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.
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
Fromhere
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
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.
Slavery wasn’t the entire point. There was also treason.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
my ex wife could join as she is related to Ethan Allen but I am sure she has no interest in joining.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?