Our local newspaper embarrassment

Haha, Stephen Colbert also has a black friend. Man the idiocy... it burns! Seriously, you guys need to get the liberal, godless U.S. views more out to the world. The only thing people elsewhere see is this kind of crap, and hollywood new-age stupidity.

I don't know if this has been discussed before here, but it's a column by the ex-religion reporter at the L.A. Times about he lost his faith. I don't think it's a good reason to lose your faith, since faith is also bad in the absence of organized crime-corruption (guess what church did he investigate?). But good for him. It's well worth a read.

Your first link has a point that probably needs attention.
"Spot doesn't know--whether any of the black staffers who were the object of the message were black? But it hardly matters."
I'll take a wild guess and suggest that 100% of the black staffers were black.
Anyway back to the issue at hand, I'm not sure I would take the same sort of stance that you are taking, PZ. Clearly the guy was insensitive but it is reported that various other joke threats were commonplace in that office (was the icepick joke used to threaten Russian ex-pat Trotskyists?). I'm not sure you can say for definite that noose 'joke' was targeting black workers - although the guy was an idiot for not realizing the possibility that someone might get offended in such a manner.

I have to agree with Martin, it sounds at least possible that it was part of an ongoing joke that seriously backfired. Not knowing the guy, I can only hope the decision to fire him was based upon previous bad behaviour rather than just reactionary.

I'm not a conservative at all, but based on the information given, this does seem like PC run amok. Regardless of how much of an idiot this writer usually is, I'm not convinced her point is invalid in this case.

My first inclination is to agree with comments 2-4. I do, however, live in a part of England with very few black people - and so my outlook is different from that of the black staffers in question. Your cucking stool link describes a noose as "undoubtedly a racist, hate symbol," an association I would never have made. It would be interesting to know whether that's just becuase of my background. Would a substantial proportion of Americans, on seeing a noose hanging from the ceiling, interpret it as a racist statement? If so the newspaper bosses have a point. If not, I take the side of Kersten.

I've got to side with Keith here. The problem isn't with the colour of people's skin, so much as the thickness. Sure, putting up a fake noose is a bit insensitive. But if you can't handle the heat then you should get out of the kitchen. There is no such thing as a "right not to be offended" once you step outside your home.

I definitely think the race card is seriously overplayed. In my home city, an incident took place a few years ago in a neighbourhood out of which I had just moved. A shopkeeper quite rightly refused to serve two foul-mouthed and obviously under-aged youths with booze and fags. The youths returned later that night and set fire to his home. It was recorded as a racist attack, because the shopkeeper was asian and the youths were white -- although it had nothing to do with race, and everything to do with two advertisements for abortion not getting their own way. Had the shopkeeper who refused them service been white, they would still have exacted the same revenge.

I don't actually have any problem with firing a guy for hanging a noose up as a joke.

There are a bunch of morons who, post-Jena, think nooses are somehow funny. They're no more funny than swastikas, and the basic message they send is more or less the same.

I think it's a good idea to fire morons who think racial violence is funny, because it's the only way other morons will get it through their skulls to shut up about that shit.

Her latest column is a tirade against the horrible culture of victimhood in our universities

You mean the one about conservatives like David Horowitz complaining about how colleges (in addition to the media) are dominated by a liberal conspiracy?

I think it's idiotic how the article tries to minimize the impact of the noose by saying that he had put up other "joke" symbols of violence--an ice pick, a knife, and other "fanciful implements of discipline." An ice pick is an implement of discipline??

"I'm sorry dad, I forgot to take out the trash"

"Well, son, you know what that means. Bring me the ice pick and accept your punishment."

Sure, it may all be a joke, but call it what it is. All of these implements were representing murder, not discipline. At the least, it's completely insensitive. When was the last time your boss tried to motivate you using a murder weapon (I did have a boss threaten to kill me once, and while I knew it wasn't a real threat, it wasn't very fun for me either)? This reads like the plot line of "The Office" to me.

Is it racist? Maybe. Is it stupid and juvenile? Quite clearly. Did it offend anyone he was working with? Seems to have touched a nerve. So I think the gross insensitivity of a person in power over his coworkers might have been grounds enough for firing. The noose part might have been the last straw.

I agree with the commenters that state this is political correctness gone bad. People really do need to grow a thicker skin. We keep saying that people of religion need to get used to having their beliefs challenged, that they need to grow a thicker skin instead of being so offended at what we 'rational atheists' say. But that knife cuts both ways. Extreme sensitivity to racial & religious 'offenses' is what got the muslims all riled up against us in the first place. How can we condemn that in one context, but applaud it in the next?

One follow up comment here. If this really happened exactly the way it's described, one could make the argument that it is political correctness gone crazy. But notice that none of the coworkers were interviewed. You're getting the story of the fired employee, and then a couple comments from a group of third-party individuals. The important point is what the other employees felt. And that is absent from this story, only a statement that he was reported by two black staffers at the newspaper. Context is everything, and I think some of the commenters here are accepting the context spun by the columnist too quickly. We don't know. Was he warned before to stop these displays? Were there other complaints against his behavior? Did any other employees complain about his behavior?

Some third party minority groups may be jumping on the bandwagon here, also, but again, there's just not enough info here to make an informed judgment.

There is no such thing as a "right not to be offended" once you step outside your home.

It's not an insult, it's a threat of violence. There's a wee bit of a difference.

Outside of the US, a noose is merely a vague threat of violence, equally valid no matter your skin colour. Inside the US it is rather specifically racial. The recent Jena brouhaha should have made this abundantly clear.

Within the context of running "threats" over deadlines, it doesn't seem out of line until you factor in the racial issue. I'm going to guess that this is where the guy went wrong... he didn't factor in the racial issue. It sounds like it didn't even occur to him. Which doesn't say much for his abilities as a journalist, but does speak to the issue over whether he was "over-disciplined".

You people are kidding, right? In case you've forgotten, people with dark colored skin were lynched and strung up on nooses, right here in the good ol' US, in very recent history. Recent enough that the barely middle-aged could very well have had grandparents killed in such a manner. Heck, there are still people alive who had parents killed that way. Not somewhere far away, not a long time ago, but here, in their families. Death threats are not something to "grow a thick skin" about. Ever. Death threats are something that a civil society should not tolerate. There is a huge difference between challenging someone's beliefs, making fun of someone's beliefs, and telling someone they ought to be dead because of who they are.
I'll take a wild guess and say that most of the commenters so far in this thread are not members of an ethnic minority group who have ever had to worry about being beaten to a pulp just because of what they look like. Not understanding that a death threat, particularly one that has a very long history of actually happening, is a bad thing makes me really wonder how a person was raised.

Actually, I just remembered something else. When I was living in Birmingham, there was a shoe shop with a life-size noose and a sign next to it reading "CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS DEPARTMENT". (It also said, in small print, "YOUR STATUTORY RIGHTS ARE NOT AFFECTED".)

For what it's worth, I thought it was funny. If you can get offended by a noose, you've probably got too much time on your hands. (Unless you live on a planet where there is an abundant supply of non-polluting energy, people don't fight about who has the best imaginary friend and matter replication has been perfected so everything is essentially non-rivalrous. And if so, I'd like a toke on that, please.)

To clarify, in response to #5, I'm not American either. I live in Canada and I wouldn't say there are "very few" black people where I live, but in my very multi-cultural home city, they are amongst the less represented. We have a very high Phillipino population, Chinese, Aboriginals, Indians, and a decent, but probably on the lower end, population of various Africans.

I don't share the cultural association of a noose with racist lynching. Is it that universally prevalent in all parts of the US, even Minnesota, which is not far from where I live? If it really is comparable to using a swastika as a joke, then maybe the guy should be fired, but that seems hard for me to believe.

You can get offended by a noose when you live in a place where killing people of your own ethnic group by hanging has been so common that they write songs about it.

To clarify, in response to #5, I'm not American either. I live in Canada and I wouldn't say there are "very few" black people where I live, but in my very multi-cultural home city, they are amongst the less represented. We have a very high Asian population, Aboriginal population, and sizeable, but smaller Indian and African populations.

I don't share the cultural association of a noose with racist lynching. Is it that universally prevalent in all parts of the US, even Minnesota, which is not far from where I live? If it really is comparable to using a swastika as a joke, then maybe the guy should be fired, but that seems hard for me to believe.

To clarify, in response to #5, I'm not American either. We have a very high Asian population, Aboriginal population, and sizeable, but smaller Indian and African populations.

I don't share the cultural association of a noose with racist lynching. Is it that universally prevalent in all parts of the US, even Minnesota, which is not far from where I live? If it really is comparable to using a swastika as a joke, then maybe the guy should be fired, but that seems hard for me to believe.

Blah, why do my posts never go through? Okay, just wanted to say that I'm Canadian, so maybe the cultural association of a noose really is that deep-set and universal in the US, for all I know.

First of all, there's no such thing as "political correctness." It's a bogeyman. So you can all stop worrying about it.

(Funny thing about "political correctness": It has no explanatory power, and when you stop believing in it, it goes away. It turns out that, in fact, some people are assholes.)

It is a truth universally acknowledged that practical jokes can go too far. Sometimes someone loses an eye. Sometimes someone loses a job. Part of growing up is recognizing when you're about to cross the line, and stepping away.

HP, I would respectfully like to disagree with your suggestion that there is no such thing as political correctness.
Certainly right wingers like to use it as a term of abuse for anything that gets in their way of using offensive sexist language or racial slurs but there is also the very real issue of some left wingers being overly sensitive about language (as an example take the case of DC staffer David Howard who was fired for using the (non-racially derived) word 'niggardly' at a private meeting).

Wow, Carlie (#15). Thanks for linking that. One of the world's greatest songs. I had no idea there was film of a live performance.

I think she only made two studio recordings of the song, and I understand it's still on the "do not play" lists of many southern radio stations. But she would close all her live performances with the song right up until the end.

I am most bothered by Kersten sneering at those who were offended by the noose. I think the knucklehead student may have learned a lesson and perhaps deserves another chance. Kersten, on the other hand, despite being an adult professional journalist still doesn't seem to appreciate how offensive the noose could be to some. If anyone deserves the ax, it's her.

The trouble with PC is that some who think any PC is an abridgment of their rights, circulate stories such as "hired Santas told to say 'Ha, ha, ha' instead of 'Ho, ho, ho'. Gullible people believe it, or worse, stupid people actually do it and the whole idea gets buried in absurdity.

MartinC (#17): The example you give is an example of stupidity, not "political correctness." You might as well argue that there really is a Santa Claus, because sometimes people get presents. (It's true! I once got a present.)

Sometimes, officious pricks set themselves up as arbiters of others' speech. Sometimes thoughtless assholes will play the PC victim in order to continue being rude. But the concept of "political correctness" explains nothing about the unconscionable behavior of either pricks or assholes. It's a meaningless term, a cipher. It's a bogeyman.

It ascribes an ideological justification to rude and stupid behavior on both sides. But rudeness is just something people do. There is no rationale for rudeness and stupidity, and pretending that there is does not improve the human condition one iota.

Be courteous and thoughtful of others. Empathize. Shun discourteousness and thoughtlessness in others. Do these things, and "political correctness" disappears in a puff of meaningless rhetoric.

That's weird -- the comment numbering went all awry while I was composing my response to MartinC. And Waterdog's comment got duplicated. Sorry for any confusion. Now my xrefs are wrong.

Why yes, I'm sure putting up a swastika with the words "Arbeit Macht Frei" above it would be a sign of good humor to Jewish students and taken to be a motivational message. Riiiight. Depending on the guy's record it might not rate dismissal, but it's not something to be blown off either. That Kersten would get worked up about it isn't to her credit, IMO.

Weird. I guess you have to be aware of American social history to be aware of the implications. Yes, black people were actually, physically murdered by hanging in this country in the recent past, and whole white communities went out to participate. Look up "lynching" on Amazon; you'll get a string of books that collect postcards that small towns made to honor these events. Look up sundown laws.

White people didn't experience this. Wave a noose at me, and it's a silly joke. Wave a noose at a black American, though, and what you are doing is intimidation by evoking a horrific historical reality.

I think a newspaper editor ought to be someone with a social conscience and an awareness of at least local history, and ought to be able to appreciate the perspectives of his or her community -- that entire community. This editor demonstrated that he did not have that at all, and deserved to be fired.

I miss Carlie when she's not around. Need I say more?

I agree with rjb that there is not enough info to make judgments regarding these events.

But, off the main subject, several, most even, commenters have stated directly or impied that "anyone" should know that the image of a noose is "specifically racial." I think this conjecture is wrong. I am American and have been around for a while, and have lived in several different parts of the country. A noose does not make me think of people with a specific skin color hanging from the neck till dead, or have any racial connotations for me at all. I am not ignorant of the history of racial injustice in this country either. I am sure that in some parts of the country the image of a noose may automatically conjure thoughts of racial injustice and atrocities, but I don't think this is true for the whole, or even the majority, of the population.

Given the recent Jena Six incident, a very insensitive thing to do.

The writer is a complete asshole. Cartoonizing academia like that is reprehensible. She should be fired.

Jeez! people need to develop a "thicker skin" . This was hardly offensive at all ( I am not a black guy) . I dont understand what the fuzz is all about. Nobody complained when:

1) A guy put a mini gas chamber to motivate his Jew co-workers.

2) A palestinian taxi driver hang a couple of toy flaming towers to cheer up New Yorkers.

3) A moroccan band in Madrid named themselves " el subte explosivo"

Oh, wait..those events never happened. But you got my point, I guess.

PZ (28):
Obviously people in Britain and elsewhere are aware of the massive problem of lynchings of black people in the States, but it wouldn't have occured to me as the first or main association when presented with a noose. Most murder weapons don't immediately cause me to think of any particular group who've suffered at their hands.

But, having a) thought about it more deeply and b) read some more stuff about recent noose-related threats since this morning, I can see that to a black American it could easily be the first thing they'd think of. Therefore this editor was, at best, stupid and insensitive.

HP, the reason I regard the David Howard situation as political correctness rather than stupidity is that he lost his job on the basis of fear of public fallout (due to common misunderstanding over the origin of the word) rather than the belief of his employers that he actually used a racial slur.
As for the question of the noose, even on this thread its clear that not everyone regards it as an unadulterated racial threat (in contrast to something like a burning cross). Historically many black people were lynched but the most likely place you see nooses in US culture nowadays are in old cowboy movies about (mainly white) outlaws. The problem with this whole topic is, as rjb stated, we simply do not have enough information. Perhaps he was trying to be racist. Perhaps he was threatening people lives. Or perhaps he was joining in with a stupid office prank and didn't think about how some people might interpret it. Without any other evidence other than this article I don't think we can make a valid judgement on the guy's motives.

Bob Dylan sang about a 1920 lynching in Duluth, Minnesota. They made a postcard of the event because they were so proud of it. Maybe Kersten could talk about that.

They're selling postcards of the hanging
They're painting the passports brown
The beauty parlor is filled with sailors
The circus is in town
Here comes the blind commissioner
They've got him in a trance
One hand is tied to the tight-rope walker
The other is in his pants
And the riot squad they're restless
They need somewhere to go
As Lady and I look out tonight
From Desolation Row

It's good the kid has apologized for not thinking his practical joke through. If anyone still dislikes him after his apology, then I disagree with their position.

Yes, a noose is a cultural taboo. It will be until it no longer has an imprint on a social group, which probably won't be for a hundred years or more.

The kid messed up. He learned something (as HP stated). Practical jokes can go too far. He just learned the hard way and must move on.

Katherine Kersten: another Ann Coulter wanna-be.

If the noose was intended to be a racial statement then sure, throw the book at the stupid idiot. But from the sounds of it, racism seems like last thing that was on the poor kids mind. If the details of the article are correct, to me this smells like a clear cut case of PC craziness akin to a man being sued for opening a door for a woman. I really hate to disagree with PZ but.... I really hate seeing poor bastards like this get crucified for some accidental, and more importantly, unintentional transgression.

I agree with the person who equated the noose with the swastika. In the this country the last lynching occurred in 1981, I believe. Anyway it was much more recent than most people realize. So the noose is a symbol of terror and hate, just as the swastika is now a symbol of terror and hate.

I'm assuming you know what 'deadline' actually means?

" decided to decorate the office with a handmade noose to motivate his black co-workers. "

Unless I'm missing something, that's a pretty misleading statement. There's nothing in the story you linked to indicating that it was directed at his black co-workers. Are you just assuming that he's lying about it, or do you have another account which conflicts with this one and is more reliable? Just jumping to conclusions about what 'actually' happened in a news story isn't allowed unless you're writing copy for The O'Reilly Factor. I hope you will back up your summary judgment of this student by linking to your other, more reliable source of information.

Outside of the US, a noose is merely a vague threat of violence, equally valid no matter your skin colour. Inside the US it is rather specifically racial. The recent Jena brouhaha should have made this abundantly clear.

This is ridiculous. I also saw some posters (including PZ) saying that within the last century black americans were hanged with nooses. So? White americans, native americans, asian americans, hispanic americans etc. were also hanged with nooses within the last century. The noose is only a symbol of racial prejudice to those who have a vested interest in letting people with an agenda get away with bullshit. I'm anything but a Conservative/Republican, but this overzealous PCism is really a symptom of the airheads amongst the Democrats/Liberals. The thought process goes, if ANYONE under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES could IN ANY WAY figure out a way to convince themselves that X is offensive, X is a symbol of oppression and hate. This is opposed to genuine symbols of hate such as the swastika or the confederate battle flag. These items are inhernetly symbols of oppression and hate because of the context of their creation. No so with nooses. Adults need to start acting like adults. If a display, action, or comment of any sort is directed at a person or group BECAUSE of their membership in a particular group, then we have bigotry in action. That doesn't seem to be the case here. What the guy who got fired did was probably a bad idea in retrospect, but to call it racist is an example of the same kind of switching-off behavior that we (rationalist atheists) call the religious on when they try to claim a special unassailable status for their faith, the only difference is that in this case we swap the term 'faith' with 'race'. Once someone mentions race, everyone else backs of with their hands up in submission, terrified to say 'bullshit' for fear of being called a racist.
This kind of idiocy must be a particularly American phenomenon...

This doesn't reflect well on Kersten at all:

Katherine Kersten's Selective Story Telling

That Kersten left some very relevant facts out of her column is something she has to held to account for by her employer, otherwise the Star Tribune is guilty of political correctness that favors biased conservative columnists.

I incorrectly quoted the first two sentences in my previous post. They were written by another poster. Below that are my comments. Sorry for the confusion.

Not that it matters but MC&TC has a 30% Black or African American enrollment.

http://www.minneapolis.edu/aboutus.cfm

Wikipedia:

A 'noose' is a loop at the end of a rope tied with a knot used for entrapment or hanging. Sometimes used by hunters in the sport of stalking, killing, or capture of wild animals, the noose is also linked with lawful and unlawful execution of human beings as a means of capital punishment and extreme demonstrations of prejudice or discrimination associated with lynching. In lynching, the noose need not be used to actually hang an individual but may be used as a kind of sign communicating a terrorist threat involving intimidation or a threat to commit violence with intent to place a person in fear of imminent serious injury.

You know, the last person that I know of being hanged with a noose was Saddam Hussein, and he was Arabic, so maybe the noose is actually a symbol of anti-Arabic racism.
That's how the thought-process at work here goes, right?

You know, I agree with PZ mostly, and with HP and the others up there, but I'm honestly focusing more on the stupidity in the rest of this column (and there's a lot). For example: "But now he knows that a combat zone is a Boy Scout camp compared with a standard-issue college inquisition in 2007."

Is it just me, or is this an incredibly galling statement for a pro-war columnist who's almost certainly never been to Iraq to make?

This is ridiculous. I also saw some posters (including PZ) saying that within the last century black americans were hanged with nooses. So? White americans, native americans, asian americans, hispanic americans etc. were also hanged with nooses within the last century.

Skip out on history class, did you? There's a big difference between being hanged as a state-operated execution that follows from due process, and being lynched by a mob of angry whites who can't be bothered to wait for the court system to do its job (or, more likely, because the lynching victim didn't actually commit a *real* crime). The latter happened almost exclusively to blacks in America's history.

Stephen said:
"Skip out on history class, did you? There's a big difference between being hanged as a state-operated execution that follows from due process, and being lynched by a mob of angry whites who can't be bothered to wait for the court system to do its job (or, more likely, because the lynching victim didn't actually commit a *real* crime). The latter happened almost exclusively to blacks in America's history."

And I must ask, "your point?"
Whatever the reason these people were hanged, they were ALL hanged by nooses, therby pulling the rug out from under your argument.

Like some others who have commented here, I am not from the US, I live in the UK and am white, however, irrespective of the complete details of this story, even I am totally aware of what a noose would mean to many a black person in much of the US, even today. After all, it is only a few months since the Jena six court case which was all started by the hanging of a noose as a warning to some black students to keep away from a tree that a group of white students normally sat under. One would assume a news editor, even one on a student rag, would have been aware of the story and so should have been aware of the possible implications even if it was simply meant as a prank. Though from what little I have read from the various links this does appear more an insensitive prank rather than out and out racism so perhaps a metaphorically severe slap on the wrist, some modern history lessons and sensitivity training would have been more appropriate.

Katherine Kersten cherry-picks facts because the Star Tribune does. It's reportage is abysmal. She is the voice of "diversity," probably because she has so many different selves occupying the body, while the STrib casts about trying to find a quirky new "angle" on what should be solid journalism.

Look for a column from Kersten about "Why don't children [because that's what everyone who isn't she is] challenge their teachers/professors more?" next week.

Then another lament about Cherie Yucky the next (sans any mention of creationism, shhhh). Little Miss Education, is Kersten. She should run for Congress. Seriously, she should. I'd love to see her come up with her own buttons.

Also in response to Stephen, cattle rustlers and outlaws in the old west were lynched by mobs. So were chinese and native americans on trumped-up charges. I won't contest that more blacks were hanged by nooses in RECENT AMERICAN history than any other single group, but that in and of itself carries no weight in this argument. If blacks were the only race ever to have been hanged by nooses, we wouldn't be having this conversation, but that's not the case at all.

Whatever the reason these people were hanged, they were ALL hanged by nooses, therby pulling the rug out from under your argument.

No, not really. When used for lynching, the noose becomes a hate symbol. You know what? What I think about it, and what you think about it, aren't even the point. Many black people are offended by it, and for good reason. If you're not offended by it, fine, but it doesn't change that. Also, you should read the link in comment #43, since it sheds some new light on the case. I have no doubt that there was no racist intent on Keith's part, but his insensitivity, along with his claim to be unaware of current news, should be enough to earn him the boot.

Blah, why do my posts never go through?

Everything always gets through, unless it's held for moderation. When ScienceBlogs reports a problem, that problem consists in displaying the updated page with your comment in it, not in sending the comment.

What the guy who got fired did was probably a bad idea in retrospect, but to call it racist is an example of the same kind of switching-off behavior that we (rationalist atheists) call the religious on when they try to claim a special unassailable status for their faith, the only difference is that in this case we swap the term 'faith' with 'race'. Once someone mentions race, everyone else backs of with their hands up in submission, terrified to say 'bullshit' for fear of being called a racist.

Yes, that's exactly what happens. Like how the people who held and tortured a woman for hours because she was black got charged with a hate crime? Oh, that's right, they didn't. Why do white people get o damn defensive about this stuff. There is still fucking racism deeply embedded in American society! It's there whether you want to whine about political correctness or how we need to stop taking racist threats seriously because race is like religion.

Good call, George.

The noose is only a symbol of racial prejudice to those who have a vested interest in letting people with an agenda get away with bullshit

You've got to be kidding me. It is a symbol of hatred an lethal violence against African Americans - when it is used as such. The Jena Six situation demonstrates this nicely. It doesn't take any self-serving, bleeding-heart PC liberal distortions to make that particular noose into such a symbol. The intent with which it was raised is what makes it so.

That said, Randolph, I agree that we shouldn't let PC-ness be an excuse to shut off our brains. I also agree that the editor is guilty more of myopia and insensitivity than of racism. I suspect any claim stating that the editor put the noose up there as an explicit message targeted at to his African-American reporters is ridiculous. I question whether firing him was the only, or even most appropriate, response. Intent matters - and I sincerely doubt that his intent was racist.

However, the editor was given the opportunity to change his mind about putting up the noose, and he didn't, and later pleaded ignorance. See the link on David Wilford's post, #43, for details. Things are never quite as simple as they appear at a glance...

You know, the last person that I know of being hanged with a noose was Saddam Hussein, and he was Arabic, so maybe the noose is actually a symbol of anti-Arabic racism.
That's how the thought-process at work here goes, right?

I didn't see this. I'll be brief:

Put this in perspective. This is about Kersten, not nooses, really.

This week, she says, "Our campuses seem to lurch from one politically correct knee-slapper to the next. Does anyone crack a book at these places anymore?" Okay, fine.

Last week, she pitched a conniption fit because someone did. (Wrong award-winning novel; Kersten is displeased, and we can't have anything bugging her, can we?)

The "is it or isn't it racism" argument is separate from the issue of her. She is not the person to make any rational argument either way, because she's incoherent. If she wants it to be all about her (because she has repeatedly lambasted any college/professor/teacher who advocates reading of literature she doesn't approve of), then it is. And it is.

Stephen said:
"What I think about it, and what you think about it, aren't even the point. Many black people are offended by it, and for good reason. If you're not offended by it, fine, but it doesn't change that."

Refer back to my post #43 for my response to that. Pay special attention to the parallel between faith and race that I draw at the end. Just because you can figure out a way to make yourself feel offended by something doesn't mean that you are right about it being inherently racist, offensive, bigoted, etc. It just means you're looking for something to be offended about so that you can feel put-upon and victimized and special. I'm not suggesting that black lynchings weren't wrong, I'm only saying that they don't negate the much longer history of the noose and redefine it as an inherently racist symbol.

The link that David Wilford provided shows the editor to be both insensitive and ignorant, rather than the racist that PZs initial post clearly implied. I presume there must be more information about Keiths motivations for PZ to have come to this damning conclusion. Does anyone have a link to it?

coathangrr said:
"Yes, that's exactly what happens. Like how the people who held and tortured a woman for hours because she was black got charged with a hate crime? Oh, that's right, they didn't."

You must be a creationist to resort to that level of quote-mining. You conveniently left off the part where I said, "If a display, action, or comment of any sort is directed at a person or group BECAUSE of their membership in a particular group, then we have bigotry in action."
Funny, it was only one sentence back from the one you quoted. That flushing sound you hear was your credibility going down the toilet.

Kristine said:
"Put this in perspective. This is about Kersten, not nooses, really."

I agree with you. It was stupid for the University to fire the kid merely as a face-saving gesture in the event that someone went to the press with this story. It's equally stupid for the reporter in the link to use the case as ammunition in her apparent personal vendetta against "liberal" (which I assume means non-Christian) universities.

It's not just that African-Americans were killed with nooses, it's that the noose was used as a graphic symbol by racist groups, just as burning crosses were.

"A noose to me signifies Boy Scouts and westerns, but to them it was racism," said Keith, who is white.

Boy scouts and westerns? Them? Them?

The guy's an asshole.

Randolph:

Also in response to Stephen, cattle rustlers and outlaws in the old west were lynched by mobs.

Yes, yes - executed without due process for alleged crimes, perhaps - but NOT BECAUSE THEY WORE CHAPS.

So were chinese and native americans on trumped-up charges. I won't contest that more blacks were hanged by nooses in RECENT AMERICAN history than any other single group, but that in and of itself carries no weight in this argument.

You're correct to point out that blacks weren't the only non-whites so victimized. However, I think you're ignoring the realities in this (flawed) attempt to support your argument. That fact IS the weight of the argument. You can't honestly claim that there's no clear cultural associations between the image of a noose and lynchings. The Chinese and Native American examples support, rather than undermine, the claim that the noose can be a symbol of racially-motivated hatred and murder.

Ms. Brown said:
"It's not just that African-Americans were killed with nooses, it's that the noose was used as a graphic symbol by racist groups, just as burning crosses were."

Ok, I'm not disputing that either. But, fir trees and rabbits are used as symbols by Christians. Crescent moons are used as symbols by Muslims. Does that make them inherently Christian or Muslim symbols? I don't think so, because these groups appropriated them. They didn't invent them. A burning cross on the other hand, I do consider a racist symbol, because it was created with hate and intimidation in mind. Nooses can't kill only blacks. If they could, I would be on board with you. But the fact is, they're fatal across the board. The mere fact that someone can appropriate something doesn't mean that that thing is completely redefined, and it's history erased.

Of the roughly 5000 documented lynchings (victim had to die, had to be at least 3 perpetrators, victim had to be innocent), 88% of the victims were black. And, has been mentioned, after the Jena incident and the use of a noose there, it was an incredibly stupid thing to do (even if you assume no racial intent).

Kseniya said:
"Yes, yes - executed without due process for alleged crimes, perhaps - but NOT BECAUSE THEY WORE CHAPS."

You missed my point. Stephen was claiming that everyone besides blacks were hanged by the state after what passed for due process at the time. I was arguing that that was not at all the case, and that people of all races were lynched for any number of reasons.

Kseniya also said:
"You can't honestly claim that there's no clear cultural associations between the image of a noose and lynchings. "

Actually I can say that quite seriously. A few months ago, when all the shit started to hit the fan with regard to nooses, I was baffled and amused that anyone could be taking this association seriously. When the man (in GA?) put a hanged man in his front yard for Halloween, and was the subject of threats as a result, I couldn't believe that even americans could be that stupid. But, I guess it's true that no one ever lost money betting on the stupidity of americans.

To be honest, all I see here is the same kind of apologetics that the religious use to try to get me to concede points to them by claiming that those without faith can't make any statements unflattering or contrary to faith. Neither faith nor race deserves a special unassaiable status, and it seems that america has a long way to go before that fact is understood.
That will be my last word on the matter. (at least until work is done.)

You know, I've been surprised on this story at how many Americans (including the original offender) are going "WTF, nooses are associated with racially-motivated lynchings in the U.S.? I had NO IDEA!" until I thought about how it's covered in U.S. public school. No-one ever really wants to talk about it; it's too embarrassing to America. So it gets glossed over in a few sentences about guys in white hoods, and you move right on. I luckily had a good American history teacher who put back in the things that the textbooks left out. She showed us some of the photos they leave out -- of "nice respectable" families dressed up in Sunday best, standing around watching the corpse in the noose like it's a preacher on a stump. This may be, to some extent, a failure in the American education system.

But yeah, as a commenter at PunkAssBlog pointed out, the only non-asshole response to finding out about such an association is "OMG, I had no idea, I'm so sorry! Man, I fucked that one up." rather than "Nuh-UHH! I've never heard of it so it CAN'T BE TRUE."

I'm not suggesting that black lynchings weren't wrong, I'm only saying that they don't negate the much longer history of the noose and redefine it as an inherently racist symbol.

Ok, I agree with that... The noose isn't, and shouldn't be, an inherently racist symbol. But that statement seems a bit at odds with this one, in which you appear to be claiming that the noose can never symbolize genuine racial hatred and violence:

The noose is only a symbol of racial prejudice to those who have a vested interest in letting people with an agenda get away with bullshit.

Just because because there was no KKK two hundred years ago doesn't mean the noose doesn't or can't symbolize the racist attrocities perpetrated here over the past one hundred years. It's sort of a "What have you done for/to me lately?" symbolic weighting effect.

Anyways, I agree with Kristine about Kersten. And I can't help but believe that the school might have been better off responding thus: "Keith made a mistake, he made a bad choice, we've discussed it with him and he understands why people were upset by the use of the noose (especially in light of the recent Jena Six incident) and we're all putting it behind us now. Have a nice day."

A noose whether in jest or not is a threat of violence. And it is racist... that's how it's used, if we were in the wild west or Europe, it might be differen. (Not the same history)

But would it be funny and cool for your boss to walk around with an unloaded gun saying "Get to work slackers, we have a deadline to make!"

No it wouldn't.

Hey, a cross is just a symbol, maybe he should of judt built a pyre in the middle of the office and pretended to burn a cross as motivation too...

I'm sure there's times when "PC" goes overboard. This isn't one of them.

"You can't honestly claim that there's no clear cultural associations between the image of a noose and lynchings. "

Actually I can say that quite seriously. A few months ago, when all the shit started to hit the fan with regard to nooses, I was baffled and amused that anyone could be taking this association seriously.

Then, perhaps, that says much, much more about you than about the people who you criticize for being overly sensitive. Perhaps it is not they who are being overly sensitive, but it is you that is being insensitive and unwilling to put yourself into others shoes.

Randolph:

You missed my point. Stephen was claiming that everyone besides blacks were hanged by the state after what passed for due process at the time. I was arguing that that was not at all the case, and that people of all races were lynched for any number of reasons.

Ok, point taken. I overlooked the fact that you were specifically addressing Stephen's claim.

When the man (in GA?) put a hanged man in his front yard for Halloween, and was the subject of threats as a result, I couldn't believe that even americans could be that stupid.

I agree - and I assume you mean threats of violence - that's pretty stupid, unless there was something about the display to suggest it had been a lynching... in which case it could be judge to be in very poor taste. (Am I being too sensitive to that aspect? We hang a skeleton in our yard most years, and nobody has complained. Well, except when we did it at Christmas. And Easter. But that's another story.)

(Actually, threatening the guy is not only stupid, it's hypocritical and reprehensible, regardless of his motives.)

Randolph Carter said

The mere fact that someone can appropriate something doesn't mean that that thing is completely redefined, and it's history erased.

Of course it can, look at the swastika as an example. Once, it was originally used from Europe to the Far East from neolithic times often as a religious symbol. The name coming from the Sanskrit word for well being. However, since the nazis appropriated it the symbol is now seen invariably in a negative light. Thus, while in my opinion this incident was more one of insensitivity and thoughtlessness than racism, it is how it resonates due to its most recent history that makes it significant to black people, even if you can't or refuse to see that.

I'm from the US; Southwestern PA specifically. I've never even heard a passing reference to the noose being a racist symbol. In fact, I just watched a 'Modern Marvels' the other night on 'death devices' where hangings were treated to ten minutes of coverage, and they went over exactly what I think of when I see a noose: the Middle Ages.

I'll avoid the current debate and instead just ask this. Look around your office. Look at all the personal items, symbols, and humorous affects. Now, imagine your boss walking in tomorrow morning and telling you one is inherently racist and that you're fired. How can you possibly feel that is justified? Just because you happenned to get a C in history and not know someone somewhere might have been offended by said item.

As for the news, who in the world even has time to keep up with everything? I work 40 hours a week, 20-30 less than most people I know, and I still hardly find time to read even just Pharyngula. On good weeks I read through the recent astronomy and science stories on my Google home page. Sorry, never heard of the Jena six until I came here today.

If you want to punish someone for threatenning someone due to their race, that's fine. But please don't turn ignorance into a crime. We already have enough thought crimes in this country...

Honestly, the first things I think of when I see noose are old Westerns like "Hang em high" and "Gunsmoke" on TV.

But the fact that this guy had black co-workers reveals a clueless/insensitive nature that's a bit suspicious.

I also suspect that there is more going on behind the scenes than we know about--there always is.

Now, having said that, this seems quite relevant: Not five minutes ago, I learned that my niece (she's about 8) was suspended today from school, (for one day), for pointing her finger and playing "bang bang" with some other kids on the bus. Zero tolerance for guns and all that. As someone who grew up with toy guns and holsters and playing cowboys and Indians, this seems surreal, to say the least.

We live in Florida.

Sounds like a piss poor reason to be fired.

I never would have put together,Missed Deadlines = Noose = Black Hatred. I did put together Missed Deadlines = Noose = Death. Sometimes the best way to let stupid hatreds die is to let them F'ing Die. Stop brining it up. Somepeople just want to play the victim.

I won't contest that more blacks were hanged by nooses in RECENT AMERICAN history than any other single group, but that in and of itself carries no weight in this argument.

why on earth would you think recent history carries no weight in contemporary culture?

He's not alone.

N.Y. Times, Oct. 21, 2007:

{snip}
At least seven times in the past few weeks, nooses have been anonymously tossed over pipes or hung on doorknobs in the New York metropolitan area -- four times here on Long Island, twice in New York City, once at a Home Depot store in Passaic, N.J. The settings are disparate. One noose was hung in a police station locker room in Hempstead, where the apparent target was a black police officer recently promoted to deputy chief. Another was draped over the doorknob of the office of a black professor at Columbia University.
[...]
"In the context of today, the noose means, 'There is still a racial hierarchy in this country, and you better not overstep your bounds,'" said Carmen Van Kerckhove, the founder of a New York consulting firm, New Demographic, that specializes in workplace problems, including racial tension.

The most clear-cut example of that, perhaps, was the first episode in the cluster. The noose appeared the morning of Sept. 28 in the locker room of the Hempstead Village Police Department. Taped to the wall near the rope was a newspaper clipping referring to Deputy Chief Willie Dixon, the 57-year-old department veteran who was promoted to the rank in May. Chief Dixon, who is black, told investigators he had received anonymous letters containing racial epithets upon his promotion and felt sure the noose was intended for him.
[...]

On the face of it, it sounds like Keith was being crass and insensitive, particularly since reportedly he was asked by two black staff members not to do it. It was worth a reprimand, though, not a firing.

If that was the only time.

On the other hand if there's some sort of history here which we aren't being told about, then maybe that's why he got booted.

The thing is, suppose this guy had been black, running a newspaper for African-American students say, and had made similarly tasteless remarks or gestures about whites or Koreans, for example, do you think he would have been fired?

john phillips said:
"Of course it can, look at the swastika as an example. Once, it was originally used from Europe to the Far East from neolithic times often as a religious symbol."

I lived in Japan, and you still see swastikas everywhere there. And not as a reference to Naziism, but because the swastika is and was part of the Shinto religion.
Now, someone in an earlier post mentioned that in NYC people have been hanging nooses on people's doorknobs. I do think that this kind of behavior is racist. The intent was obviously to cause some real anxiety and imply a threat to the residents. The reason is because of the motivation behind why they were hung. That the people who hung them were nowhere to be found implies that a threat was intended. On the other hand, giving the kid in the article the benefit of the doubt, he was putting the noose up as a joking admonition for people to get their work in by their deadlines. Anyone who read anything more into it than that was looking for an excuse to cause trouble. I must add that what these situations really show is that the people who claim to be most tolerant are really the least forgiving. The person who immediately cries 'racist' would be the last to give the person in question the benefit of the doubt. Seems like when closeted good old boys raise their voices to tell their friends how much they hate fags...

Here's a question to those of you who disagree with me:
Imagine it's 10 years ago.
It's Halloween.
A number of the houses in your neighborhood have skeletons in the yard, tombstones on the lawn, and nooses in the trees.
Are all the families whose trees have nooses in them racists?
I mean, if you said they had burning crosses in the front yard, I would say they were, and you're trying to equate nooses with things that are symbols of hate, like burning crosses, so you must say 'yes'.
If you say that they're not, then you're position isn't internally consistent.
Something that is a symbol of hate doesn't get to take a day off. the mere date doesn't render it void of it's connotations.
If you say that Halloween takes what would otherwise be a symbol of hate out of context, why does an office joke about deadlines not similarly make the grade to take a symbol of hate out of its context?

I'm coming in late to the fray, but I gotta tell you, if you grew up in the deep South, as I did, the noose is definitely inflammatory and has very specific meanings. Remember the hullabaloo about the ad the Republicans ran during the race for the senate seat in Tennessee, which featured a white woman inviting Harold Ford, who is black, to "call me?" White Southerners got the coded message, even if you minority-challenged ;-) Minnesotans didn't.

Nomen Nescio said:
"why on earth would you think recent history carries no weight in contemporary culture?"

For the same reason that I think that the definition of the term 'theory' has not changed, despite the fact that almost no one outside the scientific disciplines accurately knows its meaning.
To put it another way, the fact that most people think that 'theory' means 'guess', and therefore that Evolution is nothing more than a hare-brained atheist scheme, doens't make it so.

to elaborate a bit for Noman Nescio:
I don't let any niche group redefine reality according to their biases. I don't let Christians or Muslims get away with it, and I don't plan to let blacks get away with it. It's 'framing', and it's bullshit.

"Haha, Stephen Colbert also has a black friend."

Thank you, thank you. My first thought exactly. Stephen relates to minorities perfectly because he has minority friends.

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/9846/stevenandalangc3.jpg

What we don't know is whether he hung the noose specifically to playfully intimidate black co-workers, or if he hung it merely as a generic symbol of doom for those who don't meet deadlines. The distinction is critical and I'm tending towards the latter.

Someone I loved dearly committed suicide by hanging himself. So, if you "wave a noose at me", PZ, am I to jump to the conclusion that you are making light of this loved one's death? Of course not, because that was not your intention. You are under no obligation to ponder all of the various experiences I may or may not have had throughout my life, and limit your personal actions to just those that couldn't possibly offend me. To do so would be a waste of your time and energy. You'd never be able to interact with me for fear of offending me. It would stifle your ability to speak freely.

Not to mention, the noose was not "waved in anyone's face" - that's blatant hyperbole. Further, NOWHERE in the article does it even imply that the editor was trying to "motivate his black coworkers", as if he singled them out specifically. It was put on display as part of a series of inside jokes, none of which had any relation to race, and thus there is no reason to assume that this object's display carried any racial connotations with it whatsoever.

The right to free speech, in my opinion, carries with it the absolute right to be controversial. Yes, racism is fucking stupid. But reacting to every single object or idea that could possibly be related to racism with that kind of zero-tolerance fervor is granting racism MUCH more power and influence than it deserves.

You know, the last person that I know of being hanged with a noose was Saddam Hussein, and he was Arabic, so maybe the noose is actually a symbol of anti-Arabic racism.

No, you're confusing "hanging" with "lynching".

Hanging is a judicially-imposed punishment for a capital crime. Lynching is just lawless mob-rule, and frequently involves offenses that don't deserve the death penalty. (Whistling at a woman from the "wrong" racial group or being in the "wrong" town after sunset were sufficient excuses for a lynching.)

Saddam Hussein's trial was a little sketchy, and there was some unpleasant mob behavior with the body after the execution, but I don't think it's fair to call it a lynching. (And most Americans aren't even aware of the details of the execution; it made our allies in the Iraqi government look bad, so the media mostly buried the story.)

That's how the thought-process at work here goes, right?

No. The thought-process is really complicated and involves convoluted ideas like "history" and "context". A lot of people do have trouble following it, which is why we try to warn them when they're being offensive.

Some interesting assertions being mede here:

1) Being completely ignorant of history allows one insert any random personal anecdote as a legitimate substitute

2) If a person completely unconnected to the incident isn't offended, then no one should be

3) If a symbol of violence and hatred has ever been used in another context then it can't be a symbol of violence and hatred

Very depressing for a Pharyngula thread

I'm not suggesting that black lynchings weren't wrong, I'm only saying that they don't negate the much longer history of the noose and redefine it as an inherently racist symbol.

Of course they do. The swastika has a history dating back to, quite literally, the Stone Age. It has roots in Sanskrit and many ancient Indo-European cultures. It had absolutely nothing to do with anti-Semitism or hatred until the Nazis used it.

So are you telling me that the horrors of Nazism don't negate the much longer history of the swastika? Because you'd be wrong there. It happens with symbols like that.

But, I guess it's true that no one ever lost money betting on the stupidity of americans.

Speaking of credibility going down the toilet...

Stephen said:
"So are you telling me that the horrors of Nazism don't negate the much longer history of the swastika? Because you'd be wrong there. It happens with symbols like that."

No, you'd be wrong. The swastika is still used in many asian countries and in Native American culture, and it has nothing to do with Naziism. A swastika all by itself has whatever connotation you assume it has. It seems to me it unveils what's going on beneath the surface of your own mind.
Something else that I've noticed here is that the people who have gotten most worked up about these things are those for whom race is an important factor in their own and others' identities. I don't have that problem, so I don't automatically reach for racist connotations in situations where they aren't warranted.
What's going on here belies what YOU think, not what the kid in the article thought.
You think it's racist because you have racial hangups.

Well, I'm in agreement with a lot of people who are disagreeing with each other here. The problem is, "dialogue" doesn't seem to be dialogue these days - it's fire-his-ass and then oh-look-what-the-libruls-done-now. (In other words I agree with Randolph Carter, but also with octopod.) I get sick of this see-saw. I would have associated nooses with lynching, probably because I subscribe to the SPLC, but would have been willing to cut the guy some slack if he had said, "Oh, my bad" instead of "Never heard of it!" etc. Likewise, you can't make the perpetrator restore your brain to what it was like before the noose was pulled out. Bad play on all sides.

Then in steps Kersten. Man, she loves to bathe in this stuff. *Groan* Everyone can see how much she revels in the very "stupidity" that she ostensibly denounces, right? Ugh.

I said:
"A swastika all by itself has whatever connotation you assume it has. "

This invites misunderstanding, let me rephrase:
A swastika all by itself has whatever subjective meaning you impose upon it.

I'm gonna have to agree with the people here who argue that this might be PC run amok. This newspaper editor may be a douche for all I know, but not for this reason.. unless there are some important facts that I'm unaware of (for instance, did he specifically target the noose at the black writers?).

Outside of any context, the noose is an ubiquitous and vague symbol of death, it isn't an automatic symbol of racial hatred. In popular culture, it is known as a tool of execution and murder in a wide range of circumstances: Governments hung criminals, armies hung deserters, navies hung pirates, lynch mobs in the old west hung outlaws, and racists used it to murder black people after Reconstruction. Don't forget that it's also symbol of suicide; in fact, I'd say that's the most modern of its connotations.

If the noose were an unmistakable symbol of hate-crimes, then Halloween would be a racist holiday, since nooses are a popular decoration on that day.

What matters is context. If this editor had singled out his black staffers and presented the noose to them alone, then there would be context, because a reasonable person might wonder "why is he associating the noose with black people?" But race doesn't appear to have been a factor. Rather, this editor's context seems to be: "Get your stories in or I'll execute you!" I'm surprised that it wasn't misinterpreted as: "If the newspaper doesn't print on time I'll commit suicide!"

At that campus newspaper, perhaps a few people brought their own context with them, thus making an unintended association in their own head. But anybody could inadvertently stumble into offense that way. Also, I hate to say it: Some people might feign offense. We see that all the time; religious nuts commonly feign offense at PZ in vain attempts to squelch him.

If I hang up a noose as a Halloween decoration, I'm probably suggesting a gallows or suicide, not a hate-crime lynching. Here's the argument I seem to be hearing: If I put up a noose as a Halloween decoration, and just one person sees it and momentarily thinks of hate-crime lynchings, then it's a racist statement.

There's a difference between intending offense, and doing something inoffensive that somebody interprets as offensive. The latter is only bad if you do so negligently; in other words, if you do something that any reasonable person should have known would be inexcusably offensive.

If this newspaper editor is some neocon windbag, then I'm not a fan of his message. But like Voltaire, I'll defend to the death his right to say it. The religious right and lunatic fringe conservatives have a grab bag of nasty tricks they use to silence people, but I would think that the rest of us are above such things. I suspect that people at the campus newspaper feigned outrage in order to eject the unpopular editor. Although his socio-political viewpoints may not be missed, I think it would have been better to hoist him on his own petard, rather than fashioning a noose out of false accusations.

Hey, Randolph: It's not about you. Whether or not you associate nooses with black lynchings, whether or not you find a noose threatening, or whether or not you find nooses to be a fun and appropriate thing to hang around the workplace is entirely irrelevant to the situation. You aren't (apparently) black, you aren't (apparently) part of the staff at this newspaper, your opinion does not count. This is not about you, no one is threatening your well-being or ability to be as bigoted as you want, you have no stake in the matter, and you have no ground to stand on complaining about it.

This is about someone who tried to intimidate black co-workers by appropriating a symbol of vigilante justice against the co-workers' entire ethnic group. If there were no connection between blacks, lynchings, and nooses, then why did the guy choose a noose rather than one of the many other instruments of death out there? In some way the guy knew exactly what he was doing. He may not have realized the severity of it, but he knew there was some connection between "black" and "noose". That was stupid, it was uncalled for, it was completely inappropriate, and I think it was in no way over the top to fire someone who was so unable to work well with others. College is a time for learning, and he needed to learn a very important lesson. No one has the right to keep a job, especially a college newspaper job in which part of the point is to train people for the real world, when they can't act like civilized humans. He'll lick his wounds and get on fine. I feel worse for his co-workers, who are learning the hard way that they will find racism everywhere whether they go looking for it or not.

No one quite does victimhood like "loyal Bushies" - for example, the United States Attorney for PZ's own Minnesota.
http://www.ericblackink.com/2007/11/19/rachel-paulose-plays-seven-victi…

Wow. Any American who debates what a noose means to African-Americans is a fool. Nooses are symbols of racial hate to African-Americans. Others have provided statistics about lynching and who experienced that particular terrorist tactic, so I won't reiterate those facts.

John in # 88 said

But reacting to every single object or idea that could possibly be related to racism with that kind of zero-tolerance fervor is granting racism MUCH more power and influence than it deserves.

Really? So you're of the "don't sweat the small stuff" persuasion. Here's the problem with that attitude towards racism, systemic racism (and sexism) in the US is basically composed of numerous small injustices perpetrated by the majority every day. This fact creates an atmosphere of racism that seems relatively minor to white people, but dramatically impacts the lives of minority groups.

I agree that racism shouldn't have power, but it does. That a white man can't see that is probably some sort of statement about the nature of race relations in the US, but I don't feel like making it.

Randolph Carter,

A couple of questions: 1) Are you an American? From your comments it seems that perhaps you are not. I just want to know so I can have some context for your views here.

2) Why do you insist that this debate is anything like the religion vs. atheism debate. It's not. Racial hate and religious hate often look the same, but they have different backgrounds, contexts and such that make them different social phenomena.

Just for the record, I think the kid showed poor taste and his reaction to being confronted about the racial connotations of his "joke" was abysmal. As a news editor, Keith should have at least been aware of the Jena events, so his ignorance of the association between lynchings, nooses, and African-Americans means he's either willfully ignorant or lying. If true, his plea of ignorance speaks to his level of professionalism and his competency to do the job.

It's Halloween.
A number of the houses in your neighborhood have skeletons in the yard, tombstones on the lawn, and nooses in the trees.
Are all the families whose trees have nooses in them racists?

No, because it's Halloween, you fucking dipshit. Context matters. A noose in the middle of a Wild West theme park? Probably okay. A noose used to threaten black coworkers? Definitely not.

I mean, really. You're a big fucking asshole, Randolph Carter. Go boil to death in a vat of your own diarrhea.

Carlie, from your post to Randolph I get the impression that you, as a black member of the magazine staff, in contrast to Randolph, ARE entitled to an opinion and indeed have some inside information that is missing from the other reports we have seen to date. You clearly know the editors motivations and intentions. Can you give us some specific information or evidence so that we can come to a more informed conclusion than at present?

Two things:

1: If the newspaper editor's actions were clearly an allusion to the Jena events, then that provides some context that makes this inexcusable. Was that the case?

2: I'm shocked that on my favorite liberal blog, I'm seeing commenters demanding to know if other commenters are American, and suggesting they shut up if not. That's a tactic out of the conservative playbook.

I argue that the noose can symbolize many things (its only common symbol is death), and it requires context to make it represent any specific atrocity. A noose is not like the swastika, which has taken on one symbolic meaning without any additional context required (in fact, those wishing to use the swastika's ancient meaning have to pile a serious amount of context around it).

mikez asked an interesting question:

"If a person completely unconnected to the incident isn't offended, then no one should be"

But let's flip that around: If a person does something that is not obviously offensive and not meant to offend, but just one person misinterprets it and finds offense, then everybody should be offended?

MartinC said:
"Carlie, from your post to Randolph I get the impression that you, as a black member of the magazine staff, in contrast to Randolph, ARE entitled to an opinion..."

And there is a perfect example of the whole problem.
We don't allow people to get away with this bullshit when they invoke faith, but apparently some people's heads are soft enough to allow it when people invoke race.

stogoe:
You are beneath my contempt, so your moronic ravings were good for a chuckle, but you need never fear I would take them seriously.

Eisnel said

2: I'm shocked that on my favorite liberal blog, I'm seeing commenters demanding to know if other commenters are American, and suggesting they shut up if not. That's a tactic out of the conservative playbook.

Just so you know, I want to know if Randolph Carter is American for the reason I gave: context. I would be more forgiving of a non-American denying the obvious association between nooses and lynchings because that cultural experience would be absent from his or her context.

Also, he repeatedly insults Americans, which is funny if he is one :)

The thing is, suppose this guy had been black, running a newspaper for African-American students say, and had made similarly tasteless remarks or gestures about whites or Koreans, for example, do you think he would have been fired?

You seem to think this matters. It doesn't. What matters is whether he should have been fired in that case.

No, you'd be wrong. The swastika is still used in many asian countries and in Native American culture[s], and it has nothing to do with Naziism.

Depends where. Over here that's the only association it has.

Looks like it's the same with nooses in the southeastern USA.

I don't let any niche group redefine reality according to their biases. I don't let Christians or Muslims get away with it, and I don't plan to let blacks get away with it.

I notice you didn't write, say, "PC zealots". You wrote "blacks". Nobody has chosen to be black.

David said:
"I notice you didn't write, say, "PC zealots". You wrote "blacks". Nobody has chosen to be black."

True enough. But many blacks choose to define themselves primarily as 'black.' These are the kind of people who expend all their efforts to figure out ways to be offended by unintentional and unimportant minutae in order satisfy their martyr complexes, and try to make (completely unassociated) non-blacks feel sympathetic and guilty.
That no more works on me then, for example, when I hear that some Jehovah's Witness family has had their child's custody taken away by the hospital, and are sympathy-fishing.

We don't allow people to get away with this bullshit when they invoke faith, but apparently some people's heads are soft enough to allow it when people invoke race.

Yes, when you deny things like you do, that's pretty soft headed.

I think you're more like creationists than not, when you deny and ignore what are historical facts.

No, actually, I don't think that my opinion counts, either. That's the thing about not being a member of an oppressed group; you don't have the right to tell them what is and isn't oppressive, especially if you're a member of the group that has historically oppressed them. And in this specific example, they're not making up something out of thin air; as PZ pointed out, there are lots and lots of "fun" postcards that show the use of nooses on blacks very graphically. Also, conflating religious beliefs with physical characteristics is disingenuous at best, blatantly lying at worst. You have a choice in what religious beliefs to have. Religious beliefs can be discussed, and debated, and rejected. You don't have a choice in what color your skin is. Randolph, do you also find gimp and retard jokes funny?

I don't let any niche group redefine reality according to their biases. I don't let Christians or Muslims get away with it, and I don't plan to let blacks get away with it.

Yet, you deny the historical importance of that symbol to a group. Seems to me that you're the one that's trying to redefine history to YOUR biases.

Try another argument, preferably one where you're not practicing what you're accusing others of doing.

Gaa, I hit post on accident. I was in the middle of saying that jokes about people's personal characteristics are in general frowned upon, both because that's something you can't change, and something that is (or ought to be) entirely neutral.
Seriously, if you keep insisting that there is no racial history to nooses in the United States, you are really beyond rational conversation.

That's the thing about not being a member of an oppressed group; you don't have the right to tell them what is and isn't oppressive, especially if you're a member of the group that has historically oppressed them.

Carlie, thanks for all your thoughtful posts.

I can understand where the "it was just a joke" frustration comes from. I was raised that way myself. It's only been in the last few years that I've been properly schooled in realizing that other people have very different lives and perceptions than I do, and that just because I don't find a problem with something doesn't make it ok, and that when people are upset about something like this it isn't a direct attack on me, but on how I'm inadvertently making the world a worse place for them. Being "politically correct" really just means "don't be an asshole, and if you realize you are accidentally being one, stop it".
And back once more to the false religious analogy that's being used, there's a world of difference between fighting against someone legally forcing a rejection of facts in society and fighting to be able to call people names and remind them of their relatives' murders.

Yes, a noose can be a symbol of hate.
Yes, a person should know the cultural significance of that.
Yes, it should be treated sensitively.

Was this an insensitive, stupid, ignorant thing to do? YES
Was it racially motivated? NO
Was it a deliberate threat? NO
Was it directed at black employees? NO

Useful guideline for living in a society:
Take offence only at that which is intended to offend.

You might be a moron if...

You think that a joke about death threats, apartheid and terrorism is just a "tad insensitive".

Let's see one of these anti-PC'ers put up a poster of the towers going down in NY with a smiling Osama giving the thumbs up, and then claim that "people need to stop being so sensitive". Or the slogan "I love Auschwitz" and then tell the Jews that they just "need to get over it". What a bunch of tools hiding under their intellectual dishonesty.

For non-Americans, recall that it is only fifty years since it was a common occurrence for Americans to by lynched by mobs for the crime of whistling at a girl in the street. Fifteen years after Germany had found forced repentance for crimes against humanities, the Klan was still a powerful political force throughout regions of the US, with a wink and a nod from the government, while large minorities of the population were disenfranchised from the vote. "Strange Fruit" hung from trees.

Eisnel: "If the noose were an unmistakable symbol of hate-crimes, then Halloween would be a racist holiday, since nooses are a popular decoration on that day."

And you know what, it quite upsets many Black people, particularly older natives of the South. In some places, they complain about it. In many places, their complaints are systematically ignored. It's like putting a fake concentration camp oven on your lawn for Halloween. It's a bit upsetting to those who are only a generation away from systematic terrorism.

Do you live in some kind of state of historical amnesia? Or are you a teenager?

True enough. But many blacks choose to define themselves primarily as 'black.' These are the kind of people who expend all their efforts to figure out ways to be offended by unintentional and unimportant minutae in order satisfy their martyr complexes, and try to make (completely unassociated) non-blacks feel sympathetic and guilty.

Go read "The N Word: Who Can Say It, Who Shouldn't, and Why" then come back and say that again. I dare you.

And don't say "these are the kind of people." It's belittling and offensive.

Carlie wrote:

That's the thing about not being a member of an oppressed group; you don't have the right to tell them what is and isn't oppressive, especially if you're a member of the group that has historically oppressed them.

I am British and hence a member of the group that has a history of oppressing people of other races. Does that automatically make me racist? If you think so then you are as racist as you are accusing me of being.

If you look at the histories of those racial groups oppressed by the British, do you think they will be entirely free of any racist behaviour towards other groups? More specifically, do you believe blacks are free of racist attitudes or that, if you look at the history of African peoples, you will not find examples of the sort of racist behaviour of which the British are undeniably guilty?

The reality is that all of us are capable of racist attitudes and behaviour and the sooner we get that through our thick skulls the better things will be.

As for personal opinions, in any democracy which grants the right of free expression to its citizens, everyone should be entitled to hold and express them, regardless of how offensive they might be to others. I may find certain aspects of your opinions offensive but so what? Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no bill or charter of human rights or constitution which grants a general right not to be offended. If you want to avoid offending others or being offended by them go live alone on an island because that's the only way it will happen.

Does this mean we should not be sensitive to the feelings of others out of common decency and courtesy? Of course not. The Golden Rule applies. But the chances are that, whatever you say, someone somewhere is going to be offended by it.

From what I have read, that editor was guilty of some tasteless and juvenile fooling around. It was aimed at reporters who did not meet their deadlines not blacks specifically - insensitive, yes but, on the face ot it, not racist.

I might have given some credence to the guy's apology if he had said something along the lines of, "I wasn't thinking, it was stupid, I'm sorry." People make mistakes. But his claim to be unaware of the connotations of a noose and the cries of injustice are a tad disingenuous at best:

1) Two of his coworkers apparently asked him not to put it up before he did. As someone who presumably wants to enter the professional world someday, he needs to learn appropriate behavior in the office, especially if he was in a position of authority.

2) Okay, I can imagine, sort of, the possibility that this guy only ever lived in parts of the US where there historically weren't enough black people to lynch in any great numbers,* and that he had miserably bad history teachers (this part is particularly likely), and a very limited selection of books at his local library, and thus could have come college tabula rasa, completely blind to his own country's racial history and current climate. In fact, it's depressingly possible. But fucking Jena, idiot. Crack open a newspaper occasionally if you want to be a journalist.

*Note: I am probably younger than the guy in question, white, spent a decent chunk of my childhood in another country and have lived throughout the eastern US (though admittedly mostly the south) and I knew what associations a noose had before the Jena debacle. I'm willing to bet most of my classmates have a pretty damn good idea too (quick unscientific and statistically insignificant survey of my roommates indicates that they are not historically illiterate). I'm sort of wincing at the comments that seem to be implying that he gets a pass for youth, because I'm personally unwilling to forgive that sort of flagrant ignorance of the cultural context in which we live in anyone old enough to vote.

As a white person who grew up in the UK, I distinctly remember reading of lynchings in the southern states and would probably have thought of the racial implications of a noose. However, I wonder if part of the reason why some people do not is because they are too young to remember; it is not part of their history, either directly or through experiencing contemporary news reports.

'Saddam Hussein, and he was Arabic, so maybe the noose is actually a symbol of anti-Arabic racism."

Yeah and those six skin-heads painting swastikas on Jewish graves might actually be expressing their deep-seated Buddhist faith.

Ian H Spedding FCD said,
"I am British and hence a member of the group that has a history of oppressing people of other races. Does that automatically make me racist?"
Actually, speaking as an Irish person whose grandfather was shot by British Paramilitaries during the war of independence, I have to say - of course it doesn't.
Some would disagree with me on that, but they are idiots.
On a related topic someone made a joke on here a few weeks back about the Irish being drunks. When I pointed out that this 'joke' could be viewed as racist by some I was told by most who replied to 'lighten up', and that there was some underlying figures that back up that stereotype. Imagine if you tried using that line in the current thread!
The guy deserved being fired for being a terrible news editor (not having heard of the Jena situation) and for being an awful manager. The idea of him being a racist who specifically threatened the life of the black members of his staff, however, is almost too ridiculous to argue against.
I am willing, though, to be proven wrong. Please show me the evidence that this was an intimidation specifically aimed at the black members of staff and I will go along with the racism accusations.

Hopefully this goes through, but either way, I won't make the mistake of multiple posts again.

I think the major split in opinion here goes to show that this cultural association doesn't apply to everyone, but it also goes to show that it applies to a large number of people, especially within the US, and specific parts of the US in particular (I don't know what parts, exactly).

I think it would have been reasonable and fair for the editor, on realizing how strongly some people make this association, to apologize (as he did), for his inadvertent mistake, because he felt bad for making people uncomfortable. And it would have been reasonable and fair for people to understand that his intention was (probably) not racist, and therefore not martyr him for the PC cause. I think the university did kind of a cowardly thing by responding in that way, and I wonder that his colleagues would choose to report him rather than considering that his intentions might not be the worst-case scenario and maybe discussing the situation with him.

(Which, ironically, suggests to me, if they're not complete pricks or something, maybe they had a good reason to think he really did mean something racial-specific by it. Especially as a former reservist myself, knowing how insensitive and even downright racist the military culture can be).

I'm currently living in China, so I'm no stranger to culture clash. When you enter another culture, or meet people from another culture, or even fellow citizens of a different ethnic background, I think both sides have to be understanding and not think the worst of the other all the time. That's the basis of diplomacy.

I remember, many years ago, having a discussion with a female asian friend, and I don't know how it came up, but I think I made some comment about her being, I can't remember what adjective I used, maybe amicable, sweet, gentle? None of those are it, but whatever it was, it could be considered somewhat synonymous with submissive, and she told me (not in an accusing way) that I had actually offended her, because there's this stereotype about asian women being submissive, or whatever. Part of that whole asian fetish thing. I was quite surprised, as I was quite naive about stereotypes like this.

I apologized for making her uncomfortable/insulting her, and I was genuinely sorry; at the same time, she wasn't truly angry with me or holding a grudge over it because she knew that I hadn't meant it that way, so she corrected me so I could be aware of this in the future. This seems to me like the best way for both sides to be understanding and sensitive of the other's unique and separate culture background and personal associations. If someone mistakenly does something truly insensitive, it can be a learning experience, but there's no need to make an example of them for political reasons.

Misspelled my username. Always something.

Offence is a two way street: it takes one to give it and one to take it. And the offensive potential of any symbol or word rests entirely with the offendee.

If people simply decided not to get upset by the sight of a noose or a swastika, then these symbols would at once lose all of their power to offend.

" . . . many blacks . . . are the kind of people who expend all their efforts to figure out ways to be offended by unintentional and unimportant minutae [sic] in order satisfy their martyr complexes, and try to make (completely unassociated) non-blacks feel sympathetic and guilty."

Awful, ain't it? And since "all their efforts" go toward figuring out ways to be offended, they don't have any energy left to get jobs and end up sitting on their cans and collecting welfare while smoking crack and having too many babies, right? 'Cause if they were fully functional members of society, they'd know that they have no business deciding what's offensive in the context of their oppression, since it's our job to tell people what they can reasonably feel --what, do they think they're the majority?

Seriously, here's something I don't get: a guy evidently thought a colleague had chosen to use the rare word "niggardly" to taunt him for being black. What's outrageous about that suspicion? Somehow the etymology of the word proves that its user wasn't trying to get away with saying its first syllables with impunity? Granted, the institutional response was excessive, but I don't get that part of the argument.

Ok, so the guy was probably at least somewhat oblivious to the statement he was making. So what? That makes his firing even more justified. Isn't part of the job of editor to consider how articles will be viewed by the readership? Don't editors try to think about the tone their particular paper should have? Shouldn't they be able to predict and weigh the probable responses to an article before deciding if it's worth printing? He's just shown himself to be, at best, incapable of understanding at least 30% of his target audience, and at worst actively antagonistic towards them, and I'm sure that's just the tip of the clueless iceberg. Minimally he's shown that he's not yet ready for the responsibility of an editor's position.

AJS - it's very easy to say "decide not to get upset", much less easy to do so. If someone murdered your mother, would you enjoy having a picture of that person on your front door for you to see every morning? After all, it's only a symbol of a person. It's your call whether to get upset by it.

The bottom line is that in the cultural and personal circumstances the employer had good reason to lose faith in the competence of this employee. Given the facts coming out, I don't think I'd have too many doubts about representing the employer in an unfair dismissal case.

The question of whether the guy should be considered a racist bigot is separate. I don't think we have enough to go on to reach that conclusion. But he was ignorant and insensitive and headstrong enough, in the circumstances, for a reasonable employer to lose faith in his managerial judgment.

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It's a termination of employment case, not a constitutional law case involving some kind of government censorship. He was just like any other employee, and his employer had every right to dismiss him for unsatisfactory performance of his duties after following a fair process (which it now seems it did).

I say all that despite the fact that nooses have no racial association in my mind - but they wouldn't. Poisoned flour, yes; nooses, no. To me, the hangman's noose just connotes one of those stern British judges sentencing someone, "You will be hanged by the neck until you are dead." Or maybe one of those Wild West movies about cattle rustlers.

But things like that depend on where you come from. They may also depend on other things, for all I know, since even some of the Americans here evidently don't make the racial association ... and I'm not qualified, to say, "Of course all Americans should make that association." But once he had it pointed out to him, he should have shown immediate contrition.

MartinC: "The guy deserved being fired for being a terrible news editor (not having heard of the Jena situation) and for being an awful manager. The idea of him being a racist who specifically threatened the life of the black members of his staff, however, is almost too ridiculous to argue against."

But what does this particular guys intentions have a damn thing to do with the matter? Who cares whether he intended to do something racist? The fact is that it is perfectly reasonable for someone who is Black to feel intimidated and threatened when a White man puts up a noose. It's not being over-sensitive, it's not being "reverse racist" or misunderstanding the culture. It is a current symbol used by American racists to threaten Black people with terrorism.

The ignorance defense means that Keith should be particularly apologetic for being so obtuse. Instead he makes statements like "In his travels, Keith adds, he has seen real racism -- mockery and humiliation based on skin color that left him incensed. "I don't understand why I am being told to take these people here seriously," he said. "If they knew what real racism was, they wouldn't be making these frivolous claims."' Instead of forthrightly apologizing, "I was stupid, I didn't understand the implications of what I said, and I should have," it really sounds like his apologies are of the "I'm sorry that you're so stupid as to get offended by my silly jokes." That's patronizing, whiny, and a real example of playing the victim when you're not the victim whatsoever.

Racism isn't about individual intentions. It's about systematic exclusions. Keith just didn't get that even if he didn't mean to offend, it is reasonable to feel threatened. It's no different than if a man played at the office some Snoop Dog talking about the "bitches and the hoes", and then saying "Well, it's just music - everyone knows that I'm not misogynist". The fact that he didn't understand and care about the real threat carried by these words in the real world is a reflection of a racist society.

MartinC, you miss that point with your "Irish Drunk" anecdote. A protetant joking about Irish (Catholic) Drunks in Northern Ireland today would be "racist" - but in Boston not (at least in most social situations). This fantasy that we are all individuals free of any social implications is just that - a fantastic delusion that folks in the English speaking world are particularly prone to, particularly people who are pretending that they are somehow victims when they are the relative winners of the social lottery.

frog, I'm afraid its you who miss the point on both occasions above. The accusation that Keith was intentionally threatening the lives of black members of staff is one that doesnt stand up the the evidence we have been shown so far. That he is an insensitive ignoramous who has shown he doesn't deserve to be in the job he had, I can agree with.
As for the drunk irish joke, the context is of course important (and the context it was made in was in the thread about a racist 19th century cartoon of a subhuman Irishman battling a brave Briton - and in that sense it didn't seem appropriate to make a racist joke about Irish people).
I have no idea what your protestant/catholic analogy is supposed to mean. I personally haven't seen examples of such behaviour. While most of my Irish friends are atheists (catholic atheists AND protestant atheists) even amongst the religious I have never experienced racism like you describe apart from when I lived in England during the height of the IRA bombing campaigns.

MartinC: And you miss the point that it is not entirely germane whether Keith is simply an ignoramus or is a flaming neo-nazi. Either way, he has a right to his view, but in neither case does he have a right to his job --- because he was acting in a racist manner either way, and appears to have refused to properly apologize.

My point with the protestant/catholic analogy is exactly what you're saying. In the US, that level of racism no longer exists between protestants non-Irish and catholic Irish, but it has (and does still) exist between Catholic and Protest Irish in Northern Ireland (hopefully slowly receding). In the first case, a drunken Irishman joke is just friendly ribbing, in the second case, even if intended as friendly ribbing, it has a dangerous social effect.

We mostly agree, except that you don't seem to recognize that these things aren't primarily about the intentions of individuals, but about social relationships. Say I'm a non-Jewish, white Buddhist and I put up a swastika on my office desk as a symbol of my religion - my claim of stupidity in not realizing that this would be offensive and threatening to my Jewish co-workers is really very little defense, particularly if I then whined that they just didn't understand what I meant, that it's just an ancient Buddhist symbol of unity. That would be an asshole move and have the social effect of racism, whether I was too stupid to understand the reality or not. It would be reasonable for my Jewish coworkers to believe it was a racist threat, unless they were long-time friends and therefore able to read my mind.

Being a heretic, atheist, and blashphemer do I get to whine every time someone lights a campfire? This is ridiculous since there was no attempt to intimidate anyone. It meets none of the critieria one would expect of someone "sending a message". You know, like using a real rope, leaving it secretly, in a locale intended to be viewed by those it is intended to be intimidated.

Also there needs to be intent for it to be a crime. I bet the guy was clueless that anyone would take it the way they did. Talk about hypersensitive. How longs it been since anyones been lynched in Minnesota, 1920?

I could understand if the guy was burning a cross which serves only one function, but a noose is a general symbol.

frog wrote:

I'm a non-Jewish, white Buddhist and I put up a swastika on my office desk as a symbol of my religion - my claim of stupidity in not realizing that this would be offensive and threatening to my Jewish co-workers is really very little defense, particularly if I then whined that they just didn't understand what I meant, that it's just an ancient Buddhist symbol of unity. That would be an asshole move and have the social effect of racism, whether I was too stupid to understand the reality or not. It would be reasonable for my Jewish coworkers to believe it was a racist threat, unless they were long-time friends and therefore able to read my mind.

Apparently, the swastika is also a sacred symbol in the Jain religion. Supposing some Jainists settled in a predominantly Jewish area of some city and exercised their right to worship as they choose by displaying the swastika. If some of the local Jewish community objected, would they be entitled to demand that the Jains stop using what is a deeply offensive symbol to Jews? There is no antisemitism implied in the Jains' use of the symbol and they have as much right to the trappings of their faith as the Jews do to the Star of David.

Come to think of it, should Christians in the southern states of the US be required to stop displaying the cross because the Ku Klux Klan used burning crosses to terrorise their victims?

If one particular group in society finds symbols or even words used by others to be offensive, are they entitled to demand that their use be banned for that reason alone? Doesn't the intention of the user determine whether or they constitute an insult or threat or incitement to violence?

Brian, what does the issue of whether a crime was committed have to do with it? He hasn't been charged with a crime, as far as I know. This is about whether a dismissal from employment (or don't you say "discharge" over there?) was fair or not. In my view, it was.

However, I also agree with those who say his intent matters. If his action was unintentional and he'd apologised in a swift, unequivocal, genuinely contrite way when the connotations were pointed out, I'd have said that dismissal was going too far and that a warning was sufficient.

I also think that it's going too far to brand him as a bigot, demonstrate against him, ruin his future prospects, etc., if any of that is happening to him (which I'm not sure about). His intent is certainly relevant to those things.

We really need to make distinctions here. What might justify an employer in arguing that it dismissed someone fairly might be a lot less than what justifies some kind of social ostracism or a criminal charge. PZ's original post actually worried me a bit, because it seemed to conflate these things, and I think that they're very important to keep in mind in such situations.

[I]t's very easy to say "decide not to get upset", much less easy to do so. If someone murdered your mother, would you enjoy having a picture of that person on your front door for you to see every morning? After all, it's only a symbol of a person. It's your call whether to get upset by it.

Hey, I never said that it wasn't much easier said than done. But I still stand by my assertion that the only thing from which symbols derive the ability to give offence, is people taking offence at them -- or, more specifically, making an ostentatious display of taking offence so that people who would ordinarily have been indifferent suddenly become involved. (Doubly so for taking offence by proxy -- e.g. an atheist ordering the removal of a small pottery ornament of a pig from a window in a house in a dead-end side street, claiming that it might be offensive to muslims, and sparking a row which ended up involving people who otherwise would never even have known or cared about its existence).

And some people seem almost to be professional offence-takers these days.

Russell,

Oh, but it is being treated as a crime. Not a de jure crime but a de facto one. There is a punishment and it is monetary. Unless you think being fired from a job for a presumed belief isn't punative. Had he continued the behavior claiming it had nothing to do with racism and had his employer agreed then they both would have been open to a lawsuit in which additional punative damages could have been given to both. Then it would have been De Jure with the useful fiction that it is 'civil' not 'criminal' matter up to a certain point. Clearly if the blacks that are complaining had themselves failed to advance due to true performance issues they would then be claiming racial discrimination, a criminal matter.

Obviously his terminiation had nothing to do with his performance otherwise this and other employers would be terminating people for humorous displays on the first incident. They don't. They usually just say, take it down and don't do it again. Hell the guy didn't even leave it up for even one whole day. It was clearly related to a joke about motivational posters and the like, not racism.

You seem to think that the termination was valid. So the question arises, "Why wouldn't it be valid for any employer?". Which then seems to indicate that they guy is not someone who can be hired at all. There was nothing about the reason for his firing that was specific to any particular job. If it's valid for one then it's valid for all.

So now white employees have to live in terror of the black employees sensitivities. Of being fired unjustly as in this case. Their necks may not be on the line but certainly their livelihoods.

Meanwhile open racists like Lenoard Jefferies get million dollar judgments when they correctly get fired from their jobs for teaching garbage history.

The Nation of Islam is clearly a racist organization so does that mean we get to fire any black who shows up to work in a bow tie, first time, no questions asked?

This was ludicrous many levels and any sort even handed application would be having blacks fired left and right. Someone listening to the rap station a work and the the song turns to a desired to put a cap in some white guys ass would be a firing offense. Use the word cracker jokingly, fired.

Brian, I'm puzzled by your post. I can't see any sense in which it has been treated as a crime. There is a bad economic outcome for him, but that applies whenever one party to a contract that gives economic benefits to another party terminates the contract. The issue we're now discussing is simply whether this was a lawful/fair termination of the individual's contract of employment. I still don't see why it wasn't, given that he evidently showed no contrition. A reasonable employer could quite easily have lost faith in his ability to perform the job in the manner that it wished.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding some detail and he should merely have been warned and given another chance, but I'd like to see the argument, based on the detail of what procedure it followed. Remember he was in a managerial position - that imposes certain expectations of propriety and sensitivity, and he should have understood these.

I can't follow your some of your reasoning at all. Even if racial discrimination in employment is criminal conduct in the jurisdiction concerned (which it certainly would not be in any jurisdiction that I am familiar with; however, perhaps it's different in the US), that doesn't have anything to do with the matter. Violent assault is also criminal conduct, but nothing stops an employer from treating it as grounds to terminate a contract of employment. The employer does not have to get the matter dealt with by a criminal court first (or at all). You seem to be looking at the whole thing the wrong way, but perhaps there's something that I'm not understanding about your reasoning.

PZ, I have read all these comments with a deepening sadness and sense of dismay;
you do so much to inform your readers on scientific and intellectual dilemmas; ordinarily the responses you receive tune in with my own thoughts and opinions that resonate well with yours and those of the non-troll respondees.
However my sadness comes from the number of those here who regard the sub-editor as wrongly chastised...........
how ignorant of American history and recent events can any person who is in the media be? Did he pretend to be educated when he got the job? Do some of your commentators not abide by the ethical requirements of respect for the feelings of others?
Or is it a case that "he was young"...."nobody was (physically) hurt"... "people must not be held RESPONSIBLE for their actions" etc. etc.....excuses.
One of the main attractions of your blog is the degree of ethical awareness you bring to events in science, academia and day-to-day living...............I have learned so much over the past year.........I can only hope that you will continue to educate those of your respondents who have exhibited their own ignorance, fears and prejudices with their responses to this very troubling and pertinent case.

Blah, why do my posts never go through?

Everything always gets through, unless it's held for moderation. When ScienceBlogs reports a problem, that problem consists in displaying the updated page with your comment in it, not in sending the comment.

The thing is, suppose this guy had been black, running a newspaper for African-American students say, and had made similarly tasteless remarks or gestures about whites or Koreans, for example, do you think he would have been fired?

You seem to think this matters. It doesn't. What matters is whether he should have been fired in that case.

No, you'd be wrong. The swastika is still used in many asian countries and in Native American culture[s], and it has nothing to do with Naziism.

Depends where. Over here that's the only association it has.

Looks like it's the same with nooses in the southeastern USA.

I don't let any niche group redefine reality according to their biases. I don't let Christians or Muslims get away with it, and I don't plan to let blacks get away with it.

I notice you didn't write, say, "PC zealots". You wrote "blacks". Nobody has chosen to be black.