vicarz | (no subject)

About 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?"

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I have been following this story as well. it's scary how fast that all happened, and I am still AMAZED that no one thought to look for the full speech before recommending ANYTHING, let alone taking action.

I heard this morning that sherrod is looking into legal action against the right-wing blogger who started the whole thing, which, while I would be doing the same thing in her shoes, I don't know if she's going to get anywhere with it. proving malicious intent on the internet is gonna be a hard case to make, even in this scenario.

your thinking here IS scary. my coworkers and I were talking yesterday about the soon-to-be-upgraded GPS signals that will be like big brother on your phone. already, if you walk down the street in NYC and pass a starbucks, your fone will send you a coupon or something as you walk by. imagine being able to walk down an aisle in the grocery store and have a satellite know where you are w/i 2', and the fone would have access to your shopping history in the store, and your weight-loss goals and calorie counter, and your pedometer, and your fone might ping you that hay, you walked down this aisle the last time you were here and bought frosted flakes. since you're trying to lose 5lbs, you should get x-cereal instead, here's a coupon, and also here's all the nutrition info for comparison.

I mean, we're really heading that direction. it's gonna be minority report, but w/gps vs. eyeballs. and w/all the cameras both public and private being put in all over the country... privacy is going to become a huge huge HUGE issue. that, or we'll give it up in the name of safety and convenience, and before we know it we'll be waking up to big brother's patriotic speech and going to bed by curfew.

not that I think about this a lot or anything :P

Since you're not thinking about it a lot you probably don't want to read David Brin's Transparent Society, frequently available in used book stores as well as the usual meatspace and online retailers.

IN education there have already been several cases where school boards or boards of regents have used Internet images, in at least two cases posted on facebook, to fire teachers for grounds akin to "moral turpitude."
-- the one I remember from PA from two years ago was a teacher who had a picture of herself in a pirate outfit at a party holding a 16 oz plastic cup -- the board decided that this photo suggested she drank, or drank a lot, or might be irresponsible, or was a poor role model, so some damned combination that violated a specific clause of her contract.

Extending this, I know that the search committee of colleges and universities DO more than just Google search; they often make a point to look in facebook or check and see if anyone is a friend or related by a chain of association to the applicants. They use what they find to narrow the field of applicants.

Closer to your point and the mistreatment (IMHO) of Sherrod (by everyone) is the issue of context and how often it is manipulated and skewed--spun for ideological or political advantage. One of the implications I see is that I could go to a conference, give a paper on X, have someone in the audience ask a semi-related question, and then post my answer without any of the context on the Internet -- and THEN add their own context. Worse, I don't search for myself obsessively, so the first I would be aware of such an attack would be when someone "unofficially" advised me this was part of the decision regarding my hiring, firing, tenure, contract, etc.

The fact the the NAACP and Dept. superiors DID NOT establish context, but responded to an attack-by-media really pisses me off and in many ways it is a throwback to the Red Baiting of the McCarthy era when evidence wasn't necessary, just the accusation alone tarnished reputation and career.

So fuck Fox, but also fuck the agency, and the administration. She should have a suit and while I hate the prevalence of legal actions in out litigious society, this is her career that has been fucked with and no one had her back. Worse, it took another media outlet to help -- if I were more conspiracy-theory driven I'd wonder about that aspect.

School is the worst for that and those examples are ... creepy. How about all the kids "sexting" right now - you know some will mature and be teachers. Will someone get their photo, publicize it, and will we fire teachers for things they did at 15 with cell phones? Possible and pathetic.

We should only look up to robots in uniforms. They will be our infallible leaders in the future; if they had faults, it can not only be traced to sources beyond their control - but erased and corrected. God Bless.

PS I found out Fox was surprisingly responsible about this! See my edit and link

I agree with you about the larger picture and implications. very scary

You know, I do sometimes worry about your job, specifically, considering how frankly you talk about stuff in an unlocked journal. Not that you've done anything wrong, but neither did she. Apparently all it takes is one hateful blogger looking for a convenient target.

Crossed my mind as well, but I keep choosing the "fuck you" button over job security.

I have several friends who are careful not to do anything at all online, on film, or in public that they think could come back to haunt them. Even if they think it's unlikely, they've seen enough things that make them not want to take that chance. I've had friend lose (and nearly lose) jobs because of things they had said on their own private blogs. In the Sherrod case though, I don't understand why she resigned when they demanded it. Why didn't she tell them the quote was taken out of context? And if she did tell them, why didn't someone dig up that speech or interview someone who was at that speech? And when they offered her her job back, why didn't they give her back her job? Why give her a different job? She didn't do anything wrong!

This terrifies me - when has the benefit of accountability been overridden by a fear to express one's self, a cornerstone of democracy? I hate to sound all alarmist but...wow but that's a point.

In some ways, this self-censoring has always existed. Online just makes it easier to track down things you've done. But I grew up in a small town. A small town where there was plenty of gossip to go around. And I was careful about what I did or said anywhere lest it get back to my parents.