Trial set for firing over use of 'n' word

[Mr.Fitnah]

Trial set for firing over use of 'n' word

By Michael Klein
Inquirer Staff Writer

A federal jury will be asked to decide whether it is acceptable for an African American person, but not a white person, to use the "n" word in a workplace.

U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick has ruled that former Fox29 reporter-anchor Tom Burlington's lawsuit against the station, claiming a double standard and alleging that he was the victim of racial discrimination, may go to trial. However, Surrick denied Burlington's claim of a hostile work environment.

Burlington, who is white, was fired after using the "n" word during a June 2007 staff meeting at which reporters and producers were discussing reporter Robin Taylor's story about the symbolic burial of the word by the Philadelphia Youth Council of the NAACP.

Burlington, who began work at the station in 2004 and is now working as a real estate agent, was suspended within days and fired after an account of the incident was published in the Philadelphia Daily News. He alleges that he "was discriminated against because of his race," according to court documents. He claims in his lawsuit that at least two African American employees at Fox29 had used the word in the workplace and were not disciplined.

The dispute began after Taylor, who is white, used the phrase the "n" word during the 2007 staff meeting. She said participants at the burial had said the full word "at least a hundred times or more," according to court records.

"Does this mean we can finally say the word n-?" Burlington asked colleagues, according to depositions.

Trial set for firing over use of 'n' word | Philadelphia Inquirer | 01/05/2011

So can only blacks use the N word?
What will the SCOTUS say?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

im sorry but blacks who use the word ******, are morons, and whites should not want to be morons.

Still, if they wanna be morons, fine. Im against all double standards, whether they be against whites, men, non muslims, etc

we will always have racism, because rational thought, and intellectual discussion about race are impossible with race baiters and left wing culture

 

[Ravi]

"Does this mean we can finally say the word n-?" Burlington asked colleagues, according to depositions.

To make it discrimination I believe it would have to be proven that a black person said, 'does this mean we can finally say the word honky?' and not been disciplined or let go.

 

[strollingbones]

they will rule for freedom of speech and the that everyone can say ******

 

[strollingbones]

okay let me say this.....with all the problems what blacks have in this country....i am always amazed at their reaction to things that have little importance...ie....racial epithahs and such....


again it is not what you are called it is what you answer to that matters

 

[goldcatt]

they will rule for freedom of speech and the that everyone can say ******

No, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It was a private employer, the First Amendment only applies to government.

If you read the full article, the facts aren't entirely as suggested in the OP. Another white employee at a staff meeting made an observation about the use of what she called "the n-word" at an event that took place outside the station among non-station employees. To which Burlington replied asking is it was then okay for "them", presumably station employees from the context of the article, to use the term "******". Apparently he was advocating its use on the air. A black producer objected, and the race (no pun intended) is on.

There is no report in this article anyway of any black employee using the word, except that he "claims" it was done at other times by two employees. It would be interesting to see the allegations in the complaint.

A private employer has the right to place limits on speech including the use of profanity or words that are considered offensive to other employees. It also caused the employer bad publicity when the events at an internal staff meeting showed up in the local newspaper. If they had a policy in place on the use of language or reason to believe he (as a news anchor, a high profile position) was causing bad press for the organization that could hurt its business, they were well within their rights to fire him.

 

[strollingbones]

if you allow one person...regardless of race ...to use the word then you have to allow everyone...simple as that...

remember mark furman paid a higher price for saying ****** than oj did for the murder of 2 people

 

[goldcatt]

if you allow one person...regardless of race ...to use the word then you have to allow everyone...simple as that...

remember mark furman paid a higher price for saying ****** than oj did for the murder of 2 people

Mark Furman's use of the word also caused bad publicity for his employer. In his case it was a government employer, but when it impacts the employer's effectiveness and ability to do its job....the employee usually goes.

Like I said, I'd be interested to see the allegations in the complaint of black employees at the tv station using the word, including when it allegedly occurred, in what context and whether it was reported or made public to embarrass the station.

Bottom line is, you embarrass your employer in public your ass is usually gone.

 

[zzzz]

The problem here is twofold. First did the employer express that as a condition of employment was this word forbidden. Second, if it was anyone saying the word has to be disciplined equally regardless of race.

When you accept a job, you accept the conditions of employment, including dress code and how you act while on the premises or the on the job. Of course a lot of these rules are ambiguous, but have been upheld as being a condition of employment. But an employer cannot punish one person for an offense and not punish another for the same offense because of race. This is discrimination. Now the level of punishment can be different because of time of employment or other factors like probationary status of the employee.

 

[frazzledgear]

"Does this mean we can finally say the word n-?" Burlington asked colleagues, according to depositions.

To make it discrimination I believe it would have to be proven that a black person said, 'does this mean we can finally say the word honky?' and not been disciplined or let go.

How would that prove discrimination? Your statement only proves the guy's complaint in the first place that you too think specific words are off limits to some people based on nothing but their race! Every time I see a news report about someone else in trouble for saying the "n" word, its like OMG, tell people WHAT the word was the got them into trouble and let's leave the dumb ass guesswork out of a news report here!!! It isn't being used as a pejorative in that instance but a factual accounting in a news report! They can sure say "bitch" and "bastard" which many people still find incredibly offensive especially since most times people hear it on network tv, someone is actually being called those words -both of which are actually gender-based, one a direct reference to a woman and the other a reference to the marriage status of someone's mother -and both meant as pejoratives and insults! But the idea that a reporter must say someone was fired for saying "the 'n' word" is beyond PC -it is downright childish, as if human ears are SOOO delicate they will shrivel up if they hear the full word in a report about how someone got fired for using the word! A word they can and will hear REPEATEDLY if they just turn on their radio and can STILL hear it in movies as well! But only when said by a black person which is clear double standard. There is a move to re-write and censor Huckleberry Finn to remove the word -when in reality, that word was in COMMON USE at the time and to understand the real nature of that story -a story in which the good guy IS a black runaway slave -why censor out a word like that to "pretty up" the story to be POLITICALLY CORRECT? The word is worse than the fact the hero of the story was a slave in the United States? Are you kidding? It was never intended to be a politically correct story in the first place -a story in which the bad guys were all WHITES, Huck's father was a lowlife scumbag - and the hero and most decent person in the story is a black runaway slave! I've never understood the contrived "outrage" here with this book. Oh no, can't let kids read THAT story because the PC police said "bad!" and even READ that word much less have it part of a classroom discussion as part of this book. Gee, why not go back and re-write the classic works of others going all the way back and put the PC police on them too and strip them of anything that remotely smells like a term that carries any racial, gender, sexual oriented, handicapped label at all? Why not let the PC police just re-write our entire history while we are at it -oh, I forgot, they are. After all we all know the PC police are the bestest, smartest, wisest people who ever lived. Just think how much better the story of Huckleberry Finn would have been if Twain had just checked in with the PC police first so he could write a story about a runaway slave who was the hero -but one who never once had to endure being called "******" by a white person like he really would have been!! ROFL Yeah, the PC police make the best morons maybe.

I personally find the word "******" used by anyone today in normal conversation or in modern entertainment offensive. It is never used in my house and I never had to tell anyone it wasn't to be used in my house. But then race is rarely a topic of discussion in my home anyway. I live in a very racially mixed neighborhood -about 25% black and 10% Hispanic. Conservatives aren't nearly as obsessed with race as liberals are and liberals constantly assume that since they are SOO obsessed with race - why their political opponents HAVE to be even MORE obsessed with it! Which is why I find it such bullshit when liberals insist conservatives didn't vote for the most far leftwing extremist Presidential candidate we have had since Woodrow Wilson just because the man is black. Oh yeah, like if he just had white skin I would have voted for a man who chose to surround himself with leftwing extremists, radicals, domestic terrorists and communists, none of whom ever held a real job in their lives and has one of the most extremist leftist agenda of any Presidential candidate in my lifetime!! ROFL! That must mean I didn't vote for that LIAR Gore or TRAITOR Kerry because they were white, right? lol Obama is further left than either of those two and I would have cut off my hand first before voting for either of them. Obama's political views made him a nonviable candidate for me then and in 2012! NOT his race. He's not getting my vote and I don't give a crap what color he is any more than I cared what color Liar Gore and Traitor Kerry were when I didn't vote for them either! It is because he IS so far left and with Pelosi and Reid pursued such a leftwing extremist agenda that caused the conservative backlash -NOT his race! But I really, REALLY hope liberals keep insisting Obama's skin color caused it -(I guess that 27 point sharp drop in approval ratings during his first year must be all those white morons who needed nearly a full year to notice he was black, right? ROFL) because it means they will not make any adjustments to their extremist agenda, won't go back to trying to deceive voters they are "centrists" when they are not and they will continue to push their extremist agenda - which will insure they remain losers at the ballot box!

I think anyone who uses the "n" word is a moron -but since blacks are far more likely to use it than anyone else I know, I wonder why so many go out of the way to keep this word alive in the black community by using it themselves and so frequently, including the word as part of their entertainment even -at the very same time they act so "outraged" if it comes out of a white person's mouth. If its an offensive word to their ears, it is offensive no matter who says it which means I find the "outrage" that suddenly appears when a white person says it to be phony, contrived and manipulative. If it is acceptable coming from a black person, then it is acceptable coming from an Asian or white person as well. If it is unacceptable coming from a white or Asian person, it sure as hell is not acceptable coming from a black either!

The notion that it is somehow JUST AND PROPER to "outlaw" words that only some racial groups are not allowed to say as "offensive, getting fired-type speech" while other racial groups are allowed to say them with impunity -is racist in itself, fosters even more racial discrimination, is divisive and counterproductive -and REALLY STUPID.

BTW -even though some blacks tried to get "honky" going as a word they hoped would be equally offensive to whites - it never really caught on and most whites are not offended by it. The dictionary says honky is an "offensive name for white person". But why would I get offended by a word that isn't really associated with any offensive traits BUT my race when my race isn't offensive to ME? So now some are trying it with "cracker" but to whites their mental image of who is a "cracker" doesn't ever include themselves and among whites the word refers to a specific kind of person with traits beyond just having a white skin -so again, not going to be viewed as equally offensive either. No insulting name for whites is going to catch on because they focus only on a word intended to identify their race instead of identifying negative traits that whites would agree are negative. Not true of the word "******" though and the use of the word by anyone as part of their normal conversation or as part of their music etc. should be discouraged -ESPECIALLY in the black community! Blacks should be even MORE outraged to hear another black person use this word than a white even! This is a word that was in common, everyday use during slavery in reference to slaves -identifying both their race and their status as not being the equal of a white. To some whites, it still does -so why allow its reinforcement by using it themselves! It is why there IS a very offensive element to this word that will never exist for either "honky" or "cracker". Pretty sad social statement that nearly 150 years after slavery ended that blacks want and deliberately continue to label themselves and each other with it, keeping it alive as a modern word instead of sending it to the "archaic term" pile where it belongs. But at the very same time schizophrenically want whites to be pretty severely punished if it comes out of their mouth -even if the word is said in a statement just asking if the word can be used at all! As if they only perceive it as a negative connotation that it means someone not the full equal of a white person if a white person says it -but in reality others both black and white still hear that negative connotation even when it is a black person saying it! What idiocy to think it loses all negative connotations if a black person says it! Until blacks decide they have had enough of hearing this word from ANYONE, including other blacks -they will never stop hearing it from other racial groups either. People see AND RESENT the hypocrisy here in the unequal treatment of people who say this word, treatment that is based on NOTHING but a person's RACE. Which is something that is actually WRONG and the very definition of "racial discrimination"! Shouldn't a decision to punish someone for the use of the word AT A BARE MINIMUM be based on whether an insult was actually intended by the use of the word or not?

Or better yet how about discouraging the use of any demeaning, insulting labels that are based on race in the first place! What a novel idea! But that means being equally offended and punitive to any black person who uses the word as well! When I find it necessary, I personally prefer to use labels that insults someone's intelligence which cuts across all racial lines because race is irrelevant when it comes to idiocy and no one's race is something I (or anyone else) should find offensive in the first place!

 

[Ravi]

"Does this mean we can finally say the word n-?" Burlington asked colleagues, according to depositions.

To make it discrimination I believe it would have to be proven that a black person said, 'does this mean we can finally say the word honky?' and not been disciplined or let go.

How would that prove discrimination?

Because it would show that one group of people was allowed to make racial slurs.

The rest of your post I did not read since you assumed to know my opinion on the matter.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

To make it discrimination I believe it would have to be proven that a black person said, 'does this mean we can finally say the word honky?' and not been disciplined or let go.

How would that prove discrimination?

Because it would show that one group of people was allowed to make racial slurs.

The rest of your post I did not read since you assumed to know my opinion on the matter.

I think the issue is others are using it and nothing happens to them.

 

[MikeK]

To make it discrimination I believe it would have to be proven that a black person said, 'does this mean we can finally say the word honky?' and not been disciplined or let go.

[...]

If a Black person is forbidden to do something which a White person is permitted to do, and there are no attending or peripheral factors or attached circumstances, that is patent racial discrimination. One example being public toilets and drinking fountains marked "White" and "Colored." Beyond that, I find the hysterical controversy over use of the word ****** to be annoyingly stupid and, above all, redundantly pandering on the part of hypocritical and/or subliminally guilty Whites.

"A rose is a rose and by any other name would smell as sweet." (William Shakespeare)

"The American negro will not truly be free until the word ****** no longer troubles him, because the striking of chains and the death of Jim Crow does not free the mind." (James Baldwin; speaking at Columbia University, December, 1964.)

If I call someone a ****** it is a personal insult and a lawful response is appropriate. But if I use that word in an academic context none but an employer with whom I am under contract has the right to censor my vocabulary per the terms of employment.

 

[frazzledgear]

they will rule for freedom of speech and the that everyone can say ******

There is no such thing as a "right" to not be offended. Your feelings don't have rights -you only have a right to certain actions. On top of which to say someone's feelings matter HERE because of THIS word - but don't matter when I am the one offended by what someone else has said who used another word - is saying some people have more rights than others! Which is why FEELINGS don't have rights at all! It presumes an obligation on OTHERS to avoid whatever those things are that you have decided to be offended by! We CHOOSE to feel offense by certain things we see and hear. Some are intended to cause offense, others are not but it is still a matter of choice. Because it is a CHOICE to feel offense, and people use all sorts of different criteria in deciding whether to feel offended or not by something -there cannot possibly be a "right" to not feel offended by ANYTHING.

Its too bad they don't teach Americans what is really meant by their own rights. The Bill of Rights is a list of restrictions placed on GOVERNMENT with regard to our rights. It places ZERO restrictions on citizens. That means if you go to work and tell a customer to go fuck himself that the police won't show up and arrest you for what you said. But that does NOT mean you won't be fired for it! The Bill of Rights does NOT prevent you from suffering the natural consequences of what you said and trying to avoid those is NOT a "right"! That means I can get pissed off for what you said, your spouse can divorce your for what you said, your children can cut you out of their lives for what you said -and you can be fired for what you said. You just can't be tossed in prison for what you said. I say "just" but this is actually a very big deal given the fact that in MANY countries you can still be thrown in prison for what you said.

No court is going to get involved in this matter because it is NOT a free speech issue whatsoever and shouldn't be discussed here like it is. It is an internal work policy dispute only and this guy believes the policy has been unfairly enforced and in a discriminatory manner. The guy needs a mediator, not a courtroom. And he'll still probably lose.

 

[sangha]

okay let me say this.....with all the problems what blacks have in this country....i am always amazed at their reaction to things that have little importance...ie....racial epithahs and such....


again it is not what you are called it is what you answer to that matters

Umm, the guy filing the complaint is white.

But keep on blaming the black man.

 

[frazzledgear]

To make it discrimination I believe it would have to be proven that a black person said, 'does this mean we can finally say the word honky?' and not been disciplined or let go.

How would that prove discrimination?

Because it would show that one group of people was allowed to make racial slurs.

The rest of your post I did not read since you assumed to know my opinion on the matter.

Your example was flawed and STUPID. We don't have "group rights" in this country, only individual ones and what is and is not allowed to come out of someone's mouth is not based on membership in the "right" group!

The "n" word is the word considered to be a racial slur -got that? We are already discussing the racial slur in question - and there is no need to drag in another one as if THAT makes a difference about THIS racial slur! That means anyone using that word is using a racial slur! Someone's skin color doesn't change it from a racial slur to an acceptable word! If its a slur if YOU use it, then its a slur if someone else uses it too. There can be no such thing as words that only certain races are allowed to use while those of other races are to be punished if they use them. How insane to pretend there should be when the unequal treatment of those using the word causes resentment, divisiveness and MORE racial discrimination! The very things we are trying to reduce and eliminate. The double standard on the use of the word is SCHIZOPHRENIC and STUPID.

And if you had read the rest of my post which was probably way over your head anyway, you'd know why I think blacks should be just as vigorously and consistently discouraged from using it as any white person! If a white person uses this word on the job and will be fired for it -so should any black person. Hearing a black person say the word doesn't make it ONE BIT less offensive to my ears and its revolting to think it does for anyone else. It is a word that was created to not only identified a person's skin color but his STATUS as someone not the full equal of a white person! Why would anyone in their right mind NOT equally punish or discourage the use of this word as INAPPROPRIATE at all times by ANYONE in the work place instead of a STUPID policy that says its only offensive language if a white person says it? Really? If a black person refers to another black with a word that says he isn't quite the full equal of a white person it isn't offensive? Then why are so many people here so unwilling to type out the entire word even when they aren't using it as a pejorative but just discussing someone else using the word who also didn't use it as a pejorative either? People who have no problem typing out "fuck, bitch, bastard, asshole" etc. won't type out the entire word and will only type "n" word - even though no one can see our skin color and no one here is using it as a pejorative? Its because we all KNOW FOR A FACT this is a terrible racial slur, always has been, always will be - and the skin color of the person using the word cannot ever change that fact. Which means enforcing any policy regarding the use of the word in the work place cannot EVER be based on the skin color of the person who used it -and ONLY on whether someone said it or not!

Do you REALLY find it offensive if a black person were to call you "honky"? Come on -really? It is just a stupid word that doesn't bother me at all because it was chosen to try and insult a white person for BEING white -but white people aren't bothered by their skin color at all so most just shrug it off as the dumb word it is. Not true of the "n" word though -it isn't the reference to the skin color that is so offensive to blacks who aren't bothered by their skin color either - but the fact it is also a word that was intended to identify the person's status as not the full equal of a white person because of that skin color. That connotation to the word is a permanent part of the word itself and is what really makes it such an awful slur. Which means it is a word that will always be offensive and its use INAPPROPRIATE at all times! No matter who says it.

 

[Ravi]

Again, what I find offensive or not is immaterial. To prove discrimination, it must be shown that discrimination exists. To make it equal the exact opposite would have to happen.

I do not believe hearsay evidence that someone black said the word ****** is equal.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Again, what I find offensive or not is immaterial. To prove discrimination, it must be shown that discrimination exists. To make it equal the exact opposite would have to happen.

I do not believe hearsay evidence that someone black said the word ****** is equal.

The person fired never used the word EXCEPT in ASKING if it would be acceptable in his story. He neither used the word derogatorily or directed AT anyone. He was fired simply for ASKING if the word could or could not be used.

 

[Ravi]

Again, what I find offensive or not is immaterial. To prove discrimination, it must be shown that discrimination exists. To make it equal the exact opposite would have to happen.

I do not believe hearsay evidence that someone black said the word ****** is equal.

The person fired never used the word EXCEPT in ASKING if it would be acceptable in his story. He neither used the word derogatorily or directed AT anyone. He was fired simply for ASKING if the word could or could not be used.

That is not what happened. Read the link Fitnah provided.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Again, what I find offensive or not is immaterial. To prove discrimination, it must be shown that discrimination exists. To make it equal the exact opposite would have to happen.

I do not believe hearsay evidence that someone black said the word ****** is equal.

The person fired never used the word EXCEPT in ASKING if it would be acceptable in his story. He neither used the word derogatorily or directed AT anyone. He was fired simply for ASKING if the word could or could not be used.

That is not what happened. Read the link Fitnah provided.

You may want to reread the link, He say he said it once in the meeting and from what I just read all he ask was whether or not they could use it in the report or others.