(no subject)
Jul. 22nd, 2010 09:45 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vicarzAbout Sherrod http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/21/AR2010072103871.html
Bullet version:
She, an AA-female, gave a speech (so far as I know off the clock) at the NAACP
In that speech, which was video recorded, she tells a story of which part includes her admitting she was hesitant to help a white farmer
That excerpt appeared on a conservative blog and got internet-viral
News of it reached the NAACP who denounced it as racist
News of it and the NAACP's comments reaches the white house and USDA high-ranking members
USDA officials ask, repeatedly, for Sherrod to resign. She does so, via phone.
Obama says he wasn't involved, but supports the decision of USDA.
THEN the full video was found, and it turns out that the full speech was exactly the opposite of the Fox run of the video, in fact she admits that 22 years earlier she had such feelings but even at that time she overcame them and learned from it - the full speech is actually a very EEO tolerance oriented speech.
EDIT - Fox did NOT run the story before the USDA took action, other than some comments by O'Reilly who later apologized Linky
The news runs wild with the fact the previous reporting was misleading, and findsthe farmers in question! The farmers are white and couldn't be more middle-america, and they actually remember the woman and speak highly of her. She actually went to an attorney's office with them to help, and the couple loudly states that her help saved their family farm!
Apologies rain...a job is offered but not the original one.
Sherrod is currently considering what to do.
Now this is usually cited as interesting as race baiting, our quick reaction before the data is in (which frankly Obama folk are usually good not to do), and then how internet speed of information affects accuracy.
Alarming to me is this off-the-clock comment regarding pre-employment activity was then publicized to put her job in jeopardy. Despite current headlines of "fired," which are not only demonstrably not true, but conflict with the headlines and stories yesterday while UTTERLY MISSING THE POINT of this issue of misleading reporting and jumping the gun...officials didn't take official action, but pushed hard for that resignation.
However, I have a very different take one the whole thing. It's about my job.
What if someone tells an off-color joke in a bar and someone tapes it on their cell phone, puts it on utube, then identifies them by position? They may be fired if it goes viral? What if it doesn't? What if you are in public and your kid throws a tantrum? What if you hit the kid? What if you should use discipline but do not? If the reaction of the public to either event is negative - and again you get utubed, are you about to lose your job?
The stated rationale is a scary one for government workers:
EFFICIENCY OF THE SERVICE
In short, if something from your private life affects your ability to do your job, you can be fired. Normally this issue comes up with a nexus between your private life actions and notoriety regarding illegal action or those that conflict with your job. Imagine a teacher who is identified in local papers as facing charges related to pedophilia. The uproar would make it impossible for the person to serve in their position with children. Simple, right?
What if they are found not guilty? What if the charges turn out to be utterly baseless or slander?
Now, people may still fear kid around him as accusations are louder than their subsequent refutation.
I may have Palin'd the word refutation
The interesting question is whether you can fire the employee for a crime they were found not guilty of, off the clock. The publicity, through no fault of the teacher, would make it hard for them to serve in the position they were paid for - so for the efficiency of the service the not-guilty person may be terminated.
This is scary stuff - can you have a facebook and be fired for a picture over the weekend? What if your ex posts naked pics of you on the internet? What if you are filmed not picking up dog poop? What if your up-skirt photo is posted identifying you by title? Things not your fault get you fired dependent upon how they are handled by...the internet?
Good god, what if you voice a political opinion? Fox or MSNBC could run with your "hate speech" and again, your off-the-clock private life could be used to get you fired.
This type of treatment is typically reserved for high-ranking officials who might expect scrutiny of their private lives - but Sherrod was hardly high level. She made a pro-tolerance EEO appropriate and inspiring speech, but an out-of-context quote cost her the job she worked a lifetime for. ACORN was shut down, and recent review has revealed that the offensive video that led to their downfall was edited into a misleading presentation as well.
The lesson is obvious to slow down and reserve judgment until the facts are out.
The question is "Can I have a personal life and keep my job?"
Bullet version:
She, an AA-female, gave a speech (so far as I know off the clock) at the NAACP
In that speech, which was video recorded, she tells a story of which part includes her admitting she was hesitant to help a white farmer
That excerpt appeared on a conservative blog and got internet-viral
News of it reached the NAACP who denounced it as racist
News of it and the NAACP's comments reaches the white house and USDA high-ranking members
USDA officials ask, repeatedly, for Sherrod to resign. She does so, via phone.
Obama says he wasn't involved, but supports the decision of USDA.
THEN the full video was found, and it turns out that the full speech was exactly the opposite of the Fox run of the video, in fact she admits that 22 years earlier she had such feelings but even at that time she overcame them and learned from it - the full speech is actually a very EEO tolerance oriented speech.
EDIT - Fox did NOT run the story before the USDA took action, other than some comments by O'Reilly who later apologized Linky
The news runs wild with the fact the previous reporting was misleading, and findsthe farmers in question! The farmers are white and couldn't be more middle-america, and they actually remember the woman and speak highly of her. She actually went to an attorney's office with them to help, and the couple loudly states that her help saved their family farm!
Apologies rain...a job is offered but not the original one.
Sherrod is currently considering what to do.
Now this is usually cited as interesting as race baiting, our quick reaction before the data is in (which frankly Obama folk are usually good not to do), and then how internet speed of information affects accuracy.
Alarming to me is this off-the-clock comment regarding pre-employment activity was then publicized to put her job in jeopardy. Despite current headlines of "fired," which are not only demonstrably not true, but conflict with the headlines and stories yesterday while UTTERLY MISSING THE POINT of this issue of misleading reporting and jumping the gun...officials didn't take official action, but pushed hard for that resignation.
However, I have a very different take one the whole thing. It's about my job.
What if someone tells an off-color joke in a bar and someone tapes it on their cell phone, puts it on utube, then identifies them by position? They may be fired if it goes viral? What if it doesn't? What if you are in public and your kid throws a tantrum? What if you hit the kid? What if you should use discipline but do not? If the reaction of the public to either event is negative - and again you get utubed, are you about to lose your job?
The stated rationale is a scary one for government workers:
EFFICIENCY OF THE SERVICE
In short, if something from your private life affects your ability to do your job, you can be fired. Normally this issue comes up with a nexus between your private life actions and notoriety regarding illegal action or those that conflict with your job. Imagine a teacher who is identified in local papers as facing charges related to pedophilia. The uproar would make it impossible for the person to serve in their position with children. Simple, right?
What if they are found not guilty? What if the charges turn out to be utterly baseless or slander?
Now, people may still fear kid around him as accusations are louder than their subsequent refutation.
I may have Palin'd the word refutation
The interesting question is whether you can fire the employee for a crime they were found not guilty of, off the clock. The publicity, through no fault of the teacher, would make it hard for them to serve in the position they were paid for - so for the efficiency of the service the not-guilty person may be terminated.
This is scary stuff - can you have a facebook and be fired for a picture over the weekend? What if your ex posts naked pics of you on the internet? What if you are filmed not picking up dog poop? What if your up-skirt photo is posted identifying you by title? Things not your fault get you fired dependent upon how they are handled by...the internet?
Good god, what if you voice a political opinion? Fox or MSNBC could run with your "hate speech" and again, your off-the-clock private life could be used to get you fired.
This type of treatment is typically reserved for high-ranking officials who might expect scrutiny of their private lives - but Sherrod was hardly high level. She made a pro-tolerance EEO appropriate and inspiring speech, but an out-of-context quote cost her the job she worked a lifetime for. ACORN was shut down, and recent review has revealed that the offensive video that led to their downfall was edited into a misleading presentation as well.
The lesson is obvious to slow down and reserve judgment until the facts are out.
The question is "Can I have a personal life and keep my job?"
