Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 12:22:15 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: ACLU Accuses Asian Attorney of Using 'Coded' Racism; Fires Her; ACLU Sued by Government Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv References: <17c031331a3628f5$2091$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com> Content-Language: en-US From: moviePig In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 279 Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 16:22:16 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 16399 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17c05d056b6af891$53454$2218499$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 16781 On 3/26/2024 11:48 AM, BTR1701 wrote: > In article <17c031331a3628f5$2091$3384359$c2d58868@news.newsdemon.com>, > moviePig wrote: > >> On 3/25/2024 5:59 PM, shawn wrote: >>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:32:50 +0000, BTR1701 wrote: >>> >>>> So now expressing fear of one's boss or describing his behavior as >>>> "chastising" is racist if the boss is black. >>>> >>>> And this is the ACLU we're talking about. Anyone who still thinks the ACLU >>>> is the constitutional rights advocate that it used to be needs their head >>>> examined. It's nothing but a shill for the most extreme and radical woke >>>> policies. >>>> >>>> --------------------- >>>> >>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/22/us/politics/aclu-employee-fired-race-bia >>>> s.html >>>> >>>> The civil liberties group is defending itself in an unusual case that >>>> weighs what kind of language may be evidence of bias against black people. >>>> >>>> Kate Oh was no one's idea of a get-along-to-go-along employee. During her >>>> five years as a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, she was an >>>> unsparing critic of her superiors, known for sending long, blistering >>>> emails to human resources complaining about what she described as a >>>> hostile workplace. >>>> >>>> She considered herself a whistle blower and advocate for other women in >>>> the office, drawing unflattering attention to an environment she said >>>> was rife with sexism, burdened by unmanageable workloads and stymied by >>>> a fear-based culture. >>>> >>>> Then the tables turned and Ms. Oh was the one slapped with an accusation >>>> of serious misconduct. The ACLU said her complaints about several >>>> superiors-- all of whom were black-- used "racist stereotypes". She was >>>> fired in May 2022. >>>> >>>> The ACLU acknowledges that Ms. Oh, who is Korean-American, never used any >>>> kind of racial slur, but the group says that her use of certain phrases >>>> and words demonstrated a pattern of willful anti-black animus. >>>> >>>> In one instance, according to court documents, she told a black superior >>>> that she was "afraid" to talk with him. In another, she told a manager >>>> that their conversation was "chastising". And in a meeting, she repeated >>>> a satirical phrase likening her bosses' behavior to suffering beatings. >>>> >>>> Did her language add up to racism? Or was she just speaking harshly about >>>> bosses who happened to be black? That question is the subject of an >>>> unusual unfair-labor-practice case brought against the ACLU by the National Labor >>>> Relations Board, which has accused the organization of retaliating against >>>> Ms. Oh. A trial in the case wrapped up this week in Washington, and a >>>> judge is expected to decide in the next few months whether the ACLU >>>> was justified in terminating her. If the ACLU loses, it could be ordered >>>> to reinstate her or pay restitution. >>>> >>>> The heart of the ACLU's defense-- arguing for an expansive definition of >>>> what constitutes racist or racially coded speech-- has struck some labor >>>> and free-speech lawyers as peculiar, since the organization has >>>> traditionally protected the right to free expression, operating on the >>>> principle that it may not like what someone says, but will fight for the >>>> right to say it. >>>> >>>> The case raises some intriguing questions about the wide swath of employee >>>> behavior and speech that labor law protects-- and how the nation's >>>> pre-eminent civil rights organization finds itself on the opposite side >>>> of that law, arguing that those protections should not apply to its >>>> former employee. >>>> >>>> A lawyer representing the ACLU, Ken Margolis, said during a legal >>>> proceeding last year that it was irrelevant whether Ms. Oh bore no racist >>>> ill will. All that mattered, he said, was that her black colleagues were >>>> offended and injured. >>> >>> And there is the major issue. It does not matter what she thought but >>> only what others thought or at least said they thought. Been there >>> done that where I was accused of something similar by someone who >>> remained nameless but who I'm sure I know because she was known to be >>> a troublemaker. Luckily in my case it wasn't taken as seriously given >>> that there was no evidence I did anything, but in Ms Oh's case it >>> doesn't matter that she did nothing wrong, but that her complaints >>> ended up bothering her colleagues enough that they finally complained. >>> >>> So her complaints did not matter but their complaints did. How does >>> that happen? >>> >>>> "We're not here to prove anything other than the impact of her actions was >>>> very real-- that she caused harm," Mr. Margolis said, according to a >>>> transcript of his remarks. "She caused serious harm to black members of >>>> the ACLU community." >>> >>> He doesn't address if her complaints had any basis in reality. If her >>> complaints did have a basis does it still matter if the others felt >>> she caused them harm? >>> >>>> Rick Bialczak, the lawyer who represents Ms. Oh through her union, >>>> responded sarcastically, saying he wanted to congratulate Mr. Margolis >>>> for making an exhaustive presentation of the ACLU's evidence: three >>>> interactions Ms. Oh had with colleagues that were reported to human >>>> resources. >>>> >>>> "I would note, and commend Ken, for spending 40 minutes explaining why >>>> three discreet comments over a multi-month period of time constitute >>>> serious harm to the ACLU members, black employees,” he said. "Yes, she >>>> had complained about black supervisors, Mr. Bialczak acknowledged, but >>>> her direct boss and that boss's boss were black. "Those were her >>>> supervisors," he said. "If she has complaints about her supervision, >>>> who is she supposed to complain about?" >>> >>> Wait, so the complaint is that she complained to HR about her >>> supervisors over months, but not to others? How is that even an issue >>> that should lead to her firing? Isn't HR's role to help mitigate those >>> sorts of interpersonal issues. >>> >>>> Ms. Oh declined to comment for this article, citing the ongoing case. >>>> >>>> The ACLU has a history of representing groups that liberals revile. This >>>> week, it argued in the Supreme Court on behalf of the National Rifle >>>> Association in a 1st Amendment case, but to critics of the ACLU, Ms. Oh's >>>> case is a sign of how far the group has strayed from its core mission-- >>>> defending free speech-- and has instead aligned itself with a progressive >>>> politics that is intensely focused on identity. >>>> >>>> "Much of our work today," as it explains on its website, "is focused on >>>> equality for people of color, women, gay and transgender people, >>>> prisoners, immigrants, and people with disabilities." >>>> >>>> And since the beginning of the Trump administration, the organization has >>>> taken up partisan causes it might have avoided in the past, like running >>>> an advertisement to support Stacey Abrams' 2018 campaign for governor of >>>> Georgia. >>>> >>>> "They radically expanded and raised so much more money-- hundreds of >>>> millions of dollars-- from leftist donors who were desperate to push >>>> back on the scary excesses of the Trump administration," said Lara >>>> Bazelon, a law professor at the University of San Francisco who has been >>>> critical of the ACLU. "And they hired people with a lot of extremely >>>> strong views about race and workplace rules and in the process, they >>>> themselves veered into a place of excess. I scour the record for any >>>> evidence that this Asian woman is a racist and I don't find any." >>>> >>>> The beginning of the end for Ms. Oh, who worked in the ACLU's political >>>> advocacy department, started in late February 2022, according to court >>>> papers and interviews with lawyers and others familiar with the case. >>>> The ACLU was hosting a virtual organization-wide meeting under heavy >>>> circumstances. The national political director, who was black, had >>>> suddenly departed following multiple complaints about his abrasive >>>> treatment of subordinates. Ms. Oh, who was one of the employees who had >>>> complained, spoke up during the meeting to declare herself skeptical >>>> that conditions would actually improve. >>>> >>>> "Why shouldn't we simply expect that 'the beatings will continue until >>>> morale improves'," she said in a Zoom group chat, invoking a well-known >>>> phrase that is printed and sold on t-shirts, usually accompanied by the >>>> skull and crossbones of a pirate flag. She explained that she was being >>>> "definitely metaphorical". >>> >>> Ah, she made the mistake of saying what she was thinking and so made >>> herself a target for more beatings. >>> >>>> Soon after, Ms. Oh heard from the ACLU manager overseeing its equity and >>>> inclusion efforts, Amber Hikes, who cautioned Ms. Oh about her language. >>>> Ms. Oh's comment was "dangerous and damaging", Ms. Hikes warned, because >>>> she seemed to suggest the former supervisor physically assaulted her. >>> >>> This should have seen the ACLU laughed out of court for suggesting >>> such a thing. >>> >>>> "Please consider the very real impact of that kind of violent language in >>>> the workplace," Ms. Hikes wrote in an email. Ms. Oh acknowledged she had >>>> been wrong and apologized. Over the next several weeks, senior managers >>>> documented other instances in which they said Ms. Oh mistreated black >>>> employees. >>>> >>>> In early March, Ben Needham, who had succeeded the recently departed >>>> national political director, reported that Ms. Oh called her direct >>>> supervisor, a black woman, a liar. According to his account, he asked >>>> Ms. Oh why she hadn't complained earlier. She responded that she was >>>> "afraid to talk to him". ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========