Culture

[Irish YJ]

Incoming ASU Journalism Dean Out After Microaggression Complaints

https://freebeacon.com/media/incoming-asu-journalism-dean-out-after-microaggression-complaints/

Yep, lost her job for calling "some" police officers good...

 

[Old Man Mike]

Not a helpful comment. Reading the article and having served on many university hiring committees myself, it appears as though this candidate had her hire reversed due a large combination of red flags. The comment about the police was extremely mild and, in my experience, would not have risen to the level of serious objection --- that seems more of a headline media writer's buzzcrap than anything. Her true (as far as I can see) issues were mainly her past problems with several students at her previous school. That plus very poor commentary strategy on her part vis=a-vis both Hispanics and Blacks (with a little gay issue tossed in) seems to have brought her issues up to the level of University reputation concern.

A couple of added points: When universities think that an action is going to give them bad press, they bale out almost every time --- even if it costs them money. They are publicity wimps of the highest order, counting on the 45 second attention span to get them past whatever it is and into next week. Fast get-it-over is always the plan.

Secondly, there are groups of students who are, let's admit it, a$$holes in training. If they ever smell blood in the water, they will attempt a ruckus whether it's legitimate in any way or not. This issue could have had some of that in it as well.

The actual discussion had when a university makes a hiring decision is always more complicated than saying "she called some cops good" (they are anyway, and obviously,; I have one in my family.) And even bringing that absurdity up is media screwing the story up. This candidate probably WAS too high a reputation risk for this administration to hire, but it wasn't that "cop" quote. The other more verbal complaints readable in the article bothered them more.

The larger question is: did she deserve it? We don't have enough information to know that. I don't know her and the article writer didn't know the situation well enough either. The last thing we in the larger society need to be doing is trying to pour kerosene on smouldering embers, which fires further drive us apart.

 

[Irish YJ]

Not a helpful comment. Reading the article and having served on many university hiring committees myself, it appears as though this candidate had her hire reversed due a large combination of red flags. The comment about the police was extremely mild and, in my experience, would not have risen to the level of serious objection --- that seems more of a headline media writer's buzzcrap than anything. Her true (as far as I can see) issues were mainly her past problems with several students at her previous school. That plus very poor commentary strategy on her part vis=a-vis both Hispanics and Blacks (with a little gay issue tossed in) seems to have brought her issues up to the level of University reputation concern.

A couple of added points: When universities think that an action is going to give them bad press, they bale out almost every time --- even if it costs them money. They are publicity wimps of the highest order, counting on the 45 second attention span to get them past whatever it is and into next week. Fast get-it-over is always the plan.

Secondly, there are groups of students who are, let's admit it, a$$holes in training. If they ever smell blood in the water, they will attempt a ruckus whether it's legitimate in any way or not. This issue could have had some of that in it as well.

The actual discussion had when a university makes a hiring decision is always more complicated than saying "she called some cops good" (they are anyway, and obviously,; I have one in my family.) And even bringing that absurdity up is media screwing the story up. This candidate probably WAS too high a reputation risk for this administration to hire, but it wasn't that "cop" quote. The other more verbal complaints readable in the article bothered them more.

The larger question is: did she deserve it? We don't have enough information to know that. I don't know her and the article writer didn't know the situation well enough either. The last thing we in the larger society need to be doing is trying to pour kerosene on smouldering embers, which fires further drive us apart.

So if there were past complaints (it's not clear on the "when"), I'm assuming they were investigated at the time. And if so, she was still offered. If they just came to light and no formal complaints were made, it's hard not to call BS. Regardless, sounds like a mild tweet, which is not even mild IMO, was just an excuse.

Sounds a lot like what you describe as "blood in the water"

 

[greyhammer90]

The last thing we in the larger society need to be doing is trying to pour kerosene on smouldering embers, which fires further drive us apart.

Brother.

 

[Bluto]

Rewriting history is a fad these days. Check out the 1619 Project.

It’s been a fad for some time with all the “lost cause” nonsense that has been taught in schools.

 

[Irishize]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Attitude replaced inquiry. The state of knowledge is 100% our fault. We failed (we = born before 1975) to insist schools provide balanced economic and historical curricula. We permitted factual journalism to be replaced by pseudo-investigative journalism. We..(going for a hike!)</p>— Amity Shlaes (@AmityShlaes) <a href="https://twitter.com/AmityShlaes/status/1272140784981155840?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 14, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Irishize]

You can always reference a Seinfeld episode or bit that mirrors real life. Of course, in today’s Cancel Culture, it may be the last we see of reruns.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This is the most important video on the internet right now: <a href="https://t.co/8v20zqxDdb">pic.twitter.com/8v20zqxDdb</a></p>— Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) <a href="https://twitter.com/KyleKashuv/status/1271514232232828934?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 12, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[zelezo vlk]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Presumably we have a modestly expanded ministerial exception coming down the pike, as an attempt to forge a sustainable peace. Not sure how "sexual orientation/gender identity is basically the same as race, but we'll let you inscrutable jerks discriminate anyway" is sustainable.</p>— Brandon McGinley (@brandonmcg) <a href="https://twitter.com/brandonmcg/status/1272563071106592773?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 15, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Yup. LGBTQ+ activists are going to use this ruling to destroy a bunch of Catholic nonprofits. If the GOP was our court-appointed attorney, they'd be liable for (50+ years of) ineffective assistance of counsel. They're the Washington Generals. Supporting them or buying their bullshit in any way only ensures you get co-opted into a controlled opposition until the enemies of the Church are comfortable sending you to the wall.

 

[Bishop2b5]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a...name-brand/ar-BB15BItt?ocid=spartan-ntp-feeds

Quaker Foods has announced that they will be renaming and rebranding their Aunt Jemima line of foods. The reason is that some are offended that it had some racist roots and the original Aunt Jemima (a fictional person like Better Crocker) was originally depicted as a plantation cook in slave attire. Several years ago Quaker addressed this problem by completely overhauling the fictional Aunt Jemima's appearance, modernizing her and making her look like a very average, middle aged, middle class black woman. That apparently wasn't enough, so now she's still offensive to some and will done away with entirely.

In other news, since Blacks were brought to North America on ships, any references to sailing will be banned, as it's now deemed hurtful. Since so many people can't properly use to & too, nor there, their, and they're, the use of the words sale and sell (as well as any forms of those words) will also be prohibited. No more going out of business sales, no more books on how to master the art of selling, and department store white sales are just right out.

In an unrelated story, singer Christopher Cross has been forced to return his Grammy and is now in hiding.

 

[Irishize]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a...name-brand/ar-BB15BItt?ocid=spartan-ntp-feeds

Quaker Foods has announced that they will be renaming and rebranding their Aunt Jemima line of foods. The reason is that some are offended that it had some racist roots and the original Aunt Jemima (a fictional person like Better Crocker) was originally depicted as a plantation cook in slave attire. Several years ago Quaker addressed this problem by completely overhauling the fictional Aunt Jemima's appearance, modernizing her and making her look like a very average, middle aged, middle class black woman. That apparently wasn't enough, so now she's still offensive to some and will done away with entirely.

In other news, since Blacks were brought to North America on ships, any references to sailing will be banned, as it's now deemed hurtful. Since so many people can't properly use to & too, nor there, their, and they're, the use of the words sale and sell (as well as any forms of those words) will also be prohibited. No more going out of business sales, no more books on how to master the art of selling, and department store white sales are just right out.

In an unrelated story, singer Christopher Cross has been forced to return his Grammy and is now in hiding.

Christopher Cross should sue MTV for ruining his career.

When are the Dixie Chicks going to change their name? Aren’t both words in their name offensive based on today’s standards?

 

[Irish#1]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a...name-brand/ar-BB15BItt?ocid=spartan-ntp-feeds

Quaker Foods has announced that they will be renaming and rebranding their Aunt Jemima line of foods. The reason is that some are offended that it had some racist roots and the original Aunt Jemima (a fictional person like Better Crocker) was originally depicted as a plantation cook in slave attire. Several years ago Quaker addressed this problem by completely overhauling the fictional Aunt Jemima's appearance, modernizing her and making her look like a very average, middle aged, middle class black woman. That apparently wasn't enough, so now she's still offensive to some and will done away with entirely.

In other news, since Blacks were brought to North America on ships, any references to sailing will be banned, as it's now deemed hurtful. Since so many people can't properly use to & too, nor there, their, and they're, the use of the words sale and sell (as well as any forms of those words) will also be prohibited. No more going out of business sales, no more books on how to master the art of selling, and department store white sales are just right out.

In an unrelated story, singer Christopher Cross has been forced to return his Grammy and is now in hiding.

Can we bring back the KMart blue light special or is that offensive?

 

[dublinirish]

Christopher Cross should sue MTV for ruining his career.

When are the Dixie Chicks going to change their name? Aren’t both words in their name offensive based on today’s standards?

I know you jest but Lady Antebellum, a band of similar genre have changed their name in the past few weeks

 

[Bishop2b5]

I know you jest but Lady Antebellum, a band of similar genre have changed their name in the past few weeks

I saw that a couple of days ago. All of it is silly and pointless to the nth degree.

 

[NorthDakota]

Yup. LGBTQ+ activists are going to use this ruling to destroy a bunch of Catholic nonprofits. If the GOP was our court-appointed attorney, they'd be liable for (50+ years of) ineffective assistance of counsel. They're the Washington Generals. Supporting them or buying their bullshit in any way only ensures you get co-opted into a controlled opposition until the enemies of the Church are comfortable sending you to the wall.

I have a feeling that the Court will be readdressing this topic fairly soon. Not sure how Catholic orgs are supposed to work with this.

 

[Irishize]

I know you jest but Lady Antebellum, a band of similar genre have changed their name in the past few weeks

They are the exact example that made me wonder why the Dixie Chicks haven’t done the same. They just had a new album released & a ton of hype on how they’re back & proud of the stances they’ve taken so it’s not like they’re irrelevant. But considering their name & the lack of stepping up to voluntarily changing it, I think it reveals their racism & sexism

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I have a feeling that the Court will be readdressing this topic fairly soon. Not sure how Catholic orgs are supposed to work with this.

Gorsuch insists that this ruling won't apply to religious organizations, but as that tweet from Brandon McGinley argues above, this is a completely untenable state of affairs. "Sexual orientation is just like race, so discriminating against LGBTQ+ makes you morally equivalent to Nazis. But we're giving religious orgs* a special permission slip** to continue their apparently irrational animus toward this now protected class, so NO WORRIES!"

*Better start saving up for legal fees, because what counts as a "religious organization" is going to be litigated over aggressively.

**Permission slip subject to revocation at any time.

 

[Irishize]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The University of Virginia is modifying its logo. The handles of the sabres below the V were meant to reflect serpentine walls, which have a negative connotation to slavery. <a href="https://t.co/iEePGA7THF">pic.twitter.com/iEePGA7THF</a></p>— Darren Rovell (@darrenrovell) <a href="https://twitter.com/darrenrovell/status/1273078759168540673?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 17, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[greyhammer90]

Gorsuch insists that this ruling won't apply to religious organizations, but as that tweet from Brandon McGinley argues above, this is a completely untenable state of affairs. "Sexual orientation is just like race, so discriminating against LGBTQ+ makes you morally equivalent to Nazis. But we're giving religious orgs* a special permission slip** to continue their apparently irrational animus toward this now protected class, so NO WORRIES!"

*Better start saving up for legal fees, because what counts as a "religious organization" is going to be litigated over aggressively.

**Permission slip subject to revocation at any time.

I fully admit I've not read the entire opinion, only excerpts. Two things:

1) I share your concern about how this will unfold re: religious orgs. I'm really troubled at how an organization that wants to exercise its own speech for a certain type of lifestyle could deal with this sort of legislation if it gets broadly construed in the future;

2) I didn't get the sense that the supreme court was saying that sexual orientation was equivalent to race from what I've read. It read like a classic textual argument where the Supreme Court all but admitted it's hands were tied because of the drafting of Title VII by Congress. To me this ruling was much less of a step than the marriage decision, because the Court essentially said it's not saying anything about gay people other than that they can't square away the gender discrimination clauses within the legislation as drafted without it also applying to gay people. They even chalk it up to sloppy drafting in the conclusion, admitting that it almost certainly was not the intent of Congress in the 60s.

 

[Irish YJ]

I know you jest but Lady Antebellum, a band of similar genre have changed their name in the past few weeks

https://variety.com/2020/music/opinion/dixie-chicks-name-rethink-lady-antebellum-1234636972/

 

[Whiskeyjack]

2) I didn't get the sense that the supreme court was saying that sexual orientation was equivalent to race from what I've read. It read like a classic textual argument where the Supreme Court all but admitted it's hands were tied because of the drafting of Title VII by Congress. To me this ruling was much less of a step than the marriage decision, because the Court essentially said it's not saying anything about gay people other than that they can't square away the gender discrimination clauses within the legislation as drafted without it also applying to gay people. They even chalk it up to sloppy drafting in the conclusion, admitting that it almost certainly was not the intent of Congress in the 60s.

I agree with that, but Congress isn't going to cease its dysfunction and start fulfilling its legislative obligations just because SCOTUS is calling it out in opinions. Gorsuch could have: (1) delineated all the many ways in which sexual orientation is not at all like race or gender; (2) pointed out that, to the extent that LGBTQ+ individuals need protection from abuse by their employers and landlords, that extends to pretty much all lower class Americans; and (3) call out Congress for failing on that front, thereby forcing the courts to stretch the CRA in implausible ways to make up for it.

A "ministerial exception", basically a permission slip to discriminate, is a temporarily commuted death sentence in a society like ours. LGBTQ "rights" are on a crash course with religious liberty; one is going to have to be subordinated to the other soon, and I don't see any reason to expect that the Church is going to come out on top.

 

[greyhammer90]

I agree with that, but Congress isn't going to cease its dysfunction and start fulfilling its legislative obligations just because SCOTUS is calling it out in opinions. Gorsuch could have: (1) delineated all the many ways in which sexual orientation is not at all like race or gender; (2) pointed out that, to the extent that LGBTQ+ individuals need protection from abuse by their employers and landlords, that extends to pretty much all lower class Americans; and (3) call out Congress for failing on that front, thereby forcing the courts to stretch the CRA in implausible ways to make up for it.

A "ministerial exception", basically a permission slip to discriminate, is a temporarily commuted death sentence in a society like ours. LGBTQ "rights" are on a crash course with religious liberty; one is going to have to be subordinated to the other soon, and I don't see any reason to expect that the Church is going to come out on top.

I agree with all of this, I just think your eventual "event horizon" is more likely to come from the Court's ever stretching of the Constitution than the interpretation of this legislation.

Can you imagine though if some fundamental shift were to occur that were to make religious liberty in vogue in about ten years? Using this decision the Court could conceivably determine that the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional. That's an M. Night twist right there.

P.S. remember when Congress used to draft legislation? Like, actual paper that said things? That was cool. Executive orders sure are easy tho....

 

[Wild Bill]

If they try firing me for wearing an OAN shirt, can I tell them I'm lesbian, gay, bi, queer or trans to save my ass?

 

[Rack Em]

I agree with all of this, I just think your eventual "event horizon" is more likely to come from the Court's ever stretching of the Constitution than the interpretation of this legislation.

Can you imagine though if some fundamental shift were to occur that were to make religious liberty in vogue in about ten years? Using this decision the Court could conceivably determine that the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional. That's an M. Night twist right there.

P.S. remember when Congress used to draft legislation? Like, actual paper that said things? That was cool. Executive orders sure are easy tho....

It's a shame that both sides of the aisle don't see this. It's even more of a shame that the general public cheers on the deterioration of their rights by a growing monarchy and a Supreme Court which legislates from the bench in order to grab the remaining power that Congress so willingly abdicates.

The downfall began when our state legislatures stopped voting for the presidency.

 

[Irishize]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Fun fact: The city of Seattle is asking its white employees to voluntarily spend their day off in a training about their internalized racial superiority. I’ve got the documentation on it.</p>— Karlyn Borysenko (@DrKarlynB) <a href="https://twitter.com/DrKarlynB/status/1273024251004674048?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 16, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Irish#1]

I know you jest but Lady Antebellum, a band of similar genre have changed their name in the past few weeks

They change it to Woman Antebellum?

 

[Irishize]

They change it to Woman Antebellum?

What you meant to suggest was “THEY/THEM Antebellum”

 

[Whiskeyjack]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Gorsuch signing onto this paragraph in Thomas' dissent after Monday is pretty rich. <a href="https://t.co/7WyMcscTJR">pic.twitter.com/7WyMcscTJR</a></p>— Iacobus Novus (@IacobusNovus) <a href="https://twitter.com/IacobusNovus/status/1273618708334809093?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 18, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Legacy]

Who would fire an employee like the following?

Supreme Court
BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 17–1618. Argued October 8, 2019—Decided June 15, 2020*

In each of these cases, an employer allegedly fired a long-time employee
simply for being homosexual or transgender. Clayton County, Georgia, fired Gerald Bostock for conduct “unbecoming” a county employee
shortly after he began participating in a gay recreational softball
league. Altitude Express fired Donald Zarda days after he mentioned
being gay. And R. G. & G. R. Harris Funeral Homes fired Aimee Stephens, who presented as a male when she was hired, after she informed her employer that she planned to “live and work full-time as a
woman.” (cont)

Supreme Court decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop:
Excerpt:

Held: The (Colorado) Commission’s actions in this case violated the Free Exercise
Clause. Pp. 9–18.
(a) The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must,
protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil
rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are
protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.
See Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. ___, ___. While it is unexceptional
that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and
services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other
members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is
neutral toward religion.

and,

Today, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) carries forward the state’s tradition of prohibiting discrimination in places of public accommodation. Amended in 2007 and 2008 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation as well as other protected characteristics, CADA in relevant part provides as follows:

“It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or
deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation.”

Colo. Rev. Stat. §24–34–601(2)(a)
(2017).

If Bostock had been decided 5-4 the other way allowing dismissal of employees due to their sexual orientation, does that invalidate the sexual orientation aspects of these states law's Anti-Discrimination Acts?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Who would fire an employee like the following?

I don't recall reading anything here arguing that those firings were just. See below:

I agree with that, but Congress isn't going to cease its dysfunction and start fulfilling its legislative obligations just because SCOTUS is calling it out in opinions. Gorsuch could have: (1) delineated all the many ways in which sexual orientation is not at all like race or gender; (2) pointed out that, to the extent that LGBTQ+ individuals need protection from abuse by their employers and landlords, that extends to pretty much all lower class Americans; and (3) call out Congress for failing on that front, thereby forcing the courts to stretch the CRA in implausible ways to make up for it.

A "ministerial exception", basically a permission slip to discriminate, is a temporarily commuted death sentence in a society like ours. LGBTQ "rights" are on a crash course with religious liberty; one is going to have to be subordinated to the other soon, and I don't see any reason to expect that the Church is going to come out on top.

The problem is with adding "sexual orientation" as a protected class under the CRA. There were other ways for SCOTUS to have delivered relief for these plaintiffs without sentencing the Church here to death-by-a-thousand-papercuts via activist lawsuits.

I'm not really mad about the ruling per se. I'm mad at the GOP and the Federalist Society who have hoodwinked so many Catholics into supporting them because of the importance of SCOTUS appointments. It's freeing in a sense; now I can more easily dissuade them from supporting either party.

"This time it'll be different, Charlie. We just need one more solid conservative on the Court,
and then we'll finally get around to overturning Roe v. Wade."