This post was incited by ‘When Wrongthink Becomes Workplace Harrassment’ from Reason.com and, subsequently, Wearing ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ insignia could be punishable racial harassment – from the Washington Post.
I’m perennially of two minds about issues of ‘social justice’ (especially in the workplace).
It’s super important. All of the bad -isms can’t be seen as solely the product individual acts (such instances have been, for the most part, effectively enshrined as illegal in law). The truth is that, at this point, most systemic disadvantage is perpetuated by, well, systems. And a just society is incompatible with most forms of systemic disadvantage.- It’s super problematic. Most attempts to legislate morality ultimately fail – not only that, they often backfire. Moreover, the most horrific acts perpetuated by humanity typically weren’t justified by being “for the greater bad.” In order to embrace a new core (e.g. – social justice), old cores (e.g. – liberty) tend to need abandonment. It’s fine if that is a conscious decision that is publicly debated and collectively consented upon, but most activism tends to bypass this and pretend to both have cake and to have eaten it as well.
In the example of the EEOC case in question, a case was brought wherein an employee felt discriminated against because a coworker wore a hat with the Gasden Flag (pictured above). There were no complaints that the accused made any other discriminatory action, either in word or in deed. The EEOC ultimately established that there is no objective racist history to the symbol,
After a thorough review of the record, it is clear that the Gadsden Flag originated in the Revolutionary War in a non-racial context. Moreover, it is clear that the flag and its slogan have been used to express various non-racial sentiments, such as when it is used in the modern Tea Party political movement, guns rights activism, patriotic displays, and by the military.
but, immediately after, it then goes on to concede that there might be some subjective interpretation to the contrary
However, whatever the historic origins and meaning of the symbol, it also has since been sometimes interpreted to convey racially-tinged messages in some contexts. […] In light of the ambiguity in the current meaning of this symbol, we find that Complainant’s claim must be investigated to determine the specific context. [emphasis mine]
So, put into the structure of formal logic, this is what we’re dealing with:
- Situation A
- Person 1 displays something that is objectively discriminatory.
- Person 2 feels discriminated against.
- Person 1 is investigated (and, inherently, punished).
- Situation B
- Person 1 displays something that is objectively non-discriminatory.
- Person 2 feels discriminated against.
- Person 1 is investigated (and, inherently, punished).
This situation reeks of Situation B. Person 1 here, by the EEOC’s own admissions, (1) wore something that is non-racial in nature, (2) displayed no other discriminatory behavior (either in word, deed, or absence of either). And yet he will still be investigated because the symbol “has since been sometimes interpreted to convey racially-tinged messages in some contexts.” Man, are there a whole bunch of weasel words in that one half-sentence. All struggling, straining, to find guilt.
It’s like we’ve invented a new standard of evidence:
- Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (criminal cases)
- Clear and Convincing (high-stakes civil lawsuits)
- Preponderance of Evidence (monetary civil lawsuits… and university Title IX hearings)
- Substantial Evidence (government administration hearings)
- Probable Cause (warrants for arrests & searches)
- Reasonable Suspicion (detainment & pat-downs)
- Knee-jerk Conjecture (the workplace… apparently)
If I put my snark hat aside, I could see someone arguing that this case is more parallel to the Reasonable Suspicion standard, and the the EEOC continuing its investigation is the equivalent to detainment and a preliminary search. Even if that’s a fair parallel (which is debatable) I find it telling that, painting with a broad brush, those who oppose physical “stop & frisks” are probably supportive of this professional “stop and frisk.” It’s the same violation of personal space, the same level of invasive scrutiny, with the same low standard of evidence, subject to the same degree of personal bias of the accuser/detainer.
But hey: it’s frisking someone you don’t especially like. So it’s ok, right?
What a scary time to be in the workplace! At least one upshot of our robot overlords replacing everyone’s job is that peoples’ livelihoods won’t be put at risk for this stuff anymore.
