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
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
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 …]
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
I agree. Absolutely. And it’s not just body language–there are a thousand places where a teacher, probation officer, policeman, judge has to apply discretion, and it would be extraordinarily difficult to tease out to what degree that discretion was tainted by bias.
It would take years, for one thing, during which substantial harm would be done. But some people seem to feel there should be an iron-clad separation between a person’s work and private life–a stance i understand, even if I don’t share–and I am curious what they think. Until we all are on the same page about that, then quibbling about what it means to belong to an organization that espouses certain beliefs is a red herring.
I don’t know the line. Wherever it is, it is not the SCV who are admittedly (in this thread) not a racist organization but some members marched with racist organizations in Charlottesville, and there is no showing even then that those members shared the racist beliefs of those other groups. That is a step way too far. Might as well just call the group “Republicans” and not allow them to hold public office as a matter of law.
People are complaining about my use of the slippery slope but it is accurate. Once you start down it, there is no principled way to stop. If you say that a person’s off the job political beliefs are good enough to prevent their hire, then all we are talking about is line drawing and you might as well say the line is drawn at “Republicans” or “Democrats.”
As far as the hypo, she is clearly making a comment about how she will view her job (i.e. if a black kid performs well on a test, he or she is “usually” cheating). That’s a far cry from a membership in the SCV. I don’t see how you can make a link between that membership and treating a black probationer unfairly. There is an inference piled upon an inference there. The line should have to be more direct and provable.
But at some point, is it okay to decide someone’s personal, political views are problematic? Would it be okay to fire that teacher if private comments she made to that effect were reported to administration, and when asked about it, she confirmed that she did feel that way–but pointed out that there had been no complaints from students, parents, or teachers that suggested she was actively biased?
I think before we can talk about where the line is, we need to decide if one even exists.
I am not being difficult. I just don’t understand the hypo. Is it something along the lines of a teacher thinks that blacks are generally stupid and lazy and probably cannot compete with whites, yet on the job,she grades them fairly and gives them marks consistently and fairly just as she would with any white student?
If so, there might be a perception from a black student that got a low grade that it was because of the teacher’s prior statements, but that would be no more valid than a criminal defendant claiming bias because of a “hanging judge” 's prior statements about criminals or getting a fair trial for drunk driving in front of a judge who is a member of MADD.
What if one of my clients has an abortion during the pendency of her criminal case? Should she think I would tank her case because I am pro-life?
Everyone has their own biases or personal prejudices and they are not and cannot be actionable at law unless every judge or lawyer keep quiet at all times. But when the government discriminates based upon this speech it then becomes actionable.
I don’t want Nazis teaching my children anymore than anyone else does, but that is how freedom dies: you point to the “bad guy” and shut him down. Then the precedent is set for more, and next week you are the bad guy. It is banana republic bullshit.
So you don’t think there’s a line. And that’s fine, but it makes it pointless for us to argue about what a membership in such and such an organization implies: you don’t care what it implies, because you think even if a probation officer honestly and sincerely believes that most black people re guilty of something and can’t help their own criminality, as long as there is no smoking gun of explicit bias, it’s not appropriate for the state to make employment decisions with those in mind.
My problem with that is that subtle bias can be so destructive: it’s not just a matter of giving assignments and grading them fairly. There’s a zillion little ways that bias could lead to a student getting a less effective education because his teacher thought it would be pearls before swine. It’s an enormous risk to take. So I am comfortable with the state–in its role as employer–refusing to employ people with certain views. I think it’s possible for a belief to make you inherently unqualified for a job.
Would you agree that while he should not lose his job, his leadership position in this group means that a strict scrutiny of his interactions with black clients is warranted?
It seems to me that in some jobs, just the fact that someone might hold these beliefs can be a professional detriment. Say the guy was a police officer. I would think that he might prove to be an impediment to obtaining convictions, as minority defendants could possibly use his background to claim bias at trial. This could happen no matter how evenhandedly he performed his job.
I don’t think this would be as serious a problem for probation officers, but it might be if his clients start claiming he’s biased.