  #3  
Old 05-17-2019, 09:45 AM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 12,165
No.
  #4  
Old 05-17-2019, 09:47 AM
Wolf333 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,107
No. The entire point of the Confederacy was the continuation of slavery. That is the history and heritage.
  #5  
Old 05-17-2019, 09:49 AM
BeagleJesus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 131
Hell no.

And I wish people would stop acting like you can separate the Confederacy from the racist beliefs that created the it in the first place. It's like saying you only joined the KKK to learn their fancy wood burning techniques.
  #6  
Old 05-17-2019, 09:54 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,819
I think the actual name of the group is Sons of Confederate Veterans. Among their deeds listed on Wiki page is this little gem:
Quote:
Mississippi: In 2011, the Mississippi Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, launched an unsuccessful campaign to honor Confederate Lieutenant-General and KKK Grand Wizard Nathan B. Forrest with a specialty license plate.
So that's a "no" for me also.

Last edited by Czarcasm; 05-17-2019 at 09:55 AM.
  #7  
Old 05-17-2019, 09:56 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,735
I find the connection to the racist past damning, but I find the current willingness of SCV to march alongside white supremacists even more troubling.

That said, I am more than a little concerned with the idea that a government employee can be censured for taking a super-shitty political position that doesn't call for any illegal activity. Supporting past illegal activity like betraying one's nation doesn't count, nor does supporting past super-shitty activity like engaging in chattel slavery.

His cases need to be looked at very closely for possible bias, and if any is found, fire his ass. But absent evidence of bias? I dunno, man.
  #8  
Old 05-17-2019, 09:59 AM
BrianDime is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I think the actual name of the group is Sons of Confederate Veterans. Among their deeds listed on Wiki page is this little gem:
So that's a "no" for me also.
You are correct, thanks for noting that!
  #9  
Old 05-17-2019, 10:36 AM
BeagleJesus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I find the connection to the racist past damning, but I find the current willingness of SCV to march alongside white supremacists even more troubling.

That said, I am more than a little concerned with the idea that a government employee can be censured for taking a super-shitty political position that doesn't call for any illegal activity. Supporting past illegal activity like betraying one's nation doesn't count, nor does supporting past super-shitty activity like engaging in chattel slavery.

His cases need to be looked at very closely for possible bias, and if any is found, fire his ass. But absent evidence of bias? I dunno, man.
As a black man in America I have no faith that anyone who chooses to associate themselves with Confederate anything will engage with the public fairly. In my opinion, his voluntary association with the CSV is all the evidence needed to demonstrate bias.
  #10  
Old 05-17-2019, 10:39 AM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,107
Right, he's an officer of the court. The appearance of bias is in many ways as bad as actual bias.
__________________
This can only end in tears.
  #11  
Old 05-17-2019, 10:40 AM
Slow Moving Vehicle's Avatar
Slow Moving Vehicle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 3,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeagleJesus View Post
As a black man in America I have no faith that anyone who chooses to associate themselves with Confederate anything will engage with the public fairly. In my opinion, his voluntary association with the CSV is all the evidence needed to demonstrate bias.
I agree. Twenty-five years ago I briefly considered joining the Sons of Confederate Veterans, because I thought it would be cool to belong both to them and the Sons of Union Veterans (both organizations are only open to people descending from Civil War vets, and I have great-great grandfathers on either side). But back then, they were more of a hobby group; they were originally a spin-off of an organization of actual Confederate Army veterans.

They’ve since become political, and their politics are of the very ugliest. I firmly agree that this officer’s membership in the SCV raises very serious questions about his impartiality in his job. It shouldn’t be an automatic bar, but it should prompt thorough scrutiny of his interactions with African-Americans.
__________________
“It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people.”
― Neil Gaiman, Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch
  #12  
Old 05-17-2019, 10:50 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianDime View Post
Can you be a member of a group that celebrates the Confederacy without tacitly endorsing the fundamentally racist nature of the Confederacy?
I would find the membership rather problematic.
  #13  
Old 05-17-2019, 12:47 PM
BrianDime is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 16
The more I hear, the less this group sounds like a bunch of history buffs.
  #14  
Old 05-17-2019, 01:43 PM
doreen is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 6,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I find the connection to the racist past damning, but I find the current willingness of SCV to march alongside white supremacists even more troubling.

That said, I am more than a little concerned with the idea that a government employee can be censured for taking a super-shitty political position that doesn't call for any illegal activity. Supporting past illegal activity like betraying one's nation doesn't count, nor does supporting past super-shitty activity like engaging in chattel slavery.

His cases need to be looked at very closely for possible bias, and if any is found, fire his ass. But absent evidence of bias? I dunno, man.
Chances are good that it's going to be almost impossible to find bias, even if he is biased. And the reason for that is that it's very likely that his caseload is either predominately white or predominantly non-white. *

But I don't think that really matters. Because a lot of the time the appearance of bias is as harmful as actual bias. I work for a similar agency and our actual policy is that employees may not be members of a racist/terrorist organization. In theory, I could belong to an organization that maintains gravesites in a Confederate cemetery because there's an least an argument that the organization itself is not racist, even if a lot of its members are. But once a group is marching with white supremacist and racist organizations, you can't make that argument anymore. At that point my employer would absolutely fire his ass- and that's before we get to the issue of the allegation that he is the commander of the local group and therefore can't credibly claim that he was unaware of the affiliation with racist groups.






* Parole and probation officers are typically assigned based on where the people they supervise live - in some cases, that may mean an officer is assigned to multiple counties and in others, like NYC it may mean they are assigned to part of a police precinct. But it's not uncommon for those smaller areas to be less diverse than the larger area they are part of.
  #15  
Old 05-17-2019, 02:20 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,735
If there's a general policy that we can put in place to keep racist idiots out of public positions, I am all about that. How can we set such a policy up that doesn't run afoul of first amendment rights to association and speech?
  #16  
Old 05-17-2019, 02:25 PM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,957
Were I a Black man out on parole, it would be a big problem for me.
  #17  
Old 05-17-2019, 02:26 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,096
"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party the CSV?"

If you can show that he discriminated against his clients, or that he broke the law in some way, fire him. Advocating for nasty political positions is not against the law, and does not constitute probable cause to arrest or proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Regards,
Shodan
  #18  
Old 05-17-2019, 03:00 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,107
And yet we still ask people if they've been a member of the Communist party before granting them the right to immigrate or hold office.
__________________
This can only end in tears.
  #19  
Old 05-17-2019, 03:06 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party the CSV?"
Are these laws still in place? What sort of loyalty oaths do we still require?

Considering the anti-BDS laws in place, I wonder if we could set up a requirement for public office along the lines of, "I am not, nor will I be, a member of an organization that works to praise or glorify any group that engaged in armed insurrection against the government of the United States."
  #20  
Old 05-17-2019, 03:17 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party the CSV?"

If you can show that he discriminated against his clients, or that he broke the law in some way, fire him. Advocating for nasty political positions is not against the law, and does not constitute probable cause to arrest or proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Regards,
Shodan
I also think the comparison with Communist Party basically answers the question. The reality is that if the electorate is sufficiently opposed to the ideology held, or imputed to be held, by a member of an organization then they might make it disqualification from at least some kinds of public positions of trust. You can argue it's hypocritical for people to criticize past discrimination against membership in the Communist Party (a strictly political/ideological org) in the US yet favor discrimination against membership in what purports to be a non-political/ideological historical society (though it's claimed it's not what it purports to be and maybe not) but again the reality is that overwhelming public revulsion with certain associations results in them being discriminated against. Which might not actually happen in NC, though I guess it's more likely it would if a stray member of the SCV wanted to be a probation officer here in NJ.

Asking *non Americans outside the US* who want to come to the US about their political/ideological affiliations is IMO though a whole different story. I've no qualms about that at all. This kind of issue with Americans (or residents who must also be afforded the same liberties) though can be troubling and difficult.

I personally don't accept that respect for Confederate military achievements is endorsement of pro-slavery or even racism (beliefs about race per se were of course much less of a distinction between common beliefs in the the North and South at the time of Civil War, but the seceding states *did* secede principally to preserve slavery, there's no reasonable debate about that, it's in black and white in their secession declarations ). The part about SCV affiliating with white supremacist groups now if generally true would be a lot more of a problem IMO.
  #21  
Old 05-17-2019, 04:29 PM
Slow Moving Vehicle's Avatar
Slow Moving Vehicle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 3,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party the CSV?"

If you can show that he discriminated against his clients, or that he broke the law in some way, fire him. Advocating for nasty political positions is not against the law, and does not constitute probable cause to arrest or proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Regards,
Shodan
You are correct, he should not lose his job strictly because he belongs to the SCV. However, his leadership role in the organization, and the nature of the public office he holds, means that a strict scrutiny of his professional interactions with African-Americans, for bias or, as doreen and Really Not All That Bright note, even the appearance of bias, is appropriate. For the "Caesar's wife" principle, if nothing else.
__________________
“It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people.”
― Neil Gaiman, Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch

Last edited by Slow Moving Vehicle; 05-17-2019 at 04:30 PM.
  #22  
Old 05-17-2019, 05:34 PM
doreen is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 6,279
About the First Amendment -government employees do not have exactly the same First Amendment rights as private citizens. Many people, including government employees don't realize this. It depends on a few factors

From here
Quote:
Held: Respondent's discharge did not offend the First Amendment. Pp. 461 U. S. 142-154.

(a) In determining a public employee's rights of free speech, the problem is to arrive

"at a balance between the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees."

Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U. S. 563, 391 U. S. 568. P. 461 U. S. 142.

(b) When a public employee speaks not as a citizen upon matters of public concern, but instead as an employee upon matters only of personal interest, absent the most unusual circumstances, a federal court is not

Page 461 U. S. 139

the appropriate forum in which to review the wisdom of a personnel decision taken by a public agency allegedly in reaction to the employee's behavior. Here, except for the question in respondent's questionnaire regarding pressure upon employees to work in political campaigns, the questions posed do not fall under the rubric of matters of "public concern." Pp. 461 U. S. 143-149.

(c) The District Court erred in imposing an unduly onerous burden on the State to justify respondent's discharge by requiring it to "clearly demonstrate" that the speech involved "substantially interfered" with the operation of the office. The State's burden in justifying a particular discharge varies depending upon the nature of the employee's expression. Pp. 461 U. S. 149-150.

(d) The limited First Amendment interest involved here did not require petitioner to tolerate action that he reasonably believed would disrupt the office, undermine his authority, and destroy the close working relationships within the office. The question on the questionnaire regarding the level of confidence in supervisors was a statement that carried the clear potential for undermining office relations. Also, the fact that respondent exercised her rights to speech at the office supports petitioner's fears that the function of his office was endangered. And the fact that the questionnaire emerged immediately after a dispute between respondent and petitioner and his deputies requires that additional weight be given to petitioner's view that respondent threatened his authority to run the office. Pp. 461 U. S. 150-154.
Now , that case is about an employee who circulated a questionnaire at the office. This case was about some public employees and their "expressive behavior" while off duty. As far as I can tell, this was the end of the case and it never went to the Supreme Court - but this decision said

Quote:
One does, of course, have a First Amendment right not to be terminated from public employment in retaliation for engaging in protected speech. But one's right to be a police officer or firefighter who publicly ridicules those he is commissioned to protect and serve is far from absolute. Rather, it is tempered by the reasonable judgment of his employer as to the potential disruptive effects of the employee's conduct on the public mission of the police and fire departments. We find, in this case, that the judgment of the defendants was reasonable, that it was the clear motive for the plaintiffs' dismissals, and that it outweighed the plaintiffs' individual First Amendment interests in participating in the "Black to the Future" float.
This is not that far from marching with white supremacists- it's a little hard to imagine that this probation officer is not disrupting his agency's public mission if indeed his organization is affiliated with racist organizations.

Last edited by doreen; 05-17-2019 at 05:36 PM.
  #23  
Old 05-17-2019, 09:38 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf333 View Post
No. The entire point of the Confederacy was the continuation of slavery. That is the history and heritage.
Slavery wasn't the entire point. There was also treason.
  #24  
Old 05-17-2019, 09:47 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
If you can show that he discriminated against his clients, or that he broke the law in some way, fire him. Advocating for nasty political positions is not against the law, and does not constitute probable cause to arrest or proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
I actually have no problem with this position as long as it's honestly followed.

Being a member of this group raises legitimate cause to question whether a person is acting in a racist manner. But it's not proof by itself. It should be followed by monitoring his job performance and seeing it he exhibits a pattern of treating people differently based on their race.

As you note, holding racist beliefs is not against the law. It's only when a person allows their racist beliefs to affect their job performance that it becomes an issue.

But I wouldn't agree to using some unreasonable standard of proof as a shield to protect this guy. If it can be shown by how he works that he treats black clients worse than white clients, it's not necessary to prove what his motivation for doing so is. The actions themselves are sufficient grounds.
  #25  
Old 05-17-2019, 11:04 PM
doreen is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 6,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post

As you note, holding racist beliefs is not against the law. It's only when a person allows their racist beliefs to affect their job performance that it becomes an issue.
The thing is though, for some jobs just having the racist beliefs being known* affects the mission of the agency and people , even public employees can be fired or disciplined for conduct that falls far short of breaking the law. I mean, it's not illegal for me to curse out my supervisor when he tells me to do something- but that doesn't mean I can't be fired or disciplined for it.




* I suppose someone can be quietly racist and never affect the mission of the agency. But then no one would know he/she was racist.
  #26  
Old 05-18-2019, 02:44 AM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by doreen View Post
* I suppose someone can be quietly racist and never affect the mission of the agency. But then no one would know he/she was racist.
The far more problematic, and far harder to deal with, are the quiet racists who DO affect the mission of the agency. They never actually say anything that could be termed offensive, they don't belong to any group that could be seen as racist, they espouse no extreme political views at all, but somehow the people of a particular race (or religion or gender or national origin) are never quite good enough to get the desirable benefits or receive prompt assistance or get a shorter sentence or whatever the agency does.
  #27  
Old 05-18-2019, 07:35 AM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,180
The issue isn't so much the membership in the organization as it is about the views he (presumably) holds. Are there beliefs that disqualify you from a job? On one hand, that sounds appalling, but then I think about it; what if a teacher told me that she thought black people were genetically stupid? What if they told me the whole "scientific racist" spiel we've heard so many times here? Even if there was no "smoking gun", how could such a person be an appropriate teacher? They could do so much damage to children--hundreds of children--and never produce a clear-cut, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt sign of bias. And I imagine the same thing is true of a probation officer.

So I guess the question is, if someone says "I don't much like [x group], I think they are, by and large, more likely to lie, engage in criminal behavior. They shouldn't be given probation in the first place", is that reason enough to not hire them? Fire them if those views emerge?

I mean, it's clear you can't ask someone if they belong to a certain political party, if they believe in a particular religion, etc. But is asking someone "Do you think black people are inherently stupid and criminal" in that same category?
  #28  
Old 05-18-2019, 04:13 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
The issue isn't so much the membership in the organization as it is about the views he (presumably) holds. Are there beliefs that disqualify you from a job? On one hand, that sounds appalling, but then I think about it; what if a teacher told me that she thought black people were genetically stupid? What if they told me the whole "scientific racist" spiel we've heard so many times here? Even if there was no "smoking gun", how could such a person be an appropriate teacher? They could do so much damage to children--hundreds of children--and never produce a clear-cut, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt sign of bias. And I imagine the same thing is true of a probation officer.

So I guess the question is, if someone says "I don't much like [x group], I think they are, by and large, more likely to lie, engage in criminal behavior. They shouldn't be given probation in the first place", is that reason enough to not hire them? Fire them if those views emerge?

I mean, it's clear you can't ask someone if they belong to a certain political party, if they believe in a particular religion, etc. But is asking someone "Do you think black people are inherently stupid and criminal" in that same category?
I could imagine a case where that was true, but at the same time the reference you make to "whole 'scientific racist' spiel we've heard so many times here" points to a real slippery slope with this kind of argument.

I haven't read nearly every thread touching on that topic for the long years this forum has apparently existed or even all the ones in recent years. But usually the debate is between people saying what I interpret to mean 1) the curve of the distribution of all kinds of innate talents must be virtually exactly the same among all ethnic or 'racial' genetic groups. And those opposed are usually just saying they are just unsure that's actually true, with some positively arguing it's significantly far from true. But I've never seen a post on this forum claiming that 2) the distributions of talents are so different they don't overlap at all, or only do to a negligible extent. And that's what's required (logically at least) to justify a racial caste system.

Insisting that everyone swear to the first proposition, if necessary by misrepresenting their doubt about 1) as being a statement of 2), does not help anyone IMO. Even when it's just internet noise, let alone making it a requirement to hold a job.

But I think mainly that reference to 'scientific racism here' was an unfortunate tangent. In the actual case here there's a relatively tangible affiliation of an individual with a particular organization. On the contrary to those who say what matters is what the person 'really thinks', you can never tell what people 'really think'. You can judge their actions and their associations. Again I don't think it was categorically wrong to deny Communists positions of public trust during the Cold War. I personally am not convinced that either venerating Confederate military achievements (not I, a Yankee through and through ) or belonging to an association dedicated to that would be a good enough reason to get into the person's personal views even for a public job. Maybe there's more evidence the organization supports white supremacy, a few claims on a forum and internet links doesn't do that for me. But semi-hypothetically if the org were really heavily involved in actual advocacy of white supremacy (actual, not just, 'this person doesn't agree with me on a issue touching on race therefore is a white supremacist') I could see that as the public's business for a public employee. Although if the NC public or their reps decided that wasn't a disqualification I'd leave it as their decision.

Last edited by Corry El; 05-18-2019 at 04:16 PM.
  #29  
Old 05-18-2019, 06:20 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,471
I wonder, do we have Sons of the Tories from the Revolutionary war?

There must be sons of soldiers Living in the USA whose fathers fought on the Axis or Central Powers during those wars. Do we seem them organizing or bragging about it?
  #30  
Old 05-18-2019, 07:08 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I wonder, do we have Sons of the Tories from the Revolutionary war?

There must be sons of soldiers Living in the USA whose fathers fought on the Axis or Central Powers during those wars. Do we seem them organizing or bragging about it?
Daughters of American revolution only honors women related to those who fought on the American side in that war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daught...can_Revolution

my ex wife could join as she is related to Ethan Allen but I am sure she has no interest in joining.
  #31  
Old 05-18-2019, 07:18 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,871
It's not reasonable to expect that a Jewish person could expect fair treatment from an authority figure who was a member of an organization that glorified the Nazi party; it's also not reasonable to expect that a black person could expect fair treatment from an authority figure who was a member of an organization that glorified the Confederacy. Things in society break down when people reasonably don't believe that authority figures with power of life and death can be trusted.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-18-2019 at 07:18 PM.
  #32  
Old 05-18-2019, 07:32 PM
carrps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Daughters of American revolution only honors women related to those who fought on the American side in that war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daught...can_Revolution

my ex wife could join as she is related to Ethan Allen but I am sure she has no interest in joining.
One of the things I found out while researching my father's side of the family was how long I've had family in North America. I have at least three ancestors that would qualify me for membership in the DAR (no desire to join AT ALL). But via DNA I've found family in Nova Scotia. I couldn't find any ancestors who arrived their directly from Europe, so my suspicion is that they fled there during/after the Revolutionary War.
  #33  
Old 05-18-2019, 10:06 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
Right, he's an officer of the court. The appearance of bias is in many ways as bad as actual bias.
Where does/should this stop? What if the guy says he voted for Trump? Is that an appearance of hatred for Hispanics? What if he is a Republican?

AFAIK, the Sons of Confederate Veterans is not (at least overtly) a racist organization. What if he merely expressed support/sympathy for the southern cause? What if he was a Confederate reenactor on the weekends?

It is amazing how far some will justify suppression of speech, and do it so easily.
  #34  
Old 05-18-2019, 11:18 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Where does/should this stop? What if the guy says he voted for Trump? Is that an appearance of hatred for Hispanics? What if he is a Republican?

AFAIK, the Sons of Confederate Veterans is not (at least overtly) a racist organization. What if he merely expressed support/sympathy for the southern cause? What if he was a Confederate reenactor on the weekends?

It is amazing how far some will justify suppression of speech, and do it so easily.
If you believe that a step in any direction leads down a "slippery slope", how do you get up the courage to leave your bed every morning?
  #35  
Old 05-19-2019, 09:21 AM
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 31,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
AFAIK, the Sons of Confederate Veterans is not (at least overtly) a racist organization. What if he merely expressed support/sympathy for the southern cause? What if he was a Confederate reenactor on the weekends?

It is amazing how far some will justify suppression of speech, and do it so easily.
SCV not only lobbies to keep public monuments to the Confederacy, it has funded a bunch of new ones and promotes a highly deceptive version of history.

I'm dubious about having anyone in a law enforcement role associated with such a group. It'd be a different matter if he was, say, a functionary in the auditor's office.

SCV is not exactly a "hate group", but it's arguably Racist Lite.
  #36  
Old 05-19-2019, 09:42 AM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Where does/should this stop? What if the guy says he voted for Trump? Is that an appearance of hatred for Hispanics? What if he is a Republican?

AFAIK, the Sons of Confederate Veterans is not (at least overtly) a racist organization. What if he merely expressed support/sympathy for the southern cause? What if he was a Confederate reenactor on the weekends?

It is amazing how far some will justify suppression of speech, and do it so easily.
Where is your line? If a white teacher said in an interview "I think black kids are stupid, and the ones that appear to do well are usually cheating, but I treat them all equally and I won't ever tell them that.", would not hiring that teacher be a violation of free speech?

This is an honest question. I don't know how you feel about that.
  #37  
Old 05-19-2019, 10:49 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Where does/should this stop?
This is the fallacy of the mound. We may not be able to draw a logical bright line between the two extremes of "explicitly advocating illegal violence" and "delightful public speech for a public employee," any more than we can find the exact age where a child stops being childish and becomes mature enough to drink alcohol.

In both cases, we need to draw the line arbitrarily. The question is, where should the line arbitrarily be drawn?

And as Manda Jo asks, it'd be helpful for you to tell us where you'd draw it.
  #38  
Old 05-19-2019, 11:11 AM
DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,270
When answering the question posed in the OP, be certain to ask that question of yourself with facts that transpose the political biases in question, and see if your answer is consistent. The reference to membership in the Communist Party is one such attempt, but sufficiently long ago that for many, it simply doesn't resonate. Pick instead an organization that is seen by conservatives as having unacceptable values and motives that is currently (or recently) active.

I dislike the notion of tarring a person with their out-of-job associations. As a teacher in South Carolina, I was subjected to that sort of prejudice on a couple of occasions. Slippery slopes aside, there's a fundamental issue at play, and I find it disturbing when people who normally advocate socially "liberal" positions (defined as more focused on individual rights than the demands of societal safety) suddenly get upset about an individual's rights when the ideology is bothersome.
  #39  
Old 05-19-2019, 11:41 AM
orcenio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NCR
Posts: 2,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I wonder, do we have Sons of the Tories from the Revolutionary war?
The United Empire Loyalists' Association of Canada was founded in 1914 to commemorate the Loyalists who arrived and founded communities in Canada during and after the American revolutionary war. They don't have a branch in the states, but the website claims many members who live there (and throughout the world too).

The African Nova Scotian community can trace a direct linage to freed Black Loyalist settlers who arrived in the late 18th century.

Last edited by orcenio; 05-19-2019 at 11:46 AM.
  #40  
Old 05-19-2019, 12:37 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post

I dislike the notion of tarring a person with their out-of-job associations. As a teacher in South Carolina, I was subjected to that sort of prejudice on a couple of occasions. Slippery slopes aside, there's a fundamental issue at play, and I find it disturbing when people who normally advocate socially "liberal" positions (defined as more focused on individual rights than the demands of societal safety) suddenly get upset about an individual's rights when the ideology is bothersome.
I think we have to start with the question of whether it's okay to "tar a person" with their out-of-job beliefs. Because that's what is really the issue here--the association is just evidence of a set of beliefs. So is it okay to fire a white supremacist from teaching, if she doesn't share her views while on the job? What about as a judge?
  #41  
Old 05-19-2019, 12:37 PM
doreen is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 6,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
When answering the question posed in the OP, be certain to ask that question of yourself with facts that transpose the political biases in question, and see if your answer is consistent. The reference to membership in the Communist Party is one such attempt, but sufficiently long ago that for many, it simply doesn't resonate. Pick instead an organization that is seen by conservatives as having unacceptable values and motives that is currently (or recently) active.
I'm not at all certain what you mean by "transpose the political biases"in question. There are a lot of political opinions that might indicate biases for/against certain groups but might also be based on other beliefs - just because someone is pro-life it doesn't necessarily mean they hate women and just because someone is against illegal immigration, it doesn't mean they hate immigrants or non-white people. But groups or individuals that exist to express a belief in the inferiority/superiority of one group over another are different - and so are ones that may not exist for that purpose but align themselves with other groups that do. And it doesn't matter whether belief is that black people are inferior to whites or that white people are inherently evil or whether it's Jews or Christians or Muslims who are the devil. Does the "transposition of political biases" you refer to mean my feelings about public employees in a position of power who belong to groups that march with black supremacist groups? They should be fired as well


Quote:
I dislike the notion of tarring a person with their out-of-job associations. As a teacher in South Carolina, I was subjected to that sort of prejudice on a couple of occasions. Slippery slopes aside, there's a fundamental issue at play, and I find it disturbing when people who normally advocate socially "liberal" positions (defined as more focused on individual rights than the demands of societal safety) suddenly get upset about an individual's rights when the ideology is bothersome.
The thing is, there are two individuals involved . I think the individual on the other side of the interaction with the judge or cop or probation officer has a right to expect fair treatment by a representative of the government- and it's not reasonable to expect that individual to be confident they will be treated fairly by the cop/judge/probation officer who publically expresses a belief that that individual is less worthy because of his race/religion/ethnicity
  #42  
Old 05-19-2019, 01:22 PM
aruvqan is online now
Embracing the Suck
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Eastern Connecticut
Posts: 16,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeagleJesus View Post
As a black man in America I have no faith that anyone who chooses to associate themselves with Confederate anything will engage with the public fairly. In my opinion, his voluntary association with the CSV is all the evidence needed to demonstrate bias.
So how do you feel about FFV [First Families of Virginia]? mrAru is a descendent of *those* Lees ... and just like I am Mayflower, DAR [daughter of the American Revolution] and a direct descendent of one of the men more or less responsible for the witch trials and invading Canada, what am I - I never signed off on laws letting the Mathers spread hate, never invaded Canada [other than vacation bar-hopping] or propose that we need to head to the nearest coastal town and dump tea in the harbor.

People can be associated with the past without believing in those tenents, I know mrAru is aware that his ancestors kept slaves, but I doubt he wants to return to slave holding, or turn back time and have Virginia leave the United States ... and my ancestors owned ships working the triangle trade, and I have no particular desire to trade in molasses, gold, slaves or rum [well, OK I could be down with buying and trading in the different rums available, every time we cruise the Caribbean we try to taste a different countries rums ...]
  #43  
Old 05-19-2019, 01:39 PM
orcenio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NCR
Posts: 2,167
IMHO, you just can't divorce the Confederacy from the horrors of slavery (not to even bring in the failures of Reconstruction upto the Civil Rights era).

It never helped that those associations honouring the Confederate's role in the civil war have heavily skewed to historical revisionism; it might have been a different matter had these institutions been dedicated to the full confrontation of the evils of the rebellion and southern slave society (like in Germany with remembrance of the third Reich).

Last edited by orcenio; 05-19-2019 at 01:39 PM.
  #44  
Old 05-19-2019, 01:53 PM
Royal Nonesutch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by aruvqan View Post
People can be associated with the past without believing in those tenents, I know mrAru is aware that his ancestors kept slaves, but I doubt he wants to return to slave holding, or turn back time and have Virginia leave the United States ...
Oh, I don't know about that.

I think that for the sake of racial harmony and a sense of basic fairness, this "mrAru" ought to have 90 cents of each dollar he earns going forward garnished and awarded to Spike Lee.

Let the healing begin!
  #45  
Old 05-19-2019, 02:04 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
When answering the question posed in the OP, be certain to ask that question of yourself with facts that transpose the political biases in question, and see if your answer is consistent.
What organization would work? That is, is there a group on the left that seeks to build statues to, and honor, those who took up arms in violent insurrection against our country rather than recognize rights for a class of Americans?
  #46  
Old 05-19-2019, 02:10 PM
Royal Nonesutch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
That is, is there a group on the left that seeks to build statues to, and honor, those who took up arms in violent insurrection against our country rather than recognize rights for a class of Americans?
KISS Army?

Red Sox Nation?

Bronies?

Last edited by Royal Nonesutch; 05-19-2019 at 02:11 PM.
  #47  
Old 05-19-2019, 02:26 PM
black rabbit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dungaree High
Posts: 3,769
I think that if a member of the Society To Argue That What Gary Glitter Did Is No Big Deal (it's a fraternal organization of Glam Rock fans!) got hired to work for Child Protective Services, people might raise eyebrows.
  #48  
Old 05-19-2019, 02:30 PM
Royal Nonesutch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by black rabbit View Post
...the Society To Argue That What Gary Glitter Did Is No Big Deal (it's a fraternal organization of Glam Rock fans!)
I wonder what their theme song could be?
  #49  
Old 05-19-2019, 03:17 PM
ZPG Zealot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal Nonesutch View Post
I wonder what their theme song could be?
Hot Child in the City.
  #50  
Old 05-19-2019, 03:54 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by aruvqan View Post
So how do you feel about FFV [First Families of Virginia]? mrAru is a descendent of *those* Lees ... and just like I am Mayflower, DAR [daughter of the American Revolution] and a direct descendent of one of the men more or less responsible for the witch trials and invading Canada, what am I - I never signed off on laws letting the Mathers spread hate, never invaded Canada [other than vacation bar-hopping] or propose that we need to head to the nearest coastal town and dump tea in the harbor.
Sure but the FFF are also glorifying men who founded America, and men who fought in the Revolutionary war to give America its freedom. Lots of good, some bad, take it all.

Sons of the Con are there purely to glorify traitors who fought to keep slavery legal and widespread.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017