Conservative Speaker = “Hostile Work Environment”

Two teachers have sued Lakeside School, a chic private school in Seattle, for racial discrimination. Lakeside responded that it couldn’t respond, but since it’s liberal it couldn’t be guilty. O.K., that’s my construction of what it said. What it actually said was:

In a statement, Lakeside said it could not comment on pending litigation, but “in light of our commitment to diversity and inclusion, we are disappointed that this case was filed.”

Several items were mentioned in the complaint, but this was the most interesting:

Among the plaintiffs’ complaints was Lakeside’s invitation to conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza to speak as part of a distinguished lecture series.

D’Souza, of course, is a conservative, and apparently allowing a conservative to speak creates a “hostile work environment.”

Although exactly how hostile is open to some debate, since “[a]fter Sims and other faculty members and parents complained, the school in January rescinded the invitation to D’Souza”

Of course they did. How could a school devoted to “diversity and inclusion” allow a known conservative to speak?

Say What? (18)

  1. Anon in Seattle October 17, 2006 at 8:15 pm | | Reply

    The other interesting thing is that apparently some kids or parents questionned the qualifications of the suing teacher–a “minority” black male–who is (get a load of this) studying for a degree in “Women’s studies” at the U of WA.

  2. Bob B October 17, 2006 at 10:23 pm | | Reply

    It’s a bit ironic: A school dedicates itself to promoting the very social values that encourage the type of lawsuit it is now facing. I’m not sure who to root for in this one!

  3. Cobra October 17, 2006 at 10:27 pm | | Reply

    John writes:

    >>>”D’Souza, of course, is a conservative, and apparently allowing a conservative to speak creates a “hostile work environment.”

    Although exactly how hostile is open to some debate, since “[a]fter Sims and other faculty members and parents complained, the school in January rescinded the invitation to D’Souza””

    Hmmm…could a “hostile work environment” for African Americans be created by a man whose writings about said group include these?

    >>>”In 1995, D’Souza came out with “The End of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial Society.” The book argues that low-income Black people are basically “pathological” and that white racism isn’t really racism at all, just a logical response to this “pathology.”

    D’Souza maintains racism will only end when

    “…blacks as a group can show that they are capable of performing competitively in schools and the work force…If blacks can close the civilization gap, the race problem in this country is likely to become insignificant.”

    The book would have made interesting reading on the Middle Passage, that early example of European “civilization.” And in fact, D’Souza also writes that slavery itself was not a racist institution, merely “economic.”

    He further states that segregation was designed

    “…to assure that [Blacks], like the handicapped, would be…permitted to perform to the capacity of their arrested development.”

    The book was reportedly marketed extensively in business circles. [From “Buying a Movement.”]

    http://www.mediatransparency.org/personprofile.php?personID=6

    John, do you believe that blacks suffer from a “civilization gap?”

    Do you believe that low income blacks are “pathological?” and that white racism is simply a “logical response to this pathology?”

    And what is your opinion of D’souza’s INTERESTING description of segregation in America?

    Now, one doesn’t have to be a “liberal” to disagree with D’Souza’s opinions about the inferiority of African-Americans, and it’s certainly easy to see where the invitation of a speaker with such negative and derogatory views can add to a “hostile work enviornment.”

    –Cobra

  4. John Rosenberg October 17, 2006 at 11:17 pm | | Reply

    Hmmm…could a “hostile work environment” for African Americans be created by a man whose writings about said group include these?….

    No. If I were school czar, I would neither hire nor keep any teacher who claimed that the expression of any views by a visiting lecturer created a hostile working environment.

  5. Cobra October 18, 2006 at 12:09 am | | Reply

    John writes:

    >>>”If I were school czar, I would neither hire nor keep any teacher who claimed that the expression of any views by a visiting lecturer created a hostile working environment.”

    In fairness John, the complaint was comprised of much more than just one nefarious guest lecturer, but would you hold this particular view in ALL SITUATIONS? Involving ANY GUEST LECTURER?

    Be careful on this one, John…there’s a WHOLE lot of real life scenarios, and controversial speakers out there on this one.

    –Cobra

  6. mikem October 18, 2006 at 1:42 am | | Reply

    Be careful of anything that Cobra cites or even links to. He has a history of knowingly ascribing false quotes and stating false “facts”.

  7. superdestroyer October 18, 2006 at 7:13 am | | Reply

    Cobra,

    I read the story about the two black teachers who complained. I thought the most laughable comment was that their white students complained that they were bad teachers. I also find it odd that the newspaper used the term “teachers of color.” Are Asian-American students and teachers counted as students of color or are they not?

    Are you agreeing with the black teachers that the students are all racist and liars? I find it humorous that you immediately identify with the two teachers because they are black instead of with the students who are demanding a better education and better teaching. What would your reaction be if the teachers were white and black students were accused of making racially based complaints against the white teachers?

  8. Anon in Seattle October 18, 2006 at 11:37 am | | Reply

    “I read the story about the two black teachers who complained. I thought the most laughable comment was that their white students complained that they were bad teachers.”

    For those who are not familiar with Lakeside school in North Seattle, it’s Bill Gates’ Alma Mater, so to speak. It’s where it all started for him and he finances the school heavily: there is a building there that bears his name. The kids are supposed to be extra-smart there and the curriculum is very advanced: they have equipment, opportunities and teachers that other kids elsewhere can only dream of. And the parents are on top of the heap economically. A few years ago, I visited it over the course of several days for business reasons and I have seen the environment. Their library alone would not disgrace many medium-size cities.

    I don’t find it illogical that they or their parents would see right through someone whose qualifications are “women’s studies” and question it. Why? Simply because in spite of the political correctness and all that goes with it, when everything is said and done they are go-getters and they are spending all that money to get ahead in the world and be tomorrow’s billionaires. OK, they will settle for being multi-millionaire if they can’t help it but that’s what the school is all about: Bill the Billionaire is God and he shows the shining path. And by Golly they don’t want to waste their money and time been taught by some professional victimologist who studies what is essentially a pseudo-science for lazy people that allows its graduates to feed at the trough of the “diversity” industry. And they know–even if of course it never gets said aloud–that to get into the universities no matter what your grades to study the pseudo-sciences and be assured to get the “degree” no matter what, all you need it to be the right color or gender.

    So, what is it that this person is going to teach the kids? History? Yikes! Economics? Well, the kids are white mostly in that school, so the “diversity” gravy-train is not an option and learning that would be of little use. Remember, these are people who want their money’s worth :-)

    In the end, money talks and sh*t walks. And the extra irony is that this little story comes through the very politically correct local Seattle newspaper (if we can call it that). You have to read between the lines but it’s all there…

    D’Souza is the kind of articulate speaker who would have been perfect for a speech at that school. And the school is getting sued. You can bet that they’ll pay damages or at least hush money. Let the wolves eat each others out. What delight.

  9. Anon in Seattle October 18, 2006 at 11:52 am | | Reply

    And also, to respond to “Cobra”, he must have taken his comments on D’Souza’s writing from some pre-digested lefty rebuttals or fabrications of the work.

    I have read D’Souza’s books and his writings on race can be summarized by saying that there is absolutely nothing that inherently makes black people inferior to other ethnic groups and that those blacks who chose–and it’s a choice–to pursue destructive or self-destructive behaviors have no more excuses than people from other groups who engage in the same behavior. With one difference however: the diversity/multiculturalims/victimology industry and environment encourages and even excuses it. There is a sick and genuinely racist undercurrent to that ideology.

  10. Dom October 18, 2006 at 12:27 pm | | Reply

    D’Souza lecturing at a school does not create a hostile workplace. I have had to listened to Sharpton, Farakhan, and their minions, and sometimes thought my life was in danger. No one told me it was hostile.

    The quotes from D’Souza were taken from a site that has an axe to grind, and they do not strike me as rascist at all.

    1. Low-income blacks suffer from a pathology. He means only that there are many forces at work here, some of which arise from within the culture, such as the stygma of acting white. In context, he meant that erasing rascism will not end poverty. I think he is correct.

    2. Segregation was meant to treat blacks like the handicapped. That is an indictment of segregation.

    3. The Civilization Gap. D’Souza is wrong about this, but it must be admitted that it is a rather benign statement. Seattle believes there is a gap, and makes great pains to insure that blacks do not cross it. They believe, eg, that blacks do not have a sense of future planning. No one complains about this.

  11. rightwingprof October 18, 2006 at 1:32 pm | | Reply

    Only an idiot would accept that a “hostile work environment” was an excuse for anything, much less a lawsuit, or worse, laws.

    Don’t like the job? Get another one elsewhere.

  12. Michelle Dulak Thomson October 18, 2006 at 9:21 pm | | Reply

    Cobra,

    I would be astonished if D’Souza has said anywhere that low-income Blacks are “pathological.” I can quite believe that he has said that low-income Blacks are severely afflicted by a pathological culture.

    Look, here’s an item from yesterday’s SF Chronicle, about a murder in SF’s Bayview District, though the story it glances on is one that the Chron covers every week, sometimes in SF, sometimes Richmond, sometimes Oakland.

    A young Black man is up for trial for killing a police officer. His trial opened Monday. The prosecution alleges that the defendant was on his way to kill a member of a rival gang when plainclothes police stopped him. The defense — the defense — counters that the defendant was on rival gang turf only because it was the closest and safest place to pick up some weed; that he brought his assault rifle with him only by way of self-defense, because every gang member has “a bull’s-eye on his back”; and that he fired twelve rounds only because he thought the police were members of the rival gang. (The officer actually killed was a light-skinned Hispanic who the prosecution claims couldn’t have been mistaken for a member of this gang; the defense counters that the officer’s partner was Black. The partner was wounded by shrapnel but not directly hit.)

    The prosecution presented excerpts from the defendant’s writings: he declares himself a “100% thug,” says he is “livin’ da mob life,” and that “digging graves is my thang.” The defense called this “puffing,” and says it’s expected of young men in a “war zone.” Which frankly is a very fair description of Bayview/Hunter’s Point, as well as much of Richmond and much of Oakland, sticking only to the Bay Area.

    My point, Cobra, is that whichever side’s depiction of this particular young man is true, both describe a culture in which blood feuds and random mayhem are routine. Neither side thinks it particularly bizarre that a 20-something Black man in Bayview should walk around with an assault rifle under his peacoat, or even that he should fire 12 rounds from it; all that’s in dispute is why he shot this particular man, and the defense’s central claim is that he was in constant danger of being gunned down himself because of his gang membership. Would you call this man’s environment a “pathological” culture? I would.

  13. Cobra October 18, 2006 at 9:28 pm | | Reply

    I guess you don’t like the reviews of D’nesh D’souza’s writings.

    What about words directly from his mouth?

    >>>” Despite the enormous debt that African Americans owe America, I do not think it is fair to ask that blacks be asked to pay money in order to express their gratitude for American prosperity and American freedom. I guess I am sounding facetious, but I don’t think I am being unreasonable in casting the issue in this way. The crimes that blacks allege against America, such as slavery, are universal crimes. The West is unique not in having slavery but in abolishing it. Moreover, although slavery was terrible for the slaves, it has proven to be beneficial to the descendants of slaves because it was the transmission belt that brought them to America, where their lives are immeasurably better than if they were living today in Africa. When Muhammad Ali returned to America from Zaire after winning the heavyweight title, a reporter asked him, “Champ, what did you think of Africa?” Ali replied, “Thank God my grand-daddy got on that boat!”

    http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0203/0203dsouzaint.htm

    Are you kidding me? Justifying kidnapping, forced labor, rape, torture, separation of families, subjugation and murder on a GENERATIONAL SCALE to MILLIONS of people is justified because…the descendants of the oppressed get the “HONOR” of living second class amongst the descendants of the oppressors?

    Please. You want to defend this man, fine. But there are OTHER statements this man has made that aren’t about African-Americans. I want to see how many posters on John Rosenberg’s “Discriminations” will rush out to defend D’souza on this one:

    >>>”The reason I like to stir up controversy on campus is because I object to the attempts of many professors to impose an intellectual orthodoxy on students. There is so much talk about diversity on campus, and so little genuine intellectual diversity. So, my provocations are aimed at widening the parameters of debate so that we can have more candid argument and less political correctness, especially on questions of race, ethnicity, and gender. With respect to Israel, I think it is undeniable that one of the beneficial effects of the Holocaust was to create a moral climate more favorable to the founding of the State of Israel. This is not to justify the Holocaust anymore than I would justify slavery; both were terrible, but it is a great irony of history that bad things sometimes produce beneficial outcomes. Obviously, the Jews who endured the Holocaust were worse off, but the Jews who were not part of the Holocaust and have subsequently moved to Israel, are in this respect, better off. So there is no inconsistency in my argument.”

    http://chronicle.com/colloquylive/2002/05/dsouza/

    As my question to John (thus far unanswered) refers, would you extend this “no invited guest speaker could possibly create a hostile work environment”

    I would also refer those interested in an ANSWER to that question, and the general discussion of “college campus hostility”, to the Barry Bonds of invited campus speakers: David Horowitz.

    >>>”This is why I have undertaken the task of organizing conservative students myself and urging them to protest a situation that has become intolerable. I encourage them to use the language that the left has deployed so effectively in behalf of its own agendas. Radical professors have created a “HOSTILE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT for conservative students. There is a lack of “intellectual diversity” on college faculties and in academic classrooms. The conservative viewpoint is “under-represented” in the curriculum and on its reading lists. The university should be an “inclusive” and intellectually “diverse” community.

    I have encouraged students to demand that their schools adopt an “academic bill of rights” that stresses intellectual diversity, that demands balance in their reading lists, that recognizes that political partisanship by professors in the classroom is an abuse of students’ academic freedom, that the inequity in funding of student organizations and visiting speakers is unacceptable, and that a learning environment HOSTILE TO CONSERVATIVES IS UNACCEPTABLE.”

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7357

    Very interesting INDEED.

    –Cobra

  14. Dom October 18, 2006 at 11:07 pm | | Reply

    Once again, the quotes from D’Souza are unexceptional. As far as justifying slavery, he did nothing of the sort, and the quote that you misundestood was from Muhammed Ali.

    As I said before, I have sat through talks by Farakhan and D’Souza. I possess two of the traits that Farakhan considers devilish (white and gay), and one trait that D’Souza considers subhuman (gay). I can judge them fairly. My judgement? Farakhan is far more hostile. How many universities will disinvite him, or others like him?

  15. Cobra October 20, 2006 at 9:23 am | | Reply

    Dom writes:

    >>>”As I said before, I have sat through talks by Farakhan and D’Souza. I possess two of the traits that Farakhan considers devilish (white and gay), and one trait that D’Souza considers subhuman (gay). I can judge them fairly. My judgement? Farakhan is far more hostile. How many universities will disinvite him, or others like him?”

    But you’re making my point for me. When you declare Minister Farrakhan “hostile”, you’ve debunked the counter argument offered against me in this thread. Whether you feel one speaker is “more hostile” than another is a moot point, because the environment of hostility has already been established in your statements.

    That’s why I questioned John on this very subject, because there are a whole slew of controversial figures out there that fit this description, and it’s EASY to see how a hostile evironment can be created by their invitation to speak on campus.

    What kind of environment would D’Souza create if he ran this line…

    >>>”With respect to Israel, I think it is undeniable that one of the beneficial effects of the Holocaust was to create a moral climate more favorable to the founding of the State of Israel.”

    …during a speech at NYU, Columbia or, could you imagine, Yeshiva? He might actually get away with it at Liberty, or Bob Jones U (though his interracial marriage might raise an eyebrow), but if you don’t think the campus Hillel would be out in force there, you’re not paying attention.

    Again, this is more about selective outrage than anything else.

    –Cobra

  16. Dom October 20, 2006 at 4:31 pm | | Reply

    I said Farakhan was hostile, and he is not censored. And I don’t want him to be censored. Since D’Souza is (my opinion) not hostile or (your opinion) less hostile that Farakhan, why is he censored?

    And your quote from D’Souza (“With respect to Israel …”) is, once again, unexceptional. Students at Yeshiva would listen politely.

  17. Cobra October 22, 2006 at 9:07 pm | | Reply

    Dom writes:

    >>>”I said Farakhan was hostile, and he is not censored. And I don’t want him to be censored. Since D’Souza is (my opinion) not hostile or (your opinion) less hostile that Farakhan, why is he censored?”

    This is not a debate on censorship, at least not from what I’ve posted. This was a discussion based upon John’s statement:

    >>>Cobra: “Hmmm…could a “hostile work environment” for African Americans be created by a man whose writings about said group include these?….

    John: No. If I were school czar, I would neither hire nor keep any teacher who claimed that the expression of any views by a visiting lecturer created a hostile working environment.”

    If you were a Professor at “John Rosenberg U.”, John would FIRE you if you told him what you said here:

    >>>”As I said before, I have sat through talks by Farakhan and D’Souza. I possess two of the traits that Farakhan considers devilish (white and gay), and one trait that D’Souza considers subhuman (gay). I can judge them fairly. My judgement? Farakhan is far more hostile.”

    John would certainly have a problem with David Horowitz teaching at his school as well.

    See what I’m getting at? Now, there’s a whole LOT of more incendiary speakers on the college circuit–some even from the Middle East. I wonder HOW FAR John would take his position?

    –Cobra

  18. Michelle Dulak Thomson October 23, 2006 at 4:33 pm | | Reply

    Cobra, there is a difference between a school’s allowing a “hostile” visiting speaker and a school’s presenting a “hostile working environment” that I am quite sure you can see.

Say What?