http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2007/09/what-ahmadinaja.html

It was quite a performance. If this were a presidential debate, I would judge him the winner based on rhetorical skill and coolness under fire.

It is a totalitarian ideology. It peppers our universities and colleges with “victims” and has managed to create social constructs and turned them into degree conferring legitimacy. This is where truth is suppressed since the realities that are under consideration contradict the reality of history. Political Correctness is living the life of a lie. Thus this ideology is creating a totalitarian state.

Thus with admissions and other administrative areas, affirmative action is an exercise in the system of expropriation. It is theft. The methods used are deconstructionist in that they remove all meaning and insert desired meanings.

Affirmative action is part of an official state ideology enforced against the people. This is terrorism. The terrorism of Political Correctness. It seeks to destroy freedom and culture.

Perhaps I was unclear. When I said “you have the choice to ignore it” I meant that to explicitly exclude you workplace or educational institution where you do not have that choice. The first sentence of the paragraph refers to workplace/educational institution where you can be held accountable. I think we are in agreement on what is/is not protected speech. Workplace actions are different.

Elliot

I said “generally”. Single incident cases do exist as I understand it, but there is a requirement that said incident has to be extraordinarily “severe”. In the cases I’ve seen, such incidents often involve physical contact.

Quid pro quo harrassment is a different case, however, I believe.

Sorry, Elliott, I think you make some good points, but you’re quite wrong on the law – derogatory or offensive speech is clearly sufficient to create an illegally hostile work environment.

And Aaron, it is also not correct that a single instance is insufficient. I’m sure you can imagine examples of single instances of derogatory or offensive “expression” (remember, this is not limited to speech, and includes forms such as cartoons, signs, photos, etc.) so odious as to permanently handicap an employee’s work performance or intimidate him/her, which would meet legal criteria for a hostile work environment.

Elliot

Now who is insulting the intelligence of blacks. If the overwhelming majority (approx 90%) support Democrats are they simply stupid not to see what a land of opportunity the GOP will afford them.

Elliot

That’s a bit like saying that from a social perspective, Barny Frank is a woman. So what?

Your statement is irrelevant to the point: anti-Black racism is negligible in the Republican party. This is in contradistinction to the Left, where Blacks, women, and members of other historically oppressed groups are herded like children into metaphorical reservations, where well-meaning liberals guard them even from potentially offensive speech by, for example, dis-inviting Larry.

Count Iblis,

Only by idiots.

From a political perspective, Condi Rice is a white man.

e.

Your observation (that Condi leaves much to be desired as a candidate) bolsters my point.

Sean,

I can’t blame you. What else can you do once you’ve run out of tenable counter arguments?

Can you point to one “diplomatic success” during her tenure?

It’s not hard to indentify the failures.

e.

Belizean, it must be fascinating to live in a world where you think Mitt Romney’s poll numbers would skyrocket if only he were black. But given the stranglehold that African-Americans have had on national electoral politics, who can argue?

Sean,

Sorry the delay in my response (grant-writing deadline crunch).

You seem to have willfully missed the point of my thought experiment, so I will state it explicitly:

There is vastly more anti-Mormonism in the Republican party than there is anti-Black racism.

I further believe that most Republicans regard Blackness in a candidate a plus. Until Condoleeza Rice acted to quash it, there was a vigorous and growing “Draft Condi” movement within the party.

There are no “hate speech” laws in the U. S. If there were they would be struck down immediately as unconstitutional under the 1st amendment.

Anti-Harassment laws are constitutionally derived from 14th amendment “equal protection” clause, which interestingly is the clause that simultaneously supports/opposes affirmative action.

The anti-harrasment/hostile environment protections are designed to protect people from harrassment in their place of work or educational institution.

I think to try to distill this down. If people act in a way that makes you uncomfortable on an ongoing basis in your school/workplace or other place where you cannot freely choose to leave without consequence, the law will protect you against that behavior. If on the other hand someone “peacefully” makes any type of derogatory speech however offensive or horrifying and you have the choice to ignore it, their actions are protected.

It is a delicate balancing act to be sure but back to the topic of this thread, nobody is forcing anyone to listen to a Larry Summers speech.

If, to pose a hypothetical, when he was president of Harvard, he continually did/said things that made it uncomfortable to be a student there based on gender/race/age whatever, he could be held liable.

Hopefully this clarifies the legal aspects.

Regards,

Elliot

Yes.

or some reason I was under the impression that if a woman’s male boss (or vice versa) says something overtly sexist, the victim has legal recourse in many places?

It’s not that simple. The issue is what’s called a hostile work environment. The quote is something like:

“severe or pervasive” enough to
create a “hostile or abusive work environment”
based on race, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, veteran status, or, in some jurisdictions, sexual orientation, political affiliation, citizenship status, marital status, or personal appearance,
for the plaintiff and for a reasonable person.

Generally, as I understand it, a single instance in not a sufficient cause of action. And, yes, the tension between the first amendment and harassment law is significant.

There are similar but not precisely analgous issues in hate crimes laws.

I’ve only skimmed the latest arguments here, but Chanda, one thing I can say is that you most definitely do *not* have the right to live your life free of comments which suggest that the dearth of women in science may be partially accounted for by innate differences in interest and/or aptitude.

Sam, I am sorry if I said something that caused a misunderstanding, but I wasn’t suggesting that I have a right to live my life free of hearing such comments. I’m not going to sue AP or Larry Summers because I had to hear his ridiculous comments.

On the other hand, if my supervisor said something like that to me, I’m glad that Canadian law would stand behind me if I wanted to make it clear to him that such comments do not belong in my immediate environment. In other words, I have a right to a harassment-free workplace. (This is, of course, a very theoretical supervisor! When it comes to issues of discrimination, Lee has been a great source of wisdom and support for me.)

Chanda

But you didn’t answer my question! I’m pretty sure anyone who went to school in the US is fairly (or at least vaguely) familiar with the essence of the 1st Amendment. But since you are someone with a legal education (I believe?) then you should be able to enlighten us about the details that only someone with a legal training would know.

But maybe I a misunderstanding what you were trying to communicate. Are you saying that because of the way the first amendment has been interpreted, there are no hate speech laws anywhere in the US? What about laws that bar discrimination in the workplace? For some reason I was under the impression that if a woman’s male boss (or vice versa) says something overtly sexist, the victim has legal recourse in many places? Wouldn’t such an issue fall under the purview of hate speech/1st amendment rights?

Chanda