No wonder Rand Paul is horrified by the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. Six months ago, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission posted a 10-page fact sheet on its Web site that should force any repugnant employer to cringe.
The fact sheet addresses concerns crucial to victims of workplace discrimination that have long been ignored by past administrations. The document impressed me since it appears to cover forms of possible anti-Semitic actions which affected me in the past. Some provisions specify protection for the disabled, older workers and speakers of a non-English language. The fact sheet is entitled “Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination - Questions and Answers.”
Paul, the latest Tea Party poster boy, upset people when he suggested that private businesses should not be subjected to government regulation over their civil rights practices, though he was not very clear beyond that. Maybe Paul’s Democratic opponent in the Kentucky Senate race will compel him to be more clear. I happened upon the fact sheet, dated last Nov. 21, while checking on the status of civil rights matters.
It is not unusual when a law created to right a wrong produces new complications. However, I know from personal experience that the Civil Rights Act is not sufficiently funded by Congress nor enforced by the EEOC and the network of state and local agencies charged with policing workplace discrimination. It was documented in news reports that the EEOC is understaffed and overwhelmed with complaints, and the state and local organizations have the same problem.
These agencies likewise have strange ways of interpreting the CRA. The Clinton administration apparently thought so when it introduced guidelines stating that religious harassment violates the CRA. Yet Clinton’s EEOC swiftly backed off this plan after Pat Robertson and the rest of the religious right launched a holy war to prevent the guidelines from going into effect.
Before President Clinton took office, an employer at a New Jersey company invited me to dinner along with a colleague when they both made remarks indicating that I should consider converting to Christianity. An investigator for New Jersey’s anti-bias agency informed me that my experience did not constitute a violation of the law.
The Obama administration’s new fact sheet lists the following as “discriminatory practices”: “Harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, genetic information or age.”
I can only speculate how this might have affected my complaint, but it gives me hope. This clause in combination with other new provisions might have strengthened a different complaint I filed in 2002 against a high-level manager, in a city agency no less, who posted a confusing poster on her bulletin board about Israel. Most Jewish employees along with union leaders interpreted the posting as blatant Israel-bashing.
The agency’s commissioner ordered the sign removed and the manager posted a similar sign two days later. The manager - let’s call her Vanessa, as in Redgrave - should have known that the first sign would infuriate her Jewish colleagues. If she was unaware, she had to know she was creating a “hostile environment” when she posted the second sign.
The EEOC determined that this was a “free speech” issue, and the investigator indicated that Vanessa might have been told by the commissioner in a memo not to repeat this action. She repeated this kind of action later and retaliated against me a few times. Retaliation was considered a discriminatory practice long before President Obama took office.
My take was that Vanessa deliberately produced a “hostile environment,” a term specifically employed in sexual harassment cases. Now “hostile environment” applies to all forms of discrimination covered by the CRA.
The revised provision reads: “Sexual harassment - This includes practices ranging from direct requests for sexual favors to workplace conditions that create a hostile environment for persons of either gender, including same sex harassment. (The ‘hostile environment’ standard also applies to harassment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, age and disability.)”
The fact sheet addresses employees who are ordered to speak English at work at all times. The document states: “A rule requiring that employees speak only English on the job may violate Title VII unless an employer shows that the requirement is necessary for conducting business. If the employer believes such a rule is necessary, employees must be informed when English is required and the consequences for violating the rule.”
Paul can sigh with relief that the gay community is not covered in this fact sheet, but he and his allies know they cannot relax over that.
I do wonder why Paul would raise his concerns now. Perhaps he has always felt this way and brought it up as part of his introduction on the public stage. Or, business leaders have complained to him that Obama’s EEOC has intensified the pressure while investigating complaints.
If the EEOC has thrown offending employers off balance, that’s progress.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Sunday, May 16, 2010
'Advanced citizenship', at last
Americans bristled in 2000 when a collection of forces - the electoral college, a conniving governor and an intellectually dishonest Supreme Court - combined to expose many of the defects in our political system. Nothing happened.
We griped throughout the past year as a Senate minority repeatedly filibustered legislation that might benefit everyone. Again, nothing happened.
Same electoral college, same exploitation of the system, same Supreme Court and arrangement for choosing justices, same filibuster - among many chinks in the system that threatens to revert our political operation to tyranny.
Something happened in St. Petersburg, Fla., Trenton, N.J., and London that restores one’s faith and hope in how a democracy can be shaped. A fictitious president - Michael Douglas in “The American President” - declared that “America is advanced citizenship.” He is right.
Living with a democracy is like nurturing a child. One must take full advantage of its gifts to make it work. Voting is not sufficient. A citizen needs to become involved in the governing process in ways that fit one’s concerns - as examples, writing their representatives, submitting letters on issues to newspapers, attending demonstrations, campaigning for candidates.
In Florida, New Jersey and Britain, some citizens are acting to force democracy to better serve the public. Florida’s governor is running for the Senate as an independent, a move that can loosen the grip of the two major parties. In New Jersey, Democratic senators and many others are standing up to what they call the draconian policies of their new governor.
Britain’s new coalition government follows the Liberal Democratic Party’s demand for a preferential voting system, as has been proposed in the United States. The winning candidate in a three-way race can receive less than a majority of the total vote. In fact, the majority’s least preferred candidate can win.
In 2000, Al Gore and Ralph Nader won a combined majority of the electoral votes, but on their own they each fell short of George W. Bush’s percentage. Nader’s votes are believed to have eroded Gore’s voting total.
The Liberal Democrats are seeking a form of proportional representation based on a single transferable transferable vote. Voters under this system would rank candidates in order of preference, according to The New York Times. Votes for the lowest-ranking candidates are redistributed to the voter’s second choice.
That plan is targeted at increasing the number of parliamentary seats for a minority party, but it could result in allowing a voter’s second preference to win an election.
Across the pond, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist is running for the senate as an independent after recognizing that he will likely lose the Republican primary to the more conservative Marco Rubio. After the party primaries are held, Crist is expected to run against Rubio and Democratic Rep. Kendrick Meek.
What’s key is the concept of another independent senator, not necessarily this candidate; if Crist is the best candidate, let’s hope he can convince the voters of it. The addition of more independents in Congress and other offices will limit the power of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Both parties have been positive forces in some ways, but more independents in office will inject more citizen participation into politics.
A successful independent presidential campaign is hard to envision because it is too mammoth to fund and organize. However, independent campaigns have already succeeded in two Senate and two gubernatorial elections.
Many New Jerseyans are livid about Gov. Christopher J. Christie’s policies which include sharp increases in transit fares, tax breaks for the wealthy, cuts in school programs and his refusal to reappoint liberal-leaning Justice John Wallace to the state Supreme Court.
Senate Democrats resent Christie’s attempt to conservatize the court and his sacking, in effect, of its only African-American justice. They responded by refusing to consider Christie’s nominee, white attorney Anne Patterson, to replace Wallace, the Associated Press reported.
There are conflicting arguments over Christie’s action, and he claims that the Senate is obligated to consider his nominee for appointment to the court. What really rankles is that Christie’s decision is a slap in the face to the black community, especially since Wallace must retire in two years when he reaches the mandatory age. If Democrats in the state legislature ignore the prescribed process, what can Christie do about it?
Maybe Christie can appeal to the court, but wouldn’t that court be the state Supreme Court?
New Jersey appears headed for a governing deadlock. Maybe Christie had not counted on his subjects to behave as if they live in a democracy.
We griped throughout the past year as a Senate minority repeatedly filibustered legislation that might benefit everyone. Again, nothing happened.
Same electoral college, same exploitation of the system, same Supreme Court and arrangement for choosing justices, same filibuster - among many chinks in the system that threatens to revert our political operation to tyranny.
Something happened in St. Petersburg, Fla., Trenton, N.J., and London that restores one’s faith and hope in how a democracy can be shaped. A fictitious president - Michael Douglas in “The American President” - declared that “America is advanced citizenship.” He is right.
Living with a democracy is like nurturing a child. One must take full advantage of its gifts to make it work. Voting is not sufficient. A citizen needs to become involved in the governing process in ways that fit one’s concerns - as examples, writing their representatives, submitting letters on issues to newspapers, attending demonstrations, campaigning for candidates.
In Florida, New Jersey and Britain, some citizens are acting to force democracy to better serve the public. Florida’s governor is running for the Senate as an independent, a move that can loosen the grip of the two major parties. In New Jersey, Democratic senators and many others are standing up to what they call the draconian policies of their new governor.
Britain’s new coalition government follows the Liberal Democratic Party’s demand for a preferential voting system, as has been proposed in the United States. The winning candidate in a three-way race can receive less than a majority of the total vote. In fact, the majority’s least preferred candidate can win.
In 2000, Al Gore and Ralph Nader won a combined majority of the electoral votes, but on their own they each fell short of George W. Bush’s percentage. Nader’s votes are believed to have eroded Gore’s voting total.
The Liberal Democrats are seeking a form of proportional representation based on a single transferable transferable vote. Voters under this system would rank candidates in order of preference, according to The New York Times. Votes for the lowest-ranking candidates are redistributed to the voter’s second choice.
That plan is targeted at increasing the number of parliamentary seats for a minority party, but it could result in allowing a voter’s second preference to win an election.
Across the pond, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist is running for the senate as an independent after recognizing that he will likely lose the Republican primary to the more conservative Marco Rubio. After the party primaries are held, Crist is expected to run against Rubio and Democratic Rep. Kendrick Meek.
What’s key is the concept of another independent senator, not necessarily this candidate; if Crist is the best candidate, let’s hope he can convince the voters of it. The addition of more independents in Congress and other offices will limit the power of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Both parties have been positive forces in some ways, but more independents in office will inject more citizen participation into politics.
A successful independent presidential campaign is hard to envision because it is too mammoth to fund and organize. However, independent campaigns have already succeeded in two Senate and two gubernatorial elections.
Many New Jerseyans are livid about Gov. Christopher J. Christie’s policies which include sharp increases in transit fares, tax breaks for the wealthy, cuts in school programs and his refusal to reappoint liberal-leaning Justice John Wallace to the state Supreme Court.
Senate Democrats resent Christie’s attempt to conservatize the court and his sacking, in effect, of its only African-American justice. They responded by refusing to consider Christie’s nominee, white attorney Anne Patterson, to replace Wallace, the Associated Press reported.
There are conflicting arguments over Christie’s action, and he claims that the Senate is obligated to consider his nominee for appointment to the court. What really rankles is that Christie’s decision is a slap in the face to the black community, especially since Wallace must retire in two years when he reaches the mandatory age. If Democrats in the state legislature ignore the prescribed process, what can Christie do about it?
Maybe Christie can appeal to the court, but wouldn’t that court be the state Supreme Court?
New Jersey appears headed for a governing deadlock. Maybe Christie had not counted on his subjects to behave as if they live in a democracy.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Getting Irish up over ex-Yankee tenor
New York City lost a talented, generous citizen when Ronan Tynan moved to Boston where he can patronize their businesses and pay their taxes instead. Adding the ultimate insult to injury, the Irish tenor donned a Red Sox jersey when he sang at a St. Patrick’s Day breakfast in his new hometown.
Tynan emigrated from Ireland to America in 1998, and since 2000 sang “God Bless America” during the seventh-inning stretch of important Yankee games. His 10-year stint with the Yankees ended abruptly last Oct. 16 after being accused of uttering an anti-Semitic remark, and this was followed by death threats, nasty e-mail messages and a threat from a surgeon that he would let him die on the operating table.
New Yorkers - a slight minority, we trust - called down the thunder upon Tynan because he made a vague joke about “two Jewish ladies”; the quip was perceived as anti-Semitic. Unlike others who made this kind of mistake, Tynan apologized and agreed to spend time on Anti-Defamation League endeavors. He even sang at the ADL’s annual dinner in Manhattan.
Tynan claimed in a New York Times piece that he was moving to Boston for a change and to be near friends and relatives. One must wonder if the Bronx Cheer he endured drove him out of town. An overreaction can produce that kind of reaction.
Perceived ethnic slurs can produce overreactions among all groups, and the pattern persisted in recent episodes involving the Jewish people. As Tynan adjusted to Boston life, South African Justice Richard Goldstone canceled his attendance at his grandson’s bar mitzvah because of an impending protest, and a Catholic bishop was fined by a German court for denying the occurrence of the Holocaust.
Goldstone in short order became an unwelcome household name among Jews for leading the United Nations commission that accuses both Israel and Hamas of committing war crimes during last year’s cross-border war in Gaza. Some Jews - members of the South African Zionist Federation - planned to demonstrate in front of a Johannesburg synagogue if Goldstone attends his grandson’s bar mitzvah there.
Even harsh critics of Goldstone were offended by the protest plans. U.S. Rep. Gary Ackerman, a Democrat who represents portions of Queens and Long Island, stated in a letter to federation chairman Avrom Krengel that he was “appalled and utterly disgusted” by reports that Goldstone will not attend because of the protest threat, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported.
The backlash to the federation’s backlash worked. Krengel’s organization canceled the demonstration and will meet with Goldstone.
In Germany, Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson was found guilty on April 16 of Holocaust denial in a district court in Regensburg that upheld a $22,473 fine imposed in 2009. Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany.
The year before, the London bishop was initially fined in connection with an interview with the Swedish SVT broadcaster in which he decried as “lies, lies, lies” the murder of Jews in gas chambers during World War II, JTA reported. He also allegedly claimed that no Jews were killed in the gas chambers during World War II and said the number of murdered European Jews did not exceed 300,000.
Anyone with this attitude must be a reprehensible lunatic, but Williamson hurt nobody except our sensibilities. The First Amendment here allows Williamson to talk this way. We can appreciate Germany’s sensitivity to the Jewish people, but punishing a person for exercising his free speech is not necessary.
By all means, anyone against bigotry must call attention to Holocaust denial, a judge who might have unfairly criticized Israel or a celebrity who makes a questionable joke about a minority group, but the backlash in all these cases is an overreaction, excessively so. We are talking proportions here. Far more compelling concerns menace the Jewish community that are downplayed or ignored altogether.
Did critics of Williamson, Goldstone and Tynan express their fury for the sake of Pamela Waechter or Gilad Shalit? Sorry, most people may not readily recognize their names. Waechter was murdered in 2006 inside the Jewish Federation building in Seattle when she and other colleagues were shot by a man after he entered the building; Naveed Haq was found guilty for the shootings last December. Shalit is an Israeli soldier held in captivity by Hamas, presumably in Gaza, since June 25, 2006.
The murder of a Jew and the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier are compelling issues while less significant matters dominate our attention.
For those not familiar with Tynan’s situation, he told the Times that it began when a real estate agent innocuously referred to two women as “two Jewish ladies” as they were being shown a vacant apartment adjacent to his on the East Side of Manhattan. He spoke with them and determined that the “two Jewish ladies” might not like residing next to a loud tenor.
On Oct. 16, an associate of that agent told Tynan that the apartment was sold, adding, “Don’t worry, they’re not Red Sox fans.” He said his response - “As long as they are not the Jewish ladies” - was misinterpreted by a Jewish woman who was with the agent, and who subsequently complained to the Yankees and the media. Tynan explained that the term “Jewish ladies” was intended as a shorthand identification of the women he thought would not enjoy the apartment, not to malign their religion.
He was told by the Yankees not to appear that same night at Game 1 of the team’s playoff series against the Angels, and that was the end of his time with the Yankees.
He claimed that the Yankees would not meet with him to hear his side of the story, but he met with Abe Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. That led to Tynan‘s involvement with the ADL. “He publicly apologized, and he wants to be a soldier in the struggle against bigotry. What else can you asked for?” Foxman said.
Foxman is right. Some of those offended by the incident needlessly got their Irish up.
Tynan emigrated from Ireland to America in 1998, and since 2000 sang “God Bless America” during the seventh-inning stretch of important Yankee games. His 10-year stint with the Yankees ended abruptly last Oct. 16 after being accused of uttering an anti-Semitic remark, and this was followed by death threats, nasty e-mail messages and a threat from a surgeon that he would let him die on the operating table.
New Yorkers - a slight minority, we trust - called down the thunder upon Tynan because he made a vague joke about “two Jewish ladies”; the quip was perceived as anti-Semitic. Unlike others who made this kind of mistake, Tynan apologized and agreed to spend time on Anti-Defamation League endeavors. He even sang at the ADL’s annual dinner in Manhattan.
Tynan claimed in a New York Times piece that he was moving to Boston for a change and to be near friends and relatives. One must wonder if the Bronx Cheer he endured drove him out of town. An overreaction can produce that kind of reaction.
Perceived ethnic slurs can produce overreactions among all groups, and the pattern persisted in recent episodes involving the Jewish people. As Tynan adjusted to Boston life, South African Justice Richard Goldstone canceled his attendance at his grandson’s bar mitzvah because of an impending protest, and a Catholic bishop was fined by a German court for denying the occurrence of the Holocaust.
Goldstone in short order became an unwelcome household name among Jews for leading the United Nations commission that accuses both Israel and Hamas of committing war crimes during last year’s cross-border war in Gaza. Some Jews - members of the South African Zionist Federation - planned to demonstrate in front of a Johannesburg synagogue if Goldstone attends his grandson’s bar mitzvah there.
Even harsh critics of Goldstone were offended by the protest plans. U.S. Rep. Gary Ackerman, a Democrat who represents portions of Queens and Long Island, stated in a letter to federation chairman Avrom Krengel that he was “appalled and utterly disgusted” by reports that Goldstone will not attend because of the protest threat, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported.
The backlash to the federation’s backlash worked. Krengel’s organization canceled the demonstration and will meet with Goldstone.
In Germany, Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson was found guilty on April 16 of Holocaust denial in a district court in Regensburg that upheld a $22,473 fine imposed in 2009. Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany.
The year before, the London bishop was initially fined in connection with an interview with the Swedish SVT broadcaster in which he decried as “lies, lies, lies” the murder of Jews in gas chambers during World War II, JTA reported. He also allegedly claimed that no Jews were killed in the gas chambers during World War II and said the number of murdered European Jews did not exceed 300,000.
Anyone with this attitude must be a reprehensible lunatic, but Williamson hurt nobody except our sensibilities. The First Amendment here allows Williamson to talk this way. We can appreciate Germany’s sensitivity to the Jewish people, but punishing a person for exercising his free speech is not necessary.
By all means, anyone against bigotry must call attention to Holocaust denial, a judge who might have unfairly criticized Israel or a celebrity who makes a questionable joke about a minority group, but the backlash in all these cases is an overreaction, excessively so. We are talking proportions here. Far more compelling concerns menace the Jewish community that are downplayed or ignored altogether.
Did critics of Williamson, Goldstone and Tynan express their fury for the sake of Pamela Waechter or Gilad Shalit? Sorry, most people may not readily recognize their names. Waechter was murdered in 2006 inside the Jewish Federation building in Seattle when she and other colleagues were shot by a man after he entered the building; Naveed Haq was found guilty for the shootings last December. Shalit is an Israeli soldier held in captivity by Hamas, presumably in Gaza, since June 25, 2006.
The murder of a Jew and the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier are compelling issues while less significant matters dominate our attention.
For those not familiar with Tynan’s situation, he told the Times that it began when a real estate agent innocuously referred to two women as “two Jewish ladies” as they were being shown a vacant apartment adjacent to his on the East Side of Manhattan. He spoke with them and determined that the “two Jewish ladies” might not like residing next to a loud tenor.
On Oct. 16, an associate of that agent told Tynan that the apartment was sold, adding, “Don’t worry, they’re not Red Sox fans.” He said his response - “As long as they are not the Jewish ladies” - was misinterpreted by a Jewish woman who was with the agent, and who subsequently complained to the Yankees and the media. Tynan explained that the term “Jewish ladies” was intended as a shorthand identification of the women he thought would not enjoy the apartment, not to malign their religion.
He was told by the Yankees not to appear that same night at Game 1 of the team’s playoff series against the Angels, and that was the end of his time with the Yankees.
He claimed that the Yankees would not meet with him to hear his side of the story, but he met with Abe Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. That led to Tynan‘s involvement with the ADL. “He publicly apologized, and he wants to be a soldier in the struggle against bigotry. What else can you asked for?” Foxman said.
Foxman is right. Some of those offended by the incident needlessly got their Irish up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)