In an interview in the Knoxville News Sentinel as part of that paper’s coverage of Black History Month, Tennessee highway patrolman De’Ossie Dingus criticized affirmative action “and said government handout programs have been — quote — ‘devastating to the black community.'”
As a result, Dingus, who is black, is now the subject of two separate police investigations, one of which “is focused on allegations that Dingus has contributed to a hostile work environment.”
Funny, I was under the impression that the First Amendment still applied to public employees.
Where are all the civil rights and civil liberties groups on this one? Probably hiding away, since the victim in this case is guilty of CWB — “Conservative While black”.
in fairness tho, i did not glean from the article that the hostile environment rap was a “result” of his statement. maybe he did something else that brought on that charge?
Its Ministry of Truth time in Tennessee. Poor sap, thought he was living in a free society. PC uber alles.
I thought that African-Americans were given a free pass on the raced based speech and hostile speech. Ins’t that why blacks can use the “N-word” or tell racist jokes but whites cannot.
Actually, superdestroyer, the situation is that blacks can say anything negative against whites, but they aren’t allowed to criticize the sacred cow of ‘biacks are victims’ culture. You saw what happened to Bill Cosby; now it’s happening to another black who doesn’t toe the party race line.
Shocking, but not surprising.
The knee-slappingly funny part of this article is right there in the first line.
>>>KNOXVILLE, Tenn. An attorney for a Tennessee highway patrol officer says two state investigations of the trooper’s conduct are based on racial discrimination.”
http://www.whnt19.com/Global/story.asp?S=3100234
Well, I’ll be…that’s “Cobra Argument #1,” and it’s being EMBRACED HERE for pete’s sake. :-)
Ahhh…it’s comforting to know all those long, passionate posts weren’t in vain.
–Cobra
In a way, I found that funny too, Cobra. I was surprised that the media and lawyers portrayed it that way – as racial discrimination – rather than as enforcement of doctrine and crushing of unpopular speech.
But it is “racial discrimination” as well. The premise of this type of indoctrination is that black individuals should all have one set of beliefs, which is to support for affirmative action. A premise like that is racist and results racial discrimination. I don’t think that is “Cobra Argument #1.” I think that is Rosenberg Counter-Argument #1.
I am with Fenster. We have only the word of Dingus and his attorney that he isn’t in trouble for some legitimate reason.