During a Labor Day parade back in '98, two NYC firefighters and a NYC police officer were spotted on a float that could be described as insensitive at best, racist at worse. From the article:
The participants were donned in blackface too.
Despite his general indifference and sometimes-hostility towards race issues, Mayor Guiliani was quick in his decision to fire these men from their city jobs. Presently, at least one of the men is presenting his case to the Supreme Court, arguing that he was wrongfully fired. You guessed it…he’s citing freedom of speech and the ACLU is backing him up.
I hadn’t heard of this craziness until yesterday, and I literally cried when I heard what these men had done. How could someone do such a nasty and ugly thing and not know that it would be offensive? I say the men should have been fired if only because of their major stupidity, but I also think the nature of their act is unbecoming of government employees responsible for saving lives and enforcing laws while working with many different types of people, including black people.
However, I’m starting to wonder about where we draw the line. Guiliani’s termination of the three was mighty swift and one could argue arbitrary. Being racist is awful but are officers required to love all of humanity? And while riding racist floats during a Labor Day celebration is mean, crazy, and hateful, it’s not against the law. So does the plaintiff have a point? Should he get his job back?
(Sorry for the lack of details…I’ve been looking for information about the case and I haven’t been able to find anything. I’ll keep searching though.)
What a thoroughly gross and disgusting idea for a float. How could anyone not think that was racist, revolting, and sick? (I did find an article about the case where the officers claim that they were actually mimicking racist stereotypes in the overwhelmingly white area where the parade was held. It might be true, but sorry boys, you did not succeed in making your point clearly.)
However, since the officers in question were off duty and acting solely in their capacity as private citizens, it’s not clear to me that their employer has any business retaliating against them as employees.
This reminds me somewhat of the Winn-Dixie case in which the ACLU defended an employee who was fired for sometimes cross-dressing as a woman when he was off duty:
Many people probably consider cross-dressing as gross, disgusting, revolting and sick as I consider blackface race-baiting to be. However, if it’s not related to the man’s job, and his job performance is unexceptionable, I don’t see that his employer has any legitimate excuse for firing him.
No. People get fired for things that are not exactly illegal all the time. The police officers should not be sent to jail for their assholishness, but it would be ridiculous to allow them to keep their jobs serving the public when it is known that they don’t even show respect to the public.
Who pays policemen? The public. Policemen not only have an obligation to protect, but they also have an obligation to provide good customer service.
Someone could argue that the men weren’t on duty during the parade, and therefore it’s not fair that they should lose their jobs for off-the-clock horseplay. This argument might hold up if we were talking about someone like a grocery bagger or a busboy. But we’re talking about public servants, who whether or they like it or not, represent their employer both in and outside their uniform. Ideally, the policeman-public relationship should rest upon trust. Since a large chunk of the public’s trust would be jeopardized by cops participating in something so horrifically obscene, they need to be removed .
If anything, Guiliani’s decision was right because it sent a message to the public that racism and blatant disregard for humanity among members of the police force will not be tolerated. I see it no differently than firing a gynecologist from my hospital if word go out that he was a distributor of porn.
Cops are no diffrent from anyone else. Just because you are a cop that doesnt make you a good person. People do dumb shit all of the time when they arent at work. As long as it doesnt spill over and affect their job what diffrence does it make? Big deal , they tossed chicken and watermelon from a float. Who is wrong, them for doing it or the people watching for laughing at it?
ywtf:I see it no differently than firing a gynecologist from my hospital if word [got] out that he was a distributor of porn.
Neither do I, and that’s why I have a problem with it. Porn (as long as it’s legal and not stuff like kiddie porn) is eminently protected speech, and I would think that any GYN fired for legally distributing pornographic materials off duty away from his workplace would probably have an ironclad case for reinstatement.
Your point about the officers’ need to maintain the public’s trust seems like a better one to me—in other words, off duty or not, if they’re known to be race-baiting bigots then they won’t be able to do their jobs effectively, so let them go. I’m still thinking about whether or not I really buy that argument, but it does have a point.
If the porn was unrelated to work, then why would this be a problem?
The racist float would be considered disgusting by most. But if you can be fired for being a "off-duty"racist, then where do you draw the line? What if my boss discovered that I’m an “off-duty” creationist? Would she be justified in firing me?
I’d be a bit worried about this attitude. Government employees are allowed to have opinions that their superiors don’t like. If they’re on the job and engage in bad behavior then their employers should have some say. Off the job, the government should stay away from their personal lives.
**
Yes, freedom of association and expression apply to government employees as well as everyone else. No matter how offensive.
Kimstu, the reason why I see the hypothetical porn-distributing obgyn in a similar light (in regards to fairness…not ethics) as these cops is because of the trust thing. Most women, I assume, would feel uncomfortable parting their legs for someone known to have dealings with pornography. I know I would. I can picture myself laying at the edge of a table, feet in cold stirrups, with my naked legs splayed open and a man probling into my most private parts. But can I imagine myself relaxed and comfortable knowing that the man who is palpating my vulva has intimate dealings with pornography? No, can’t say that image comes to mind easily.
Same thing with a cop who thinks it’s funny to make fun of another man’s murder, and do it replete with stereotypical props and in blackface, no less. Would I trust that man to NOT overact in situations involving black people? Would I want to entrust that man with the job of protecting me and people like me? Can’t say that I would.
I agree with you kinda, but I also agree with you with the face. Government employees are servants of the people. If they offend the people–even “after hours”–then doesn’t this affect their ability to act as good servants? I know I would be especially fearful of the police officer who was on that float. How could any black person be expected to trust someone who thinks it’s HILARIOUS to mock a modern-day lynching?
Perhaps if it was a bunch of custodians and plumbers on that float, I wouldn’t care as much.
you with the face, the problem I have with your argument is that many things can be related to the clientele’s “comfort” and not be related to job performance. Also, I think the level of publicity surrounding the person’s questionable behavior is important. For instance, if a supervisor found out that an employee attends “Whitey Gets on My Last Nerve” conventions but no one else knows, would it be right to fire this employee?
Here’s another example, this one related to the first point I just raised: What if it got around that I think gay people are cool and my clientele are ardently homophobic. Would my boss be justified in firing me? It’s examples like this one which make this issue not so cut-and-dry for me.
Yes but…I don’t think it’s just a question of them being racist.
It’s the fact that their racism results in their regarding a crime- the most serious crime out there- as a joke.
I think this is the place where their personal opinions overlap with their fitness to be policemen. I think it is reasonable to question whether someone who holds these attitudes about the death of James Byrd would treat any more seriously the murder of any other black man. And taking murder seriously is kind of a prerequisite for being a policeman.
Of course I think before you actually fire them, you have to make the case that it does effect them doing their job. But I think the case can be made.
Yes they are. Shoot an innocent man 41 times. Will the mayor of your town automatically rush to your defense?
Being a police officer doesn’t MAKE you a good person. But only good people SHOULD be police officers. And IMHO, good people don’t do what those fools did.
Do you really think this is only about chicken and watermelon?
Hmmm, I think an important distinction between this hypothetical and the case with the cops at the parade is that the latter was made in public, with the explicit intent of being seen by everyone in attendance. A convention isn’t as exposed and deliberately exhibitionary. Maybe this distinction isn’t all that important, afterall, I don’t know. But I do know that private “behind closed door” activities weigh differently in my mind than the “out in broad-day light, don’t-care-what-none-of-yall-motherfuckin’ negroes-think” sort of festivities those men had put on.
This is actually an excellent point and it’s hard to really come with a right-sounding answer in response. But I think it comes down to a few things. Does your non-homophobia inherently get in the way of conducting your job? If you’re a bank teller or a shoe salesperson, what would liking gay people have to do with your job? The opinion of customers should only figure in when something like questions of trust and respect enter the picture. Can the boss trust this person to treat clients fairly and conduct themselves professionally, and can clients reasonably expect the same thing, knowing XYZ about them? If the answer if yes, then there would be little justification for firing them.
Where it gets hairy using this rule of thumb is when you try to apply it to the obgyn example I made up earlier. Me being uncomfortable with a doctor who every weekend stands on the street corner hawking porno mags, may be completely irrational and unreasonable, and thus, nonjustifiable grounds for firing him. As his boss, would I have a case against him, even if half the clientel starting avoiding that particular doctor like ebola? I don’t know.
The City of New York doesn’t think free speech has anything to do with it. The city’s case is that the officer’s actions undermined the city’s ability to do it’s job. That the officer’s conduct made it difficult to deal with their minority consituents, and their continued employment would have made this situation even worse.
These men were police officers and should have realized this.
Biggirl’s got it: How do you think black New Yorkers would have looked at these cops? With trust and devotion, knowing they’re there to serve & protect? Don’t think so. It’s entirely inappropriate to have a police force in any city, especially a city with an enormous black population, employ people who are likely to be racists towards the people they’re supposed to serve. Public service is not like any other kind of duty.
And kniz, it isn’t the sense of humour that’s at issue. For God’s sake, it’s not like the city and these guys got in an argument about an Abbott and Costello record. What’s at issue is the fact that the “sense of humour” constituted laughing at the brutal death of a random innocent in a hate crime. People who think that’s funny should never be cops.
[sup]Here come the joke police.[/sup][/ul]