deerstalker
http://www.blackenterprise.com/lifestyle/first-amendment-doesnt-protect-black-workers/
The national controversy surrounding NFL protests took a dramatic turn on Monday when Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones issued a statement indicating that he will bench any player who refuses to stand during the national anthem. “If there’s anything that is disrespectful to the flag, then we will not play,” Jones said. “Understand? We will not… If we are disrespecting the flag, then we will not play. Period.”
(Image: iStock/tacojim)
ESPN journalist Jemele Hill, a black woman, responded by tweeting about how disgruntled fans can effectively boycott Jones. “This play always works,” Hill tweeted. “Change happens when advertisers are impacted. If you feel strongly about JJ’s statement, boycott his advertisers,” she concluded.
Hill was subsequently suspended for two weeks on Oct. 9, 2017. ESPN cited “a second violation of our social media guidelines” as a rationalization for the suspension. “In the aftermath, all employees were reminded of how individual tweets may reflect negatively on ESPN and that such actions would have consequences,” the network said in a statement.
The Culture of Offense
Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones’s recent threat to bench non-compliant team members, coupled with ESPN’s suspension of Jemele Hill, illustrates why I oppose what I call the “culture of offense.”
The culture of offense normalizes and encourages employer-based punishment for offensive but non-violent comments or political gestures.
Since what may be considered offensive varies on one’s perception and offense is perceived differently by individuals across the socio-political and ideological spectrum, punishing these football players creates a slippery slope that threatens the rest of us to freely express ourselves without the looming threat of consequence.
The First Amendment and the Workplace
The right to free speech is not entirely protected at the workplace. “An employee may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be employed,” said Oliver Wendell Holmes. In other words: to keep your job, you often can’t say or do what you like.
This is in part due to an absence of protections at the state and federal levels regarding speech-related terminations. “At the protective end of the spectrum, five states (California, Colorado, Montana, New York, and North Dakota) prohibit employers from punishing employees for legal off-duty activities that do not conflict with the employer’s business-related interests,” according to the American Bar Association.
“These limited protections for off-duty political speech are not available to approximately half of the U.S. population… Accordingly, the majority of Americans only have legal protections for their speech only when it relates to a narrow category of topics protected by federal, state or local law.”
And yet, increased state or federal protections are unlikely to reduce the threat of workplace suspension or termination as it relates to politically motivated speech or actions, precisely because said speech or actions impact “business-related interests.”
This is particularly true during this deeply divided period in American political history. As such, employers are increasingly at risk of losing profit when their employees make on-the-job political statements or issue remarks that offend a target customer. This would explain the rationale that Jones used to explain his no-kneeling policy. “Too many of the fans of the Dallas Cowboys perceive this as disrespect for the flag,” he noted. “And so I don’t want our team doing it.”
The Solution: A Shift in American Values
The solution to the challenge I have presented is not a shift in policy or an increase in regulatory protections. The solution is a cultural shift from offense to toleration.
Far too often, people are quick to take offense when presented with ideas that do not align with theirs. In many instances, the offense becomes a rallying call for punitive action. This has become increasingly apparent as a result of the NFL protests, during which 47% of Republicans agreed that NFL players should be fired or suspended when caught kneeling during the national anthem.
As the Republican response to the NFL protests demonstrates, the culture of offense has normalized and encouraged employer-based punishment for non-violent comments and political gestures. NFL owners, broadly, and Jerry Jones, specifically, have cited “business-related interests,” which translates to nothing more than offended consumers, as the key motivator driving the decision to reprimand players who kneel during the anthem.
The onus is on us—ordinary citizens and consumers—to renounce the culture of offense and to promote toleration, civil debate, and the free exchange of ideas. Although it is OK to respectfully disagree with others, encouraging employers to retaliate whenever one is offended puts us all, regardless of race, ideological orientation, or political affiliation, at risk of being punished by our employers for making comments or political gestures that others might disagree with.
The national controversy surrounding NFL protests took a dramatic turn on Monday when Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones issued a statement indicating that he will bench any player who refuses to stand during the national anthem. “If there’s anything that is disrespectful to the flag, then we will not play,” Jones said. “Understand? We will not… If we are disrespecting the flag, then we will not play. Period.”
(Image: iStock/tacojim)
ESPN journalist Jemele Hill, a black woman, responded by tweeting about how disgruntled fans can effectively boycott Jones. “This play always works,” Hill tweeted. “Change happens when advertisers are impacted. If you feel strongly about JJ’s statement, boycott his advertisers,” she concluded.
Hill was subsequently suspended for two weeks on Oct. 9, 2017. ESPN cited “a second violation of our social media guidelines” as a rationalization for the suspension. “In the aftermath, all employees were reminded of how individual tweets may reflect negatively on ESPN and that such actions would have consequences,” the network said in a statement.
The Culture of Offense
Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones’s recent threat to bench non-compliant team members, coupled with ESPN’s suspension of Jemele Hill, illustrates why I oppose what I call the “culture of offense.”
The culture of offense normalizes and encourages employer-based punishment for offensive but non-violent comments or political gestures.
Since what may be considered offensive varies on one’s perception and offense is perceived differently by individuals across the socio-political and ideological spectrum, punishing these football players creates a slippery slope that threatens the rest of us to freely express ourselves without the looming threat of consequence.
The First Amendment and the Workplace
The right to free speech is not entirely protected at the workplace. “An employee may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be employed,” said Oliver Wendell Holmes. In other words: to keep your job, you often can’t say or do what you like.
This is in part due to an absence of protections at the state and federal levels regarding speech-related terminations. “At the protective end of the spectrum, five states (California, Colorado, Montana, New York, and North Dakota) prohibit employers from punishing employees for legal off-duty activities that do not conflict with the employer’s business-related interests,” according to the American Bar Association.
“These limited protections for off-duty political speech are not available to approximately half of the U.S. population… Accordingly, the majority of Americans only have legal protections for their speech only when it relates to a narrow category of topics protected by federal, state or local law.”
And yet, increased state or federal protections are unlikely to reduce the threat of workplace suspension or termination as it relates to politically motivated speech or actions, precisely because said speech or actions impact “business-related interests.”
This is particularly true during this deeply divided period in American political history. As such, employers are increasingly at risk of losing profit when their employees make on-the-job political statements or issue remarks that offend a target customer. This would explain the rationale that Jones used to explain his no-kneeling policy. “Too many of the fans of the Dallas Cowboys perceive this as disrespect for the flag,” he noted. “And so I don’t want our team doing it.”
The Solution: A Shift in American Values
The solution to the challenge I have presented is not a shift in policy or an increase in regulatory protections. The solution is a cultural shift from offense to toleration.
Far too often, people are quick to take offense when presented with ideas that do not align with theirs. In many instances, the offense becomes a rallying call for punitive action. This has become increasingly apparent as a result of the NFL protests, during which 47% of Republicans agreed that NFL players should be fired or suspended when caught kneeling during the national anthem.
As the Republican response to the NFL protests demonstrates, the culture of offense has normalized and encouraged employer-based punishment for non-violent comments and political gestures. NFL owners, broadly, and Jerry Jones, specifically, have cited “business-related interests,” which translates to nothing more than offended consumers, as the key motivator driving the decision to reprimand players who kneel during the anthem.
The onus is on us—ordinary citizens and consumers—to renounce the culture of offense and to promote toleration, civil debate, and the free exchange of ideas. Although it is OK to respectfully disagree with others, encouraging employers to retaliate whenever one is offended puts us all, regardless of race, ideological orientation, or political affiliation, at risk of being punished by our employers for making comments or political gestures that others might disagree with.
Earlier this month, Black Enterprise reported on the more than yearlong, uphill battle a Kentucky-based educator, Robert Holmes III, has faced in hopes of honoring Muhammad Ali in Louisville, the city where “The People’s Champ” was born and raised. Back in June 2016, Holmes launched the Global Friends of Muhammad Ali, a grassroots effort that is committed to renaming the Louisville International Airport to “Muhammad Ali International Airport.” The group started a petition on Change.org, calling on Ali fans to support an initiative that would pay tribute to the legendary boxer. After being shared on MPowerChange.org, it collected over 14,000 signatures.
(Image; Muhammad Ali 1966 via Wikimedia/Creative Commons)
Despite receiving an overwhelming number of signatures and even support from members of the Ali family, Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer’s spokesperson Chris Poynter told Black Enterprise that “there is no active committee looking at the matter of renaming the airport.” He added that the power to change the name lies within the Louisville Regional Airport Authority, which “will ultimately make any decision to rename the airport.” The Louisville Regional Airport Authority, however, also confirmed that it “has no current plans to change the name of Louisville International Airport (SDF).”
In addition, Fischer’s office reached out to BE emphasizing that the city has already paid homage to their hometown hero in a variety of other ways. “Louisville has several major Ali memorials already, including the Muhammad Ali Center (a major institution) and a prominent street named after The Champ. By focusing only on the airport, you leave the impression that the Champ’s hometown isn’t honoring his legacy, which is the furthest from the truth,” said Poynter.
Holmes, however, dismissed the mayor’s response as “a great attempt at a political spin to dodge the question. It’s obvious that Louisville has done things to honor its greatest citizen, but that’s not the [issue].” Holmes added that other cities, like New Orleans, have renamed their airports after superstar natives. “If they can name their airport after Louis Armstrong, who’s a jazz musician, certainly Louisville should be able to coalesce around the idea of renaming the airport.”
According to Holmes, the opposition to rename the airport boils down to the fact that Ali was an outspoken black man who voiced opposition to racism and war. “I feel that there is a racial component to it and I think that’s one of the reasons why people don’t want to touch it,” he says. “Because he was a very brash, young man in very turbulent times during the 60’s and the early 70’s. He spoke his mind and he stood his ground and he stood up for what he believed in. He stood up against social injustice and racial disparities not only all over the world, but he also spoke about the racial disparities right here in his hometown.” After winning the heavyweight championship, the boxing legend “returned back to Louisville, [but] he didn’t receive a total warm welcome from the entire city. There were segments of the white community that did not celebrate Muhammad Ali and you still have that today.”
Although Mayor Fischer’s office told Black Enterprise that the airport authority will make the ultimate decision to rename the airport, Holmes pointed out that the mayor maintains power to appoint “several members of the board.”
“If he wanted to make that decision, to say that I want to rename this airport in honor of Muhammad Ali, I don’t believe it is that hard,” said Holmes.
If there’s a tragedy in Bethesda’s Fallout video games, it’s not the crushing blow to humanity or the near total destruction of our collective history. No, it’s the fact that it can be really hard to get our drink on in the post-apocalyptic setting. None of our favorite bars are open in the Wasteland! Fortunately, that doesn’t mean that we can’t enjoy the new Fallout Geeki Tikis. Via Geekologie, ThinkGeek has unveiled its latest Fallout inspired merchandise, and they look perfect for cocktails or even just a can of Nuka-Cola.
From left to right, the mugs depict the Power Armor, Vault Boy, and everyone’s beloved companion, Dogmeat. Although we have to agree with Geekologie: Tiki Dogmeat looks more like Scooby-Doo than anything else. In fact, he’s so Scooby-Doo that we half expect him to go down to the Institute and unmask the director as Old Man Shaun. The remaining Fallout inspired tiki is Deathclaw.
We have to give credit to ThinkGeek for the clever product description, which postulates that Hawaii is still a vacation destination in this ravaged world.
“Hawaii residents – sign up today and secure your family’s future. Vault-Tec is proud to announce the creation of our first secure location on the big island. With our new financing model, non-residents can opt to timeshare a vault in paradise (in case you’re on the vacation of a lifetime when the inevitable happens). But just like Hawaii, we have limited space. Sign up at your local Vault shelter today!”
The Fallout Geeki Tikis are currently available for pre-order at ThinkGeek, and they are expected to begin shipping in November. The set of four goes for $59.99, and we think they’re worthy inclusions to any geek-themed tiki collection.
What do you think about the Fallout inspired tikis? Let us know what you’re thinking in the comment section below!
Images: ThinkGeek
Take a sip from more geeky tiki mugs!
- Be outlaws with Guardians of the Galaxy tikis.
- Beam up Star Trek: TNG tikis.
- Use the Force with Star Wars tikis.