CDOT employee investigation over Obama e-mail continues

[Voegelin]

NBC
9News.com

DENVER - We have an update to our Tuesday night story on the Colorado Department of Transportation employee under investigation for sending out an inappropriate e-mail.

The attachment, which some may find offensive, shows a picture of President Barack Obama shining the shoes of former Vice-Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin . . .

9NEWS.com | Denver | Colorado's Online News Leader | CDOT employee investigation over Obama e-mail continues

 

[laconicstudent]

This seems reasonable. I rather expect he is going to end up losing his job.

 

[sbvera13]

At first I though it was unreasonable, but reading it revealed this, which I had not thought about myself:

"If the topic of the e-mail has to do with a protected class; race, disability, age, gender, then potentially it could lead to a hostile work environment type liability for the employers.

The firing (or whatever potential action is eventually taken) seems to be on secure legal footing.

 

[laconicstudent]

At first I though it was unreasonable, but reading it revealed this, which I had not thought about myself:



The firing (or whatever potential action is eventually taken) seems to be on secure legal footing.

Yep. And also because it apparently was sent using government network resources.

I work for my city. One of the things in my contract talks about not acting in a way that would reflect poorly on the city, and there was a whole page and separate signatures required regarding computer resources.

The understanding was that if I applied for a network account (which I haven't, by the way) and used it for anything but work, I would be fired summarily.

Meh. So basically, I can tell you what is going to happen. If it is confirmed he sent those emails from a government work email, he's going to be fired as a matter of course.

 

[Voegelin]

The firing (or whatever potential action is eventually taken) seems to be on secure legal footing.

That part is exactly what I object to. No protected classes. America has to stop that stuff.

Fire government employees for using a computer for non work related stuff. Not because someone believes they offended a "protected class". Why would it be OK to make fun of one person and not another? Why should Obama be in a "protected class"?

If he needs "protection" let him get another job.

 

[laconicstudent]

That part is exactly what I object to. No protected classes. America has to stop that stuff.

Fire government employees for using a computer for non work related stuff. Not because someone believes they offended a "protected class". Why would it be OK to make fun of one person and not another? Why should Obama be in a "protected class"?

If he needs "protection" let him get another job.

I really doubt this is a class issue so much as a professionalism issue. If he had sent emails attacking Oprah, and news had gotten out, the result would be exactly the same.

 

[sbvera13]

That part is exactly what I object to. No protected classes. America has to stop that stuff.

I have to disagree. The laws are in place for a reason- to protect minorities from the belligerence of the majority. I will agree that a certain amount of temperance is called for, in that the spirit of the law should be considered when judging any particular case. However abolishing such laws would be a civil rights disaster. A brief study of history will show what we would risk reverting to if minorities had no legal protection.

 

[Voegelin]

I have to disagree. The laws are in place for a reason- to protect minorities from the belligerence of the majority..

No they aren't. The laws were passed to buy votes and enrich trial lawyers.

 

[its_nick]

Why should Obama be in a "protected class"?

If he needs "protection" let him get another job.

Umm...I think you've insinuated President Obama into this story in a new way. Don't be so passionate about your displeasure that it makes you foolish. You don't wear it well.

It is the class that is granted special protection; it is not President Obama himself who is granted the special protection discussed.

In this case, it is African Americans who are granted special protection as a class. Perhaps you may have heard that at times they have been damaged as a class, as when they were not permitted to vote or use the public swimming pool?...and so special protections were granted them as a class. Certainly you've heard of such things.

If evil, racist *&^holes had not been so eager to treat a whole class of people badly, then we wouldn't be faced with the special measures required to enfranchise them as equal participants in society.

Get it?

 

[its_nick]

No they aren't. The laws were passed to buy votes and enrich trial lawyers.

Such a hater!

 

[citizenthom]

Those same laws apply to creating a hostile work environment for whites. Yet if this had been a picture of a white president doing something demeaning, it would be cast as political satire, not racism. This is a blatant abuse of the intent of the laws to send a political message.

 

[DaisyDay]

Those same laws apply to creating a hostile work environment for whites. Yet if this had been a picture of a white president doing something demeaning, it would be cast as political satire, not racism. This is a blatant abuse of the intent of the laws to send a political message.

Proof by hypothetical anecdote?

 

[its_nick]

Those same laws apply to creating a hostile work environment for whites. Yet if this had been a picture of a white president doing something demeaning, it would be cast as political satire, not racism. This is a blatant abuse of the intent of the laws to send a political message.

Goofy.

Reminding again that this is about the work environment in the office and not about President Obama, you must understand that there is generally no reason to take action to protect the entire class of white people, right? In general -- not always, but in general (and there have been court judgments otherwise that you will recall, I'm sure) -- minority groups and others who tend to be discriminated against at the hands of people belonging to more powerful groups are the ones who are in need of occasional special protection.

Organizations are sometimes particularly vigilant to make sure that they do not treat groups of people especially poorly. I think that's to be commended. You apparently do not. I guess I should conclude that you don't approve of trying to make sure people are treated fairly, especially when they are members of groups that tend NOT to be treated as equal partners in the community.

It's unfortunate, I agree, that we must take these kinds of steps. But you MUST know how poorly minorities are treated by lots of majority Americans. We're stuck with some clumsy solutions to that problem, I'm afraid.

The 'hate crime' business, for example, is particularly clumsy. But it's a remedy that is sometimes employed to punish people who really, really DO commit crimes against people solely due to their membership in particular groups of people. We are free to think whatever dumb thoughts we like, but we are prohibited in a special way from inflicting damage on people due to dumb thoughts we may have about entire groups of people.

It's racist morons who created this problem. And they keep it robust, too.

I, of course, don't expect that someone like yourself will be convinced. That's OK. It's always been like that. The rest of us are used to it.

 

[citizenthom]

Reminding again that this is about the work environment in the office and not about President Obama

No, it's about satire regarding the President, period. That was my entire point. Casting it as "racism" is just a backdoor tactic to suppress the political speech. And my point was, that tactic would not work with a white president, even in a work environment where whites were the protected class (and the Civil Rights Act has been applied to that situation even where whites were the majority).

 

[citizenthom]

Proof by hypothetical anecdote?

A rephrase just for you: there has never been a situation where a satire about a white president has been cast as "racism" to justify a firing that was in reality politically-motivated. Better?

 

[its_nick]

No, it's about satire regarding the President, period. That was my entire point. Casting it as "racism" is just a backdoor tactic to suppress the political speech. And my point was, that tactic would not work with a white president, even in a work environment where whites were the protected class (and the Civil Rights Act has been applied to that situation even where whites were the majority).

Is this repetition sort of method of argument what you are alluding to in your signature when you invoke the dog returning to its vomit verse?

It's not any truer the second time you say it. In an effort to spare us a third, I'll stop at this point.

 

[DaisyDay]

A rephrase just for you: there has never been a situation where a satire about a white president has been cast as "racism" to justify a firing that was in reality politically-motivated. Better?

Yes, that is better.

Do you know of any satire about a white president that was, in fact, racist that was passed around in a government office?

 

[pgp_protector]

I have to disagree. The laws are in place for a reason- to protect minorities from the belligerence of the majority. I will agree that a certain amount of temperance is called for, in that the spirit of the law should be considered when judging any particular case. However abolishing such laws would be a civil rights disaster. A brief study of history will show what we would risk reverting to if minorities had no legal protection.

So it's not ok for a Majority Race to poke fun at a Minority Race
But it is ok of a Minority Race to poke fun at a Majority Race?

Wouldn't it be better to ignore the race fully and say don't poke fun at anyone on Company Equipment?

 

[sbvera13]

So it's not ok for a Majority Race to poke fun at a Minority Race
But it is ok of a Minority Race to poke fun at a Majority Race?

Wouldn't it be better to ignore the race fully and say don't poke fun at anyone on Company Equipment?

An unintended quirk of my phrasing. No, it's not OK.

 

[laconicstudent]

Yet if this had been a picture of a white president doing something demeaning, it would be cast as political satire, not racism. This is a blatant abuse of the intent of the laws to send a political message.

Possibly. The employee would get sacked just the same though