I would suggest simply excising the inappropriate paragraphs if you can leave the chapter legible or excise the entire chapter otherwise.
I doubt you’ll get much pushback.
IMHO, there are too many details that I don’t have to have a strong opinion, and giving those details probably reveals too much for your comfort level.
With what I do know, though, my first thought was that you could take a hard line that This All Must Change.
Full stop.
And then you can present the options to the larger group (this is Place One where I’m unclear – who, what, how many, org chart stuff vs. your role in this project, etc.), and ask for discussion, feedback, and other options about how to proceed.
IOW: “We are NOT going to let the racist bullshit stand” would be my immutable position (for legal, ethical, moral, human decency, and posterity reasons*), but I’m open to discussing possible ways forward.
Do you have to have The Final Decision on this one, or can you raise the problem and get some consensus ?
*And for all of those reasons, I’d make sure that your position was both unambiguous and clearly documented (ie, in writing). If the MAGAts think you’re being a snowflake on this and try to do little or nothing about the text, you’ll have cover.
I absolutely agree. It is a legal matter and possible lawsuit (s). Other quita possible are libel, slander, defamation.
Prevention of discriminationEdit
Main articles: Anti-discrimination law, Equality before the law, and Institutionalized discrimination
Article 2 of the Convention condemns racial discrimination and obliges parties to “undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms”.[6] It also obliges parties to promote understanding among all races.[6] To achieve this, the Convention requires that signatories:
- Not practice racial discrimination in public institutions[28]
- Not “sponsor, defend, or support” racial discrimination[29]
- Review existing policies, and amend or revoke those that cause or perpetuate racial discrimination[30]
- Prohibit “by all appropriate means, including legislation,” racial discrimination by individuals and organisations within their jurisdictions[31]
- Encourage groups, movements, and other means that eliminate barriers between races, and discourage racial division[32]
Parties are obliged “when the circumstances so warrant” to use positive discrimination policies for specific racial groups to guarantee “the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms”.[33] However, these measures must be finite, and “shall in no case entail as a consequence the maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved”.[33]
Article 5 expands upon the general obligation of Article 2 and creates a specific obligation to guarantee the right of everyone to equality before the law regardless of “race, colour, or national or ethnic origin”.[34] It further lists specific rights this equality must apply to: equal treatment by courts and tribunals,[35] security of the person and freedom from violence,[36] the civil and political rights affirmed in the ICCPR,[37] the economic, social and cultural rights affirmed in the ICESCR,[38] and the right of access to any place or service used by the general public, “such as transport hotels, restaurants, cafes, theatres and parks.”[39] This list is not exhaustive, and the obligation extends to all human rights.[40]
Article 6 obliges parties to provide “effective protection and remedies” through the courts or other institutions for any act of racial discrimination.[41] This includes a right to a legal remedy and damages for injury suffered due to discrimination.[41]
Here’s another possible lawsuit. Yes U.S citizens could be procescuted.
The United States is a signitory. Click on75 to see all countries.
The following are parties to the covenant:[75]
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ( ICESCR )
Some things just don’t change very fast. In some fields, a 30-year-old book would work just fine.
It’s a bit hard to say. If there are racial aspects, then those absolutely should be removed.
However, it has been my experience, and the shared experience of many of my peers, that there are those who use a language barrier to take advantage of negotiating a contract.
When I was in landscaping, I’ve had people refuse to pay unless we did rather extensive work that was not in the original agreement. When I’ve hired contractors, I’ve had them refuse to do work that was in the original agreement. I’ve had people insist that I quoted $38 rather than $58 for a dog groom.
I don’t know exactly what is legal or ethical here, and I certainly wouldn’t advise a blanket surcharge for those who have a different primary language, but some sort of mention that, should the primary language of the participants of the contract not be in common, that extra care be taken in ensuring that all parties are in full understanding of the obligations and compensations of the contract.
I just want to upvote this.
I majored in English in college, so I’ve dealt with texts that have prefaces like this. You use them for texts that either have great literary merit, or historical importance, in spite of ideas so dated as to be offensive. I don’t get the sense that this manual qualifies on either point.
As far as this being an option acceptable to the Trumpists you are dealing with, it’s probably worse than nothing, because they know that manuals are not literature, and they will bristle at anything that suggests that ideas they may still hold are of interest to historians.
Regarding the gender used, I find “he/she” rather distracting to read. I usually recommend changing to plural, and referring to contractors and then saying “them” or “they”. Gender-neutral and good English.
If the font you use to post grows increasingly larger as you post, do you ever run into a situation where your post just doesn’t fit?
Some counter-examples from my experience. My wife is an Asian-American professional court translator, English teacher and English Literature major. Her command of English is surely better than 95% of the native born US population, and her accent, if anything, is guessed at by people on the phone as vaguely Southern.
Yet in the last five years we’ve had a plumbers, electricians and carpet installers insist that their fuck-ups were caused by a “language barrier” which somehow only appeared when they met her in person. When complaining to their office personnel and bosses, the term “they’re salt of the earth kind of people, god bless them” or something similar keeps coming up.
Somehow we don’t have problems in communicating with the Salvadoran and Honduran landscapers whose English is very limited. But with their yankee supervisor, nothing but misunderstandings. After three years we fired them. We had pictures of the lawn as it was being cut, to prove that the supervisor was simply bullshitting about both the height (“over six inches” vs under 3 inches) and (“covered with leaves” vs a few leaves here and there”).
People are either coming in with an expectation that we will be difficult to deal with based on our race. Or trying to use this excuse to rip us off. By the way, all these contractors were recommended by our white neighbors and friends.
I agree with this approach. And when you want to use the singular, phrases like, “the contractor should take care that all parties understand the terms of the contract…” work well. I took a lot of “he or she” out of a manual in my profession by using those two tools, and it all reads cleanly to those of us with old-fashioned grammar.
(I was trying to make the document more trans-friendly. But also, “he or she” has always been clunky, and was the lazy rewrite. Actually recasting the sentences flows much better.)
This is scarcely a worse option than writing it yourself. I’d rather quit my job.
I agree with the general advice given by others that this needs to be framed as a real business risk. If people aren’t open to the “this is morally reprehensible” argument, they will respond to the “this could be financially devastating” argument.
Speaking as a person with rather considerable background in technical and business writing, oh God, no. This is a dreadful idea.
First of all, no matter how noble your intentions, it SOUNDS racist. Secondly, what is the obligation this statement places upon the parties? Who defines whether a person has facility in a language? When you say “primary language” does that mean that if Herman’s first language is Spanish, he is said to be a different primary language even if he’s lived in Colorado for 38 years and his English is flawless? What is “Extra care” - what exactly does that mean? Does this clause change others in the contract? Who interprets differences of opinion?
If a contract is written in English, it’s in English. It means what it means.
I suggest we table your suggestion.
My point is not that a language barrier creates these problems. My point is that there are those who will use whatever they can to try to take unfair advantage of a contract, and if they can claim a language barrier, then they will do so.
Parts of the rest of your post agree with this, as it seems as though some of those parties are trying to claim a language barrier as the reason for not fulfilling their part of the contract, even though there isn’t one.
I’m not sure that I follow. Languages do exist, language barriers do exist. It’s not based on the ethnicity of any party, it’s simply based on a difficulty in communication.
My understanding is that this manual is not a contract in and of itself, but rather a guideline to help people to make accurate quotes and estimates for their industry.
It doesn’t set any obligations, just gives recommendations and tips.
Before a contract is written, negotiations are done. I’ve had many times in dealings where the contract that is drawn up does not match what was negotiated. The biggest discrepancies I’ve dealt with would have to deal with my landlord for my business, with whom there is a bit of a language barrier, and he would leave things out, or put other things in, and claim that they were agreed to in negotiation.
And then even after the contract was written up, he would then try to breach it, and try to engage in a new round of verbal negotiation to change parts of our lease in his favor.
I’m not saying that a language barrier causes problems with negotiation and contracting, I’m saying that someone may use a language barrier to create deliberate misunderstandings that can cause problems with negotiation and contracting.
My solution has been that I don’t talk to him, I have my lawyer talk to his lawyers. They at least all speak the same language (law).
Since this is an independent manual produced by an independent trade organization, you shouldn’t feel too much responsibility to make them see the light. This will get straightened out one way or another. I’m sure some Asians in your industry will read the book at some point. But you can decide if you want to be associated with this process. If the organization is not receptive to the points you bring up about racism, you should decide if you would want to continue with the review process. I would guess they might list the committee and reviewers in the newer copy of the manual. If they publish the book as-is and you are known to have been part of the review process, people may assume you condone those ideas.
As to the he/him, I would suggest making a one-time comment about making the language more gender neutral. If they are not receptive, it’s not really worth trying to change their mind.
I could see having a section talking about typical business practices in the Asian community, but in a non-racial way. It’s common for different cultures to have different business norms and knowing those can make for a better sales relationship.
The common clay of the new West.
It’s definitely in the Genes.
And while they’re relatively tame now, they once were significantly Wilder.
Modern society Brooks no racism. Not even a Little.
There’s a fourth option. Or, perhaps, an alternative path to the first option, depending on how you want to look at it.
“I’ve reviewed the book. The technical accounting advice remains sound, and I’m willing to provide a written statement to that effect. However, presuming you want to publish the entire volume as-is, I will need you to provide me with a hold-harmless disclaimer before I issue such a statement, to ensure I am not held responsible for any of the legal damages that may potentially accrue from the non-technical advice in the book.”
They will ask you to clarify.
“I stand behind chapters X, Y, and Z. However, I do not stand behind chapter N, and I believe that any endorsement of its content by me would put me in legal jeopardy. I will sign off on X, Y, and Z, but I require written assurance that your organization retains full accountability for N.”
This position is functionally more neutral than a demand that they change it. You’re just disassociating yourself from it, and making sure they understand they own the fallout from it. That orients them to think about it in a way that encourages them to take action.
If a contract mentions a “car,” without defining it, then what definition should apply?
- The strict dictionary definition.
- The common-usage definition (which may or may not be the same as the dictionary’s).
- The local motor-vehicle law definition.
I think you’re worried too much about the reaction.
First off, the material in question is 25 years old. In any industry there will be changes in law and management practices that require a “refreshing” of the language (replace “tape measure” with “laser measuring tool”, references to the Internet, etc.) Certainly you’ll slap a big REVISED AND UPDATED across the cover, won’t you?
As for the racist stuff, if I understand you correctly, even the mere idea of overcharging violates your own organization’s by-laws, which should end the discussion right there. If it doesn’t, the phrase “besides, it will get us sued” usually softens dissent.
Under no circumstances should you even suggest an Option 3 disclaimer that says, “Well, this was written 25 years ago and we know better now.” You should have known better then.
This all should be so blindingly obvious to the committee, that it will be taken care of in the first meeting, assuming the other members have actually read the damn book. If not, bow out and run away, quickly.