There is an interesting first amendment case filed in Georgia where a police sergeant is contesting his termination after flying the Confederate flag at her home. It is of course perfectly legal to fly a confederate flag and Silvia Cotriss, a 20-year-veteran of the police, said that she was simply celebrating her heritage. However, her neighbors found the flag offensive and complained.
The case raises very serious free speech concerns. On July 11th, a man said that he spotted the flag in Cotriss’ backyard for walking his daughter and son to pre-school. He wrote to Roswell Police Chief Rusty Grant, who had been visiting various black churches in the area after the Dallas police massacre. A complaint was lodged against Cotriss and she was questioned by detectives on why she felt the need to fly the flag. It is a curious investigation because Cotriss has every right to fly the flag for any number of reasons from Southern pride or historical interest. She was told that the flag had negative connotations and was inappropriate. In her termination, Capt. Helen Dunkin of the internal affairs office wrote that Cotriss had “engaged in conduct that was unbecoming, which brought discredit to the Roswell Police Department when she flew” the flag in her yard. A few days later, she was fired.
Cotriss has a strong foundation for a free speech challenge. Her flying the flag at her private residence raises core first amendment issues. I have previously written about concerns that public employees are increasingly being disciplined for actions in their private lives or views or associations outside of work. We have previously seen teachers (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here) students (here, here and here) and other public employees (here and here and here) fired for their private speech or conduct, including school employees fired for posing in magazines (here), appearing on television shows in bikinis (here), or having a prior career in the adult entertainment industry (here).
In this case, you have a core private speech claim by the public employee. She did not bring the flag to work and did not associate the flag with her public service. There is no question that this would be protected speech in the case of an ordinary citizen punished for flying a flag. The question is whether the status as a police officer makes such speech sanctionable.
What do you think?
185 thoughts on “Georgia Police Sergeant Sues After Being Terminated For Flying Confederate Flag In Her Backyard”
Interesting since the Georgia State flag used to have the Confederate battle flag on it and the current Georgia flag is a copy of the “stars and bars” or first national
Flag of the Confederacy. The state flags of Alabama and Florida, a red Southern cross on a white field, were designed as memorials to Confederate war dead. Also just about every county in Georgia still has a Confederate monument on the courthouse square. Hidden Confederate symbolism is all over the place in the South, the politically correct crowd are just too stupid to recognize it. Time to ask if the City of Roswell needs to remove the current Georgia flag from all its offices because of its hidden Confederate symbolism.
OMG ! JT put that damnable rebel battle flag in his post. Heads are exploding; folks are swooning and at least seven student groups are calling for tar and feathers. Whatever will we do?
Here’s my favorite, the Van Dorn :
She wins this and makes more money that her salary for the trouble.
“Simply celebrating her heritage”
Just what heritage is that?
Her white supremacist heritage? Her traitorous heritage? Her wistful remembrance of those halcyon days when white trash had value simply by being white?
She was celebrating her bigotry and is too cowardly to admit it. As are her supporters.
You sound like no less a bigot than she.
“Her Black supremacist heritage? Her traitorous heritage? Her wistful remembrance of those halcyon days when black trash had value simply by being black?
See, pick a color, any color and it still sounds like bigotry.
So sorry. I’m a white man, and you just can’t play those “reverse racism” games with us. We know how you talk when you think it’s just among us “white folk.” Which means we also know that those who whine about “reverse racism” in one breath are the same ones cursing n******, spics, and camel jockeys with the next breath.
Yep. You really are that transparent.
Wow, that’s really deep. The fact you see yourself as a color first explains a lot about your special ability to “know” everything about others. It’s called Projection. Projection is why the Left is having such a difficult time accepting Trump as our next President. They “know” Trump will abuse the power of the office because that’s EXACTLY what they would have had their preferred candidate do.
Hey, watch your mouth! California is about to go the route of the Confederacy, and try to secede! For all you know, they may pick the Rebel Flag for their military forces when they attack the San Diego Naval base. Won’t you feel stupid then! (Hmmm, you ought to be feeling stupid now, but that it is a bridge too far.)
We get it. You despise her. She’s a productive citizen who hasn’t insulted anyone. You’re an adolescent.
I think it’s a good idea for the racists to show their colors. At least then we know who they are.
Gee, 150+ years since slavery, and the stupid liberals are still blaming the Confederacy for Lakeesha T. Jones having 4 illegitimate kids by four different baby daddies, and hence, being down and out.
Yep, some folks just love the short, yellow bus,
The total fertility rate of the Black American population is 2.1 children per woman per lifetime. That’s the replacement rate, Squeaky. The median age a black woman has her first child is 23.0 years, precisely what it was for white women in 1964 and precisely the age my mother was at the birth of her first child.
I am less concerned with the fertility rate, and much more concerned with the illegitimate birth rate. Those poor kids start out life with one strike against them, and two strikes if their mother is in poverty.
Squeaky, the majority of first-born children in this country are out of wedlock. It’s worse among blacks, but it’s close to the mode among whites.
I think it’s a good idea for malicious little humbugs who use terminology they don’t understand to show their stupidity. That way, we know never to take them seriously.
Do any state flags have a confederate flag up on the left corner? I thought Georgia did. I recall that Clarence Thomas had a Georgia flag emblem on his desk back when he was an assistant A.G. in Missouri in Jefferson City. And, that he was criticized because the corner of the flag had a Confederate Flag in it.
The lawyer for the cop here needs to contact Uncle Clarence for some help. Maybe a Live Free Or Die button at trial would be good.
Mississippi is the only remaining state with the stars and bars within the official state flag.
Don’t like her flag.
Go buy one and burn it on your own property film the act and then upload it to Youtube.
Don’t forget use your second amendment rights to defend yourself .
I have a real problem with this. I don’t think they have grounds since they used a catch-all phrase to condemn her. I think she has a winning case and as part of the win the people who fired her should have to fly Confederate flags in their back yards.
A police officer, as with other officials, is held to different standards. A police officer is supposed to represent the unbiased enforcement of the law. As has been reported here, and here, and here….. when the police are biased, people get killed. The problems with our police and other institutions are partially due to the lower standards of character, training, and behavior. Four a**hole cops allow a dog to shred a guy’s leg for almost a minute in California and they get off. They should have gone to jail.
Flying the flag, an obvious and arguable affront to blacks, the officer may have been within her rights as an American but not within her job description as a cop. The cop visibly displayed a bias that is unacceptable in her position. The rest is legal masturbation.
You could make the same argument for her if she flew a Nazi flag. The Confederate flag was flown over a population composed of both good and evil persons. However, it represents the right to own slaves. Call a spade a spade.
Some people are clueless about the 1st Amendment. And they are very comfortable being the Thought Police.
There are those who worship stuff as if it was handed down from on high and do so with a diminished degree of responsibility. Then there are those who understand that people created these holy and sacred things and ‘amended’ them. When one understands from where these scriptures emanated, one can take responsibility for them, interpret them, use common sense, etc. The moment defines the application. Cops are supposed to be unbiased and neutral, upholding a law that applies to everyone. This mutt exhibited a well know bias. As an American she has the right to fly a flag, burn a flag, or say whatever she believes. As a cop this falls into the category of yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre. She is simply looking for a fight. Someone who believes so strongly in what the Confederate flag represented is not fit to be a cop; maybe a private detective but not a cop.
“A police officer is supposed to represent the unbiased enforcement of the law.”
Demonstrate this police officer was biased in the enforcement of the law and then you have a case.
Read more carefully. Represent is not enforce. When you put on the uniform you represent the unbiased enforcement of the law.
Wearing a uniform, something I did for 20 years represents many things to many people. The sharpest dressed LEO, soldier, sailor, airman may represent tyranny to some and liberty to others. Some of the finest suits with their carefully adorned lapels walk the halls of Congress and the White House. Our Supreme Court Justices wear unadorned black robes. Are we to assume the appearance of unbiased enforcement of the law is the ideal measure of justice? It is not only intellectually lazy to attribute justice based on appearance and feelings, it’s outright dangerous. It would be the ultimate in ignorance to believe our worst human nature is magically transformed simply by putting on a uniform, suit or robe.
Liberty and justice are not secured by the mere representation of symbols. Fidelity to the rule of law is not evidenced by the taking of an oath. Something we should all be familiar with. We, the citizens of this country have an obligation to do more than desire the appearance of unbiased enforcement of the law. We actually have to know what the rule of law means and most importantly, hold ALL of those that take an oath to support and defend it accountable for their ACTIONS, not their APPEARANCE.
you couldn’t be more wrong issac. off duty, she can do any legal act. if she displayed the flag while in the course and scope of her police duties, you would have a point.
The issue is not one of legality but of appropriateness. Some positions in society are held to higher standards. If she were a white supremacist Nazi but never appeared as such in uniform, should she keep her job. I don’t think so. As it is, she is a cop who flaunts her flag that has obvious and unmistakable racist over and under tones. Regardless of legalities and semantics, the cop on your street is a cop 24/7. She was advertising her racism, regardless of whether it was during work hours or not. She could get a job as a security officer or private investigator for insurance companies. However out in society as the representative of the laws for all, not such a good fit.
Ding-a-ling! Something can not easily be both “obvious” and “arguable.” “Obvious” means that it is pretty plain, while “arguable” means that it is not pretty plain, and in fact is a matter of argument.
“Obvious” means that it is pretty plain, while “arguable” means that it is not pretty plain, and in fact is a matter of argument.”
How about Hillary Clinton being a crook?
Obvious. To me, and a lot of other people. Putting John A. Gotti in the office of President would have been better than hilLIARy cLIARnton, but that disaster was avoided.
Not obvious to me. That she is a crook is arguable.
some of you are complete idiots. while I do not care for that flag, she has every right to display it in her yard despite the fact that it “offends” a fairly small percentage of the population. lets alter the facts a bit: while off duty and in civilian clothing, she decides to walk to the store carrying that flag. a black man is “offended” and orders her to fold the flag up and hide it. she refuses. he beats her down, takes the flag, and disposes of it. some of you idiots think he would have a defense for the assault of the woman. and if so, the same idiots think that city will have a defense for her wrongful discharge.
Flying the confederate flag on your property gets you in trouble, burning the American flag anywhere is freedom of speech? My my my.
The fact that it was flying in her back yard, where it was visible to passersby, makes it a closer call. If it were inside her house, hanging on a wall, then it would clearly be protected. But having a first amendment right to express herself, while consistent with being a citizen, is not always consistent with one’s position as a public employee. A person has a First Am. right to openly assert that federal taxes are illegal, for example, but a court could find such statements inconsistent with being an IRS Agent. The problem in this case is that there is no uniform interpretation of the symbolism of the confederate flag. Some people believe it represents southern pride, to others it is wild ass rebelliousness, to others it is slavery and racism, to others it is treason. People see the flag and project their own issues onto it. Since we live in such a highly sensitive society, the court should carefully consider to what extent people should be allowed to project their own interpretations on to other people’s forms of expression.
See also the Hatch Act…
Substitute the colors of the flag in question with that of the fifty star American flag and then make the argument she should have been fired for flying the latter flag. It is the content of her speech that is being censored and sanctioned not the fact that she flew a flag in general.
I haven’t seen any evidence that her job was deficient or malfeasant to otherwise justify her firing. What if she flew a flag bearing a swastika? should she be fired for that? Guess what. Maybe she was a Jain or native American:
The controversy simply exists in the minds of those who choose to make one of it. In this case, the city officials chose to interpret this historic flag with a particular context; a context that is not universally held. But they held this officer to their standard and only their standard mattered.
Would it make a difference whether it was a right-hand swastika, such as used by the Nazis, or a left-hand swastika? Both are available to be displayed using the Unicode character set on the web.
If she flew the Nazi flag in her backyard, would the result be the same? The issue isn’t whether she has a right to fly that offensive flag. She does.
The issue is whether the police department can fire her because her flying the flag raises questions about her ability to do her job in an unbiased way. If she was flying the Nazi flag, few would argue that it calls into question her ability to do her job without regard to race or religion.
So the real question is whether flying the flag of the treasonous racists who tried to destroy this nation so they could continue to enslave African Americans can somehow be divorced from the racism that it stands for. It don’t think it can. The department has a strong case.
A Confederate flag is a Confederate flag. People complain about it because it amuses them to strike attitudes and they want to harass people. This sort of cultural aggression should not be rewarded in a civilized society.
This was mass entertainment kitsch when Jim Crow was much more in evidence than it is today:
The plaintiff will prevail and the city knows this. But, they have a political image to uphold so it is no skin of their nose that they will waste taxpayers’ dollars fighting a losing battle and then being handed a judgment against them.
Just because a person is an employee of an entity does not mean they abandon their civil rights at home.
The flag does have negative connotations and does reflect poorly on the Department. Whether or not there is sufficient legal basis to remove her may depend on her contract and whatever clauses exist and how vague they were. We are presuming the sole reason for her firing is flying the flag (which in itself is legal) which may not be the case. There is a portion of the citizenry that would find her flying that flag offensive. I believe it is generally illegal to walk around naked in one’s home if visible to others with some constitutionally protected exceptions. Whether it should be offensive to others is debatable. That it is is not.
“There is a portion of the citizenry that would find her flying that flag offensive.”
There is also a portion that are offended by the Rainbow flag. There are portions of our citizenry that are offended by any number of things for any number of reasons. Is there some objective standard that you can possibly think of that might protect you, me, your family, everyone from being arrested merely because someone took offense to an object they happen to have visible on their own property? Anything?
She was under no threat of being arrested. She according to the article was dismissed because she reflected poorly on the department which I don’t doubt is true. I suspect she will ultimately win a lawsuit, be reinstated with back pay and continue to fly her flag. The “Heritage” she claims the flag stands for will win out. The offended will have no recourse as has almost always been true.
The “offended” will have the recourse that they have always had, which is, to “Get a life!” I am offended every time I hear somebody laud Trayvon Martin, but know what? I have a life sooo I get on with it.
If black people need something to get offended over, might I suggest the ridiculously high illegitimate birth rate among black women, and the way that black men have been made unnecessary in their own families by Democratic Party policies. That is something that blacks actually have some control over. Their own lives.
There are many policies that have helped remove black men from their families. Kudos to you for recognizing that. We might disagree as to whether or not they are strictly Democrat Party Policies although many were. Since the passage of the Civil Rights Act and Voter Rights Act in the 60’s. Republicans (many of them who migrated from the Democrat Party) have done more than their share. Lee Atwater and the Southern Strategy, Mass incarceration began during the Nixon Administration although every President since has contributed to it (including Clinton and Obama). I don’t know that Trayvon Martin was made out to be a hero. Just a representation that one ought to be able to walk home from a 7-Eleven.
enigmainblackcom – one should not be allowed to pound someone’s head into the sidewalk.
I supposed we’ll never know exactly what happened as Trayvon was unable to tell his side of the story. One thing that’s certain is that the entire situation was of George Zimmerman’s creation, after he disobeyed the police dispatcher’s instructions not to continue to follow.
enignainblackcom – I cannot believe how many people think that the police dispatcher ordered him to not follow him, she only suggested. She has no power to order anyone.
I didn’t say she ordered him not to follow or that it was illegal. I am saying that everything that happened after that point is a direct result of his actions. His behavior since the trial does nothing to improve his credibility.
enigmainblackcom – his credibility is only important as far as the trial goes.
Well, you’re understanding of causality is just about zero.
What happened was that Zimmerman was parked in his truck observing Martin and called the non-emergency dispatcher because there had been a spate of burglaries in the neighborhood, he did not know Martin, and Martin slipped out from behind a neighbor’s house and was walking at an odd pace. He’s parked on the side of the road and Martin walks up behind his truck and then circles it (Zimmerman’s reaction to that is recorded on the tape). He walks past Zimmerman’s truck on Zimmerman’s right.
The sidewalk in question ran perpendicular to two streets,. Both streets ran off to Zimmerman’s right, the streets were parallel to each other, and the back door of the houses of one street faced the back doors of the other across an alleyway which was planted with grass and had a different walkway down the middle of it. So, you had this walkway running parallel to Zimmerman’s truck, a street with town houses running off to the right, then, farther down that walkway, you had running off to the right the walkway which ran down the alley, then, further down, you had running off to the right the next street over with townhouses on it.
Martin walked past Zimmerman’s truck and headed down the walkway. Out ahead of him at some distance was the next street over. To his left was the rear side of some townhouses perpendicular to the other townhouses. To his right, ‘ere long, was the walkway which ran the course of the alleyway. As Zimmerman’s talking to the dispatcher, Martin abruptly runs away down the alley for no discernable reason. Zimmerman gets out of his truck and jogs over to the T connecting the two waklways, but doesn’t see anyone. He continues talking to the dispatcher while walking to the next street over. He arrives at the next street over and looks for a sign or an address. He concludes the call to the dispatcher. He’s anxious on the phone, and declines to offer certain personal information because he’s not sure Martin is not hiding within earshot. The dispatcher assures him a patrol will arrive soon and he concludes the call.
Zimmerman appears to have loitered around the walkway for a minute or two. From where he dropped his keychain and other items at the beginning of the fight, it appears that he was waiting at the T when Martin appeared and attacked him. The fight traveled about 30 feet and Zimmerman was on his back with his head being ground into the concrete when witnessed by the nearest neighbor.
Keep in mind, he’s just shlepping around his own neighborhood, just like the kid walking his dog who witnessed part of the fight. There wasn’t anything troublesome about that. Trayvon Martin quite deliberatley walked 75 yards from Brandi Green’s townhouse to the spot where he accosted Zimmerman. He did that of his own volition. If he just wanted a quite life, he’d have gone indoors and that would have been the end of it. Zimmerman never caught sight of him after he ran down the alley, and he’d have been at Brandi Green’s back door in a matter of seconds. Had he simply walked normally past Zimmerman and down the alley, he have been at her back door in less than 2 minutes. Zimmerman was still on the phone to the dispatcher 2 minutes after Martin passed his truck.
See, this is your thesis: that Martin had a franchise to beat up someone who annoyed him, hence it’s Zimmerman’s fault because he was available to be beat up. You fancy the rest of us are just peasants.
You’re still believing that lie about the sidewalk. All that blood on the killer was from the sight on the gun when recoil of the gun being shot with one hand hit him in the face. The bruises on the back of his head were more likely from the sprinkler head in the grass. Poor George. He left home after a fight with his wife who left him (and returned when he was charged), no tutoring of the Black kids that night. He went out hunting and bagged his prey.
bettykath – the important thing is not what you or I believe, but what the jury believed.
What the jury believed was the demonstrable truth. The defense attorney’s successfully turned prosecution witnesses into assets because the prosecution’s case was so wretched. Read Jerilyn Merritt on this case.
You’re still believing that lie about the sidewalk. All that blood on the killer was from the sight on the gun when recoil of the gun being shot with one hand hit him in the face.
Betty, there was no blood splatter on him from Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman had blood all over the back of his head (not on his jacket or shirt), had abrasions all over the back of his head, and was seen being beaten by the nearest neighbor as well as recorded on 911 calls made by neighbors. Martin bled out on the grass. Read the autopsy report and quit lying;.
Oh the heck with the “Southern Strategy” canard. More word salads. I assure you that Lakeesha of the Hood is not thinking about Lee Atwater when she is laid up in the sack doing some Willie Horton wannabe in the sack. Or the next thug baby daddy, or the next. Nope, she is thinking about “benefits.”
And the “mass incarceration” canard is another non-starter. My goodness, but the durn Mexicans can swim the Rio Grande and find work. They roof houses, or work in slaughterhouses, or restaurants. And most of them don’t even speak English. And the poor old black men who just can’t find nothing to do except sell drugs and rob stuff? Hogwash. they are criminals, and don’t give a hoot about the very black people they sell the drugs to. They can be in prison, or they can be in the neighborhood.
And Trayvon? Oh my, but silly-a$$ white people were putting on hoodies and trying to end the right of self-defense after Poor Old Trayvon. What a joke. The little thug was busting George’s head into the sidewalk, and got shot in the process. That was hardly just “walking home from the 7-11.” Good riddance to bad rubbish, IMHO.
But by all means, ignore what blacks do to themselves, and sit around whining about slavery and Rebel flags. Geeesh, but most parts of the country haven’t had slavery for over 200 years, and many places, never, and blacks are still blaming whitey for their woes.
That’s as comprehensive a collection of misconceptions as I’ve seen in one place in the history of ever. So much that I don’t want to try to address everything individually. I would say that your premise that because slavery ended over 200 years ago that it wasn’t replaced by other institutions that were highly effective if suppressing a people. Slavery didn’t end and then everything was okay. It was replaced by Jim Crow. Those that couldn’t document employment were interned and sentenced to labor camps in some areas and were literally still slaves. There was some immediate progress. Former slaves in some areas got to vote and during Reconstruction actually sent members to Congress. In 1876-7, after a disputed Presidential election, Democrats (they were the bad guys then) ceded the Presidency as part of a deal to have Federal Troops removed from the South. Reconstruction ended and Jim Crow began. I won’t explain to you what Jim Crow was, you might consider it more word salad. When The Civil Rights Act and Voter Rights Act were passed in the 1960’s. Many angry Democrats (Dixiecrats) fled the party and became Republicans. Lyndon Johnson famously said that Democrats had, “lost the South for a generation.” He may have underestimated. Then came the Southern Strategy you so easily dismiss as if it weren’t a real thing. The widow Atwater was front and center at the Republican Convention, happy to see the resurgence of her late husband’s beliefs. The Republican Party has a coordinated and comprehensive pattern of Voter Suppression which goes far beyond Voter ID which I could agree with it there was no cost which would be an Unconstitutional Poll Tax. I know, more word salad. I suspect you have no true concept of what systemic things are substantially responsible for the difference in economic achievement between blacks and whites in America. Even you might agree whites had a bit of a head start. You might research “Black Wall Street” where what was the most prosperous black neighborhood was shot up and bombed from the air by the National Guard outside Tulsa, OK. You might research The Ocoee Massacre where all the residents of the town were either killed, burned out r allowed to leave after two black men tried to vote outside Orlando, FL. The city of Ocoee stayed all-white for over 40 years. This is in the same county as Orlando yet nothing is ever taught about this even locally. I submit we should have a White History Month where the parts of American History too inconvenient to talk about and never seen on Fox News or read on Breitbart can be taught. I submit you live in a bubble which you demonstrated quite eloquently.
You missed the new slavery of the private prisons where the owners sell the services of their inmates to corporations. The slaves, oops, inmates earn next to nothing while the corporations rake it in.
A grand total of 5.5% of the incarcerated population is in private facilities under contract. Convicts are seldom people with much in the way of skills, so, no, even if the subcontracted labor isn’t a figment of bettykath’s malicious imagination, private contractors aren’t going to be earning a high ROI employing them.
At some point, you might want to stop blaming people who weren’t even born for other people’s troubles. You might even consider that some problems in the black community are its modern cultural acceptance of illegitimacy caused by the welfare state and a persistent refusal to cooperate with police in fighting crime. And then you might want to adopt the very American belief in self-reliance. Until then, you’ll be complaining to an ever shrinking audience. Every group has troubles; some learn to deal with them and others don’t. No one owes anybody anything in a capitalist democracy except what the law requires.
If you read through the various posts responding to me. It is Black people who have been blamed for all manner of things. All the while dismissing any rationale which suggests a rigged system or unequal playing field. I believe heavily in self-reliance. That doesn’t mean there aren’t real barriers, purposely erected to slow our progress.
enigmainblackcom – the only thing standing in the way of blacks today is blacks themselves. They are their own worst enemies. BLM has done more damage to the race than anything since Birth of a Nation.
What is it you think Black Lives Matter stands for?
enignainblackcom – it is not what BLM originally stood for, it is what it stands for now.
That wasn’t an answer to my question. I’ll try again. What do you think Black Lives Matter stands for now? I submit the original purpose hasn’t changed. Just the onslaught of negative publicity allowing people to ignore their message.
enigmainblackcom – I stand by my original answer since it was the one I intended to write.
Then you intended to neither say what it originally was or what you believe it is now? No one can disagree with you if you don’t actually say what your position is.
enignainblackcom – what does BLM stand for now? What has it morphed into? What damage has it done to race relations? And what is going to happen to it since it hooked its star to a loser?
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) isn’t much worse today than it has ever been, is it?
There are short cuts purposely set up to speed your progress as well like college preferences, hiring preferences, affirmative action and the like which mitigate the historical discrimination. That never gets talked about.
There are short cuts purposely set up to speed your progress as well like inheritance laws, life insurance to avoid probate, legacy preference, and the like which suggest a rigged system or unequal playing field and which mitigate what you see as reverse discrimination. That never gets talked about.
What I like about having responded to this one post about the right of one Georgia police sergeant to fly the Confederate Flag in her yard is being called on to address a wide range of issues. I don’t know that I accept the term “short cuts” when what actually happened was providing limited access to education/jobs/business opportunities that were historically denied. I’ll start with colleges. At the end of slavery, a combination of efforts by the Freedmen’s Bureau and the establishment of Land Grant Colleges gave some black people the opportunity to attend college. The Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HCBU’s) were initially almost the only schools black people and they did a relatively good job of educating initially teachers. Later doctors and dentists with the majority matriculating from two Medical schools, Meharry in Nashville and Howard in Washington, DC. Land grant colleges were initially intended to educate Americans in science and agriculture. The first beneficiaries were schools like Kansas State, Texas A&M, Rutgers and Cornell. Their funding was based on the Morill Act of 1863 (slavery was still in force). A second Morill act was passed circa 1890 which created a number of state owned schools for the education of black people. Some private schools like Fisk University founded in 1866 already existed. To be clear, the establishment of many black schools were a way to have an alternative to ending segregation and were the result not of a new special program but one that had existed for 27 years and benefitting white people only with tax dollars that black Americans contributed to.. When desegregation finally came to public Universities (being implemented with “all deliberate speed”) the pace was so slow and admissions so few that Affirmative Action programs for colleges and universities were established to get those schools to do what they were not inclined to do on their own. In general the percentage of blacks admitted were less than that of the population so instead of being a “short cut”.It set admission levels artificially low, a percentage most schools were not inclined to exceed. A case can be made that some black students were admitted that were unprepared for a college curriculum. I submit it had little to do with intelligence but was a reflection of the inferior resources of the segregated schools they came from including books, facilities and more. “Separate but equal” was a slogan but never a reality.
It’s not an “opportunity” when it’s a guaranteed set aside.
“There are short cuts purposely set up to speed your progress as well like inheritance laws, life insurance to avoid probate, legacy preference, and the like which suggest a rigged system or unequal playing field and which mitigate what you see as reverse discrimination. That never gets talked about.”
What are you talking about? Any race can pay for life insurance and I don’t see how that avoids probate. Joint ownership might but that’s open to any race, too. Legacy preferences are open to any race and despite decades of looking I never found one inheritance statute that read “for Caucasians only.”
The reason your examples don’t get talked about much is because they are nonsense, non-sequiturs and partisan talking points.
“The reason your examples don’t get talked about much is because” separate but equal doctrine went out the door in ’54 . . . for some of us.
Maybe you should look at restrictive covenants in some Home Owners Associations (like in the community where George W. Bush lives where refusing to sell to minorities is specifically mentioned.. Many of those still exist.
enignainblackcom – the property I first bought in Phoenix was ‘restricted’ to whites only, however my wife is Chinese so that sort of invalidated the restriction. Still, the restrictions had been over turned by a SC case some years back so it was no big deal.
I have no idea how old your community is and when the covenant was introduced. Just maybe your wife’s perspective would differ from yours about it being “no big deal” to know many of her current neighbors created that restriction. The Court can find laws Unconstitutional but they can’t legislate changes in feelings. I suspect that the day/week/year/decade after the ruling that minds had not been changed. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 made a number of things illegal without stopping them from happening.
enignainblackcom – the covenants were put in place in the 1930s, long before I lived there. She did not even know about them until I happen to find them when the city was trying to take some of our property by eminent domain.
I was researching covenants just now and saw that Justice Rehnquist in his confirmation hearings had to explain having purchased not one but two homes with restrictive covenants. His defenders argued that it didn’t matter because they were “unenforceable.” I think one of the divides related to race relations in this country is that those not affected by a situation see things from a completely different perspective from those who it impacts. I will perhaps not completely appreciate the “papers please laws” where Hispanics have had to basically carry identity papers or risk being deported which has happened to some American citizens. You might not be offended by Stop & Frisk or see the Voter Suppression in all the other laws passed in addition to Voter ID laws that makes things harder. Empathy seems to be disappearing and it’s a shame.
enigmainblackcom – it will make you feel better to know we were in an area that was redlined. Originally, South Phoenix had been developed into 5 acre plot for white gentleman farmers from Phoenix to grow citrus on the weekend. By the time I moved there, it was 1/3 black, 1/3 brown and 1/3 white. Since it was redlined you couldn’t get a loan to buy the property so the owner would quit claim it to you and carry the note. We were paying off two notes on the property.
There haven’t been any enforceable restrictive covenants on deeds for nearly 70 years. Your head is a stew of fictions.
You beat me to it. Plus the SCOTUS declared them unconstitutional.
Well, Steve, that would make your examples immaterial nonsequiturs to the issue at hand, which thus begs the question about why would you raise them in the first place since you’ve demonstrated in your last comment that you knew they were. Logic is a good thing. Try it sometime.
So, true. She is the one offended and has no recourse against those with leukophobia. I firmly believe that bigotry is fear that grows out of ignorance. We have no hope of being other than a society of all kinds of bigots if we are offended by all things, try to remove any words and history associated with our fears, cease trying to understand the whys and wherefores of those with differing views. This is an America where freedom ceases and we are driven underground. It is why many left their countries in the past and now seek entry to America. What a sad state of affairs.
I confess nI had to look up “leukophobia” because the fear of the color white never occurred to me as being an actual thing. Pray tell what is the effect of this fear gripping the nation? Has any minority truly achieved equal rights? Hasn’t gerrymandering, redistricting and voter suppression kept you in control despite changing demographics? The saddest thing I can imagine is a poor white person that has never experiences 10% of the affronts minorities have in the present let alone the past. You’re not driven underground… Redlining and restrictive covenants have ensured you got all the best places. Please elaborate on the suffering you have endured as a white person? Stop & Frisk? Hyper mass incarceration. Racial profiling? Lynching? Let me know when I get one right.
enigmainblackcom – there is at least two minorities that have risen to the surface, the Irish and the Italians. Then, of course, we have the Chinese and Japanese.
While individuals of every race have thrived. The Chinese and Japanese might be a bit surprised to learn they’ve gained total equality. Your selection of two European basically white groups is hardly proof but even they are subject to stereotypes and prejudice.
enigmainblackcom – Italians and Irish were lynched in this country and certainly there was a great deal of prejudice against both groups. As far as the Japanese and the Chinese go they are certainly well established in my area.
Equality of persons only exists under the law.
What I suspect you won’t understand is that equality doesn’t exist under the law either.
I’ve never seen any judge (regardless of their own race or political persuasion), in over 30 years of practice treat anyone differently because of racial characteristics. That’s probably why I don’t “understand” it. It’s an urban myth. Tell me every example you’ve personally seen where it happens.
While I’ve never seen a judge act on racial lines, when was the last time you saw a judge to an employment contract as the trier of fact? Juries are more susceptible to such persuasion.
That little caveat of “personally seen” puts me at a disadvantage as I spend so little time in a courtroom with the exception of jury duty (which I love by the way). I served on a Grand Jury and could give you an example of a State Attorney treating someone different but that wouldn’t be a judge. If you open it up to events of which I can document I’d be happy to elaborate.
Never seen a jury in FTCA case either. Not sure of your point: is it that all juries are racist, ipso facto, the system is racist? That’s quite a stretch for you, if so.
Nice try. Juries are more susceptible to persuasion by theatrics and inadmissible evidence than a judge is. At least in this state, in bench trials judges are presumed to be able to filter inadmissible evidence from their decisions after being exposed to it. Recusal is practically non-existent in this circumstance. Not so juries.
Back to the point, claiming the playing field is now shored-up and even for minorities and women in higher education and employment is your subjective view. I don’t agree.
Man you need a cultural lesson in poor whites in the South or European immigrants to the South and North East. It’d make an onion cry.
It’s a shame that the most persecuted people on the planet don’t get the credit they deserve. Nobody knows the trouble white people have seen. I offer you a quote from a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, “The Founders Constitution regarded Blacks as so far inferior that they had no rights the white man was bound to respect, and that the Negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.”
“On the planet?” I know a million or do Cambodians and 7 million Jews who
Might disagree. Man have drank the koolade.
My comment about “the most persecuted people on the planet” was a sarcastic reference to white people in America. Some of you are all in your feelings about “reverse racism” and “fear of the color white” when the reality is that rich and powerful white people have control of every lever of government and business and your suffering is totally imagined.
It’s not suffering. It’s refuting your silly suggestion that current A-A citizens are systematically deprived of any right based on their skin color.
Gerrymandering is a systematic effect to deprive primarily minorities of voting strength and allow a smaller number of white voters to control some state legislatures and maximize Congressional seats.
Gerrymandering is a legislative method to ensure one political party protects power by setting voting boundaries in a majority of districts to include its likely constituency. It fails miserably if the group doesn’t adopt a consistent, reflexive vote for one party. The DOJ monitors unfair racial disparity in legislative districts in yet another protection afforded minorities by the Civil And Voting Rights Acts passed by Congress which of course is the “system.” DOJ regulations specifically prohibit dilution of minority voting. Definitions do matter.
What if the enforcement of all these protections was diluted by the Supreme Court and the day after Texas, Alabama, Louisiana and others began implementing all the plans they could never have before. What if the DOJ was run by say a Jeff Sessions who has advocated for Voter Suppression. What did he do about Alabama when they required Voter ID and then drastically reduced the number of locations in majority black area’s that provide drivers licenses. Every one of the protections in the Civil Rights Act and Voter Rights Act exist as a reaction to real persecution. The Voter Rights Act may well not have passed except for the brutal beating of marchers on the Edmund-Pettis Bridge by police on national TV. If that happened in today’s environment they’d charge the marchers with assault.
Sessions filed suit to desegregate Alabama schools and voted to extend the Civil Rights. I think you’re ok with him in there and that your hypothetical is about as likely as you attending an Birth of a Nation retrospective.
As the US Attorney his name was on the paperwork. He didn’t file or actively participate in the suits. I’m aware of recent attempts to rehabilitate his record. Senate votes often are deals and many votes don’t accurately reflect the character. Telling a black man to “watch how he speaks to a white man” is perhaps a better indicator. The first half of my “hypothetical” regarding voter suppression has already taken place.
Take another whack at it. I’m showing you O for 4.
You simply denying facts doesn’t make you right. You live in a divergent reality.
I offered you the facts. You merely put your hands over your ears and stuck out your tongue. You need to refute facts with facts not your opinions. Show me one voting district where minority voting was diluted and the DOJ didn’t step in. 0 for 5.
http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wjct/files/201407/congressional_district_5_map.jpg The way it works is to over populate a limited number of didtricts with minorities thus increasing the voting strength of whites across the rest of the state. That dilutes the power of minorities overall in Congress and statewide.
In VRA states that needs DOJ approval.
enigmainblackcom – in the states covered by the Civil Rights Act, the gerrymandering is done to give protected seats to minorities.
The Civil Rights Act doesn’t cover particular states the Voter Rights Acts required certain states to go thru “pre-clearance” before making changes because they had demonstrated they couldn’t be trusted to do the right thing. The Roberts Court eliminated pre-clearance and literally the next day Texas, Alabama and a couple other states began implementing the stuff they could never have gotten pre-cleared and pushed their suppression agenda. Back to Gerrymandering. It did create a few districts designed to give minorities some representation. What they did was create a limited number of minority seats while also guaranteeing a larger number of areas with relatively few minorities. This is how we had two recent elections nationwide where more Democrats got votes than Republicans for House seats but we have an overwhelming majority of Republicans in office. Gerrymandering had been engaged in by both parties over the years. Perhaps the Republicans just did it better than anyone ever has before, taking the results of the last census and using the data to create their current House Majority and how they control several state legislatures. I’ll try to post an example of a minority district in Florida which lumps together a large number of black voters in Orlando and Jacksonville (hundreds of miles apart) yes it created a minority seat but ensured more white Republican seats. http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wjct/files/201407/congressional_district_5_map.jpg
enigmainblackcom – in Arizona they usually run from one end of the state to the other. Since Tucson and Phoenix have the majority of the population, most of the districts have to run thru them or attach to them. Tucson is very Democratic, so it is a safe Democratic seat and they wrap a district around it. Phoenix is divided by at least 5 districts.
Another example of 12% of the population afforded preferential treatment to remedy past discrimination. And not one word of acknowledgement from enigma…. Just the same old victimhood.
Two things… You said I’ve ignored”all the facts” you presented. Have you actually presented any facts in this conversation? Also, you seem to feel that “current African American’s” don’t experience systemic discrimination. When did discrimination end?
When the laws changed and the court approved limited reverse discrimination to rectify old wrongs.
Give me a year and I’ll enlighten you as to what you’ve missed since then.
I’m concerned because you seemed mired in 1960.
Not at all, I’m just bringing you along slowly. I’m not sure how much you can handle at once. So are you saying 1960 is when discrimination ended?
No, I’m saying your mindset is some caricature of Jim Crow America circa 1960. You’ve provided nothing except talking points, capricious reasoning about gerrymandering and your own opinions about the current state of affairs. I’ve shown you polls, anecdotal information (which you don’t refute), unchallenged facts about Sessions and a myriad of data and obvious circumstances (like rising black middle class, court-sanctioned reverse discrimination and affirmative action and all totally ignored in your replies) to show that you’ve got the group-think disease on race that spreads like wildfire among the Left.I don’t think you like white folks and that’s fine. Nobody has to like anybody in this country. What you can’t do is lie about or distort the facts. You get your own opinions but you don’t get your own facts. And you can spare me the lessons you think you’re teaching. I grew up in the 60s and 70s in the South where bonafide racial discrimination existed for many folks I personally knew. Those victims deserve our respect and acknowledgement, not the panty-waist, entitled Marxists seizing on the issue for personal aggrandizement, leveraged racial politics or privileged conferred victim status and knowing little, if anything, about what they are railing against.
Your opinion as to what is a “fact” is a little loose. A poll is not a fact, anecdotal information is not a fact, anything I didn’t respond to of the many things being thrown out is not a fact. That Jeff Sessions name was on some lawsuits he did not personally bring or try I acknowledge but your opinion he isn’t racist despite his lengthy public record which kept him from being approved as a Federal Judge is not a fact. What you feel are “obvious circumstances” are not facts. Your interpretation of court ordered responses to discrimination as “reverse discrimination” is also not a fact. Now it’s suggested I don’t like white folks which again is not a fact. And I suspect that your condemnation of anyone that suggests racial discrimination still exists is a “panty-waist, entitled Marxist seizing on the issue for personal aggrandizement, leveraged racial politics or privileged conferred victim status” is not a fact. I also submit that I do know what I’m railing against.
I’ve not called anyone here a racist, not inferred anyone was dimwitted. I haven’t even mocked your views which is well within my natural tendencies. My experience has been when I actually engaged in conversation with someone we find some area’s of agreement. Unless of course they assume that everything they believe is fact and what the other (me ) believes is Marxist, leftist, word salad.
A poll result is a fact. A lawyer signing a pleading is a fact and not a casual thing as you suggest especially when you do it as a public official. Circumstances are quintessential facts. Holding one group responsible for the misfortunes of another even though they did nothing to cause it if racism if based on that characteristic. Affirmative action is a fact. Reverse discrimination is one too. The only thing obvious is we don’t speak the same language.
A poll result is the absolute definition of a collection of opinions. What a public official signs in the course of his duties is far less of a reflection of his beliefs than his words and actions. You’re putting words in my mouth when you say I hold one group responsible for the misfortunes of others. Your assertion about doing nothing to cause racism is not all encompassing as there are many groups actively promoting racism right now. The President-Elect and his father refused to rent to blacks in New York and was sued twice by the Federal Government as a result. Rental applications were marked “C” for colored. That would be racism. Affirmative Action indeed exists although is disappearing rapidly. Rather than it being a program of “reverse discrimination” it was an attempt to provide entry and access for people who had been historically denied opportunity. I would leave you with one thing to consider which you will likely disregard. America became an economic power because of the availability of extremely inexpensive labor (slavery). There is an economic benefit that has accrued much more so to white people generally than to blacks for a variety of reasons including government policies, primarily in the states they lived. Even if you believe that discrimination ended on some date you refuse to disclose. You’d think you couldn’t help but acknowledge that that economic gap whatever it was and laws limiting education, employment and voting still has a residual effect. One last time by the way. When did discrimination end?
enigmainblackcom – what is your end point here?
I’m not being unclear. You are saying discrimination has ended. I am asking you when it ended so I can bring to your attention things you might not be aware of. All I’m asking for is a year in which you believe it was over.
enignainblackcom – I am saying that officially discrimination has ended. As for individual discrimination by blacks against whites, it is still going on. BLM is a leader in this group. Add to this Al Sharpton. Jesse Jackson. etc. La Raza is just as bad. And all races of women against white men.
I see you, like Spike Lee, carrying a two-by-four on each shoulder and never able to get over the hurt that was never done to them.
I’m sorry Paul! I thought I was responding to someone else. Initially I made what I thought was a rather innocuous point about the Sergeant flying the flag. Since then I’ve been responding to all manner of comments about black people being responsible for their own problems. Being lazy, unworthy recipients of reverse discrimination, etc, etc, etc,. Because I’m stubborn enough to not let some of these comments go unchallenged. I’m still here. Assuming mespo727272 provides a actual year he believes discrimination ended. My intent is to refute him (at length) and then if he has any questions I’ll answer them and go away. If he remains in complete and utter denial. It will be time I’ll never get back and I’ll go away. That’s my end point.
enigmainblackcom – I am glad you are here. You add to our cohort of correspondents. 🙂
I’m not being unclear. You are saying discrimination has ended.
You live in a country with an eight digit population of employers. You’ll never be able to verify that none of them make unfair hiring and promotion decisions. What you can do is regression analyses of labor markets and assessments of discretely stated public policies. Now, per capita income levels among black Americans are about 1/3 lower than national means and blacks are more heavily concentrated among low-skill wage-earning positions and thinner on the ground in the population of salaried employees and proprietors. There are ways to make educational systems more effective (they’re only implemented piece-meal), but fundamentally these income differences reflect systemic differences in quanta of human capital and in collective assessments of what it’s worth on which to spend your time and effort.
What we need to be doing is to contrive institutions and practices which speak to people as honestly as they can about their performance to the degree to which you can measure it so that people have a passable idea of what they’re good at, what they’re not, and what they should be expending their time and effort learning. Making use of college admissions and public employment for social patronage is of no use to anyone but the virtue-signalling bourgeois twits who run such systems and derive psychic income from them. I suppose there’s some bucks in it for their clientele, but these come at a cost: you get people like the Obamas who’ve had a simulacrum of a professional life rather than the real thing, people like Houston Baker and (to a lesser degree) Melissa Harris whose intellectual efforts have been misplaced and are given (in Baker’s case) to ever dizzier emotional displays to justify himself, and people like the hapless supervisor at the DMV, whose staff clean up after her and don’t respect her.
There are lots of things to be done to address quality of life issues that are peculiarly severe for black Americans. I think you’d have to scrounge pretty hard to locate a black politician who’s agitating for any of them. Anthony Williams and Robert Bowers had some successes in their time as mayors, but that’s about all who come to mind. The NAACP devotes itself to trivia, and canned Bruce Gordon when he attempted to make practical programmatic changes there. Of course, and in fairness to these people, a great many suburban voters seem to think people living six miles away from them are on the dark side of the moon and get very hot under the collar when you suggest things like building a metropolitan police force.
“I see you, like Spike Lee, carrying a two-by-four on each shoulder and never able to get over the hurt that was never done to them.”
Best analysis to date. Enigma seems to think he’s got to pin down some year that all discrimination ended and then point up some counter-example where some redneck called someone a racial epithet and then proclaim: “Hey, look it’s still there. He dodges the point everyone has made that systemic, structural discrimination ended with passage of the VRA and CRA and the myriad of state laws in that vein. Sure, some vestiges remained but the courts were now provided tools to remove them. Before 1964 they couldn’t. He sets up this straw man argument that any example of moden day discrimination means AAs live in a apartheid-like state while totally dismissing any efforts the majority white population has made to accommodate AAs based on historical discrimination of their ancestors — not them. AAs comprise a tiny segment of the population yet bear the brunt of social ills. We can debate the causes and whether they are self-inflicted or not but the simple fact is if AAs are waiting for anyone to lift them out their circumstances it’ll be a very, very long one. In a captlaist system, that’s your job regardless of your ancestors previous circumstances or your own feelings of victimhood. Nobody cares. We’re too busy with our own lives. The only other option is pure socialism and the results for Bernie aren’t encouraging for that option.
She ain’t your bitch, and no public policy should be in place requiring her to be. If you don’t like the Stars and Bars, tough.
I don’t believe I’ve even hinted she should be my or anyone else’s “bitch.” I didn’t suggest it was illegal nut do believe it reflects on the Department. I don’t particularly mind when someone displays that flag. I find it informative.
Perhaps you would also find a book by Jason Riley, called “Stop Helping Us!” informative. Amazon, and others, have it, new/used for around $10. It’s a good book.
I’ll be sure to check it out. You should try, “The New Jim Crow” by Michelle Alexander. It offers a well documented explanation of Mass Hyper Incarceration and what happened in various administrations to advance it.
Just FWIW, I saw three of the dudes who are getting commuted by Obama on O’Reilly tonite. Interesting, how the alleged “non-violent” aspect plays out. Maybe you should DVR the rerun of the story in a few hours.
I will check out your book, if it is cheap. I tend to ignore “new Jim Crow” type stuff because it seems to me an obvious fact that Jim Crow type restrictions were imposed by law to keep blacks down and out, but it is now 2016 and blacks do too many things to keep themselves down and out for “Jim Crow” to be relevant.
Terms like “institutional racism”, “white privilege”, “post traumatic slavery disorder”, “white nationalism”, not only turn me off, but seem to be a bad things for blacks, because it takes the emphasis off of personal responsibility. Unless neo-Wallace’s are barring the door to the Marriage License Bureau somewhere, then I think that black problems are pretty much a result of trashy and stupid behaviors. And that any emphasis on other factors is just a cop out. I realize that racism exists, but that is a characteristic of all races, not just whites and insufficient to explain the vast differences between the races in this country.
You might also want to check out Taleeb Starkes first book, The Uncivil Wars.
I don’t believe I’ve even hinted she should be my or anyone else’s “bitch.”
Well, you’re remarkably obtuse about your own motivations and the logic of what you advocate. You’re proposing she be fired from her job because you don’t like her home decorations.
enigmainblackcom — Being offended is insufficient grounds for punishing someone for exercising ones constitutionally protected right to free speech. If I offend you it may not be polite and you’d have a free speech right to criticize me for doing so. But you don’t have a right that permits you to prevent me from engaging in some form of expression merely because it offends you. You simply do not have a right not to be offended. If you did then the right of free speech would be hollow and useless.
And I hope a very expensive day
Sgt. Cotriss has every Right to fly that treason flag in her own back yard.
Roswell is about to have a bad day in court.
Did she steal the flag? Assault somebody with the flag? Did she and her flag rob a bank, kick a dog or smoke crack and run naked through the city park? I don’t get this at all. Where is the unbecoming part? If the heads of this department don’t respect the Constitution enough to recognize first amendment rights, I don’t feel very confident about their ability to police the community. Any community. If they’ll so willingly disregard the first, how can they be trusted to respect the fourth or fifth or second?
So you want cops who are flying flags representing racial bias? Use your head.
How is this materially different from the caper pitting the DC school district spokeswoman against angry white males and the men and women who love them?
It’s what’s in their employment contract that counts.
Officer Cotriss is not a professional flak and she didn’t say anything vicious. She flew a Confederate flag, which is an assertion of Southernness. She was ejected from her job by a confederation of the world’s bureaucratic twits and the world’s officious twits.
What counts here is whether the employment contract, or any department policy manual, etc., expresses or implies that the department hires on an at-will basis and therefore discharge can be accomplished without a showing of good cause.
Federal labor law aside for the moment, my understanding is that only Montana law generally requires a showing of good cause to fire an employee and only after the employee has passed a probationary period. Otherwise, Montana, like every other jurisdiction permits at-will discharge.
Nonetheless, police officers invariably have as their only legal defense police unions which may have collective-bargaining agreements incorporated into some or all the officers’ contracts or department manuals by the terms of the agreement. Such agreements may mandate new, additional discharge constraints and provide more employee protection than state or federal laws do.
If the contract, employee manual, or collective-bargaining agreement states that only certain acts or omissions, such as certain crimes, torts, or anything else specifically considered to be malfeasance, will be the basis of discharge, and sarge’s conduct did not involve any of those them, then the department is going to lose a wrongful discharge action.
You and I agree that in our subjective view the officer should not have been fired. I believe that when a person is not at work, he or she is free to live life as he or she pleases. We are not corporate drones, and subjectivity is irrelevant. It’s the expectation of the parties to the contract that counts under state and federal law, and that expectation may be influenced by collective bargaining.
And for these reasons, I asked, “How is this materially different from the caper pitting the DC school district spokeswoman against angry white males and the men and women who love them?” Just how is it different? I’ve already commented that you talk out of both sides of your mouth.
A symbol can be interpreted may different ways. She is under no obligation to interpret a symbol in the same way you do, or that I do. That is what freedom of thought and expression is.
issacbasonkavich — I don’t want cops who are demonstrably racist on any police force. But flying the Confederate flag does not conclusively demonstrate that she is racist. It is also her free speech right to fly that flag on her property. She was unjustifiably fired.
Comments are closed.