Nebraska Tries to Fire KKK Trooper...

[iGary]

OMAHA, Nebraska (AP) -- Robert Henderson was not fired as a state trooper because he belonged to the Ku Klux Klan and another white supremacist group, authorities said.

Instead, he was ousted because he could not uphold public trust while participating in such groups, they said.

An arbitrator disagreed, ordering the State Patrol to reinstate Henderson within 60 days and pay him back wages. The state went to court Friday to keep him off the force.

"The integrity of Nebraska's law enforcement is at risk," Attorney General Jon Bruning said at news conference in Lincoln. "The Constitution does not require law enforcement to employ anyone tied to the KKK."

In a summary of the causes for firing Henderson in March, the State Patrol said membership in the KKK "seriously compromised" Henderson's ability to do his job.

Henderson and the state troopers union appealed and, under its contract, went to binding arbitration, to get his job back.

Arbitrator Paul J. Caffera, a New York lawyer, last week overturned the firing.

He said Henderson was entitled to his First Amendment rights of free speech and that the state violated the troopers' contract, in part when it fired Henderson "because of his association with the Knights Party ... and the Ku Klux Klan."

According to a copy of Caffera's ruling, Henderson was interviewed by a patrol captain in February. He confirmed he had been a member of the Knights Party since June 2004 and made postings on its members-only Web site while off-duty.

Henderson also said he had joined the KKK, according to the arbitrator's report. He did so, he said, for two reasons: His wife had "divorced him for a minority" and the KKK gave him an avenue to vent his frustration.

Attempts to reach Henderson on Friday were unsuccessful. The state troopers union refused to comment, referring calls to its attorney, Vincent Valentino.

Valentino said Henderson has resigned his Knights Party membership and apologized to the State Patrol commander, Col. Bryan Tuma. The attorney also said Bruning and Tuma blew Henderson's membership and activities out of proportion.

"Bob Henderson wasn't running around in a sheet and hood," he said.

Besides, Valentino said, "State employees have a right to think in private what they think."

Tuma said a review of Henderson's record showed no pattern of bias or misconduct against minorities.

"There were no concerns whatsoever that he was engaged in any profiling or any biased treatment of any minority," he said.

Nonetheless, Bruning said, "This trooper can join the KKK, but he can't remain a trooper while he is a member."

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/26/trooper.racism.ap/index.html)

What say you?

[dornoforpyros]

Freedom of speech has to go both ways. I don't agree with racist/homophobic/sexist views, but I do think people should be allowed to have them.

If today you can't speak out against a minority that you feel wronged by then perhaps tomorrow it's the church or government you can't speak out against.

It sounds like this guys KKK membership wasn't effecting his job, just as my making a website comparing jesus to a zombie doesn't effect my job. I say give him his job back and as long as he keeps doing a fair and balanced job of it there's no issue.

[iGary]

Freedom of speech has to go both ways. I don't agree with racist/homophobic/sexist views, but I do think people should be allowed to have them.

If today you can't speak out against a minority that you feel wronged by then perhaps tomorrow it's the church or government you can't speak out against.

It sounds like this guys KKK membership wasn't effecting his job, just as my making a website comparing jesus to a zombie doesn't effect my job. I say give him his job back and as long as he keeps doing a fair and balanced job of it there's no issue.

How does one know if he is doing a fair and balanced job, though?

I mean we're not talking about someone pushing pencils here - we're talking about someone who can seriously affect the course of someone's life.

Pilots have to retire at age 60, but we don't openly campaign against that as age discrimination.

I think someone in this type of position with this type of power gives up some of their "rights" in order to perform their job correctly, but maybe someone can change my mind.

[mkrishnan]

How does one know if he is doing a fair and balanced job, though?

Yeah... I guess there would have to be a very believable way to assess his job performance. If there was even the slightest hint of brutality, aggression, etc... then he needs to be on a desk job or not on the force.... But I'm also not sure someone should necessarily lose a state job purely because of such an affiliation.... Tough issue.

[Ugg]

Freedom of speech has to go both ways. I don't agree with racist/homophobic/sexist views, but I do think people should be allowed to have them.

If today you can't speak out against a minority that you feel wronged by then perhaps tomorrow it's the church or government you can't speak out against.

It sounds like this guys KKK membership wasn't effecting his job, just as my making a website comparing jesus to a zombie doesn't effect my job. I say give him his job back and as long as he keeps doing a fair and balanced job of it there's no issue.

This is a tough one. Free speech should be protected but how impartial or fair will he be if he pulls over a black person? Since there's no way of knowing how he behaves (unless someone in the car is filming him) it seems to be granting a phenomenal amount of trust to someone who is more or less duty bound by his KKK membership to denigrate those who aren't X-ian or white.

Your analogy is pretty lame by the way. The guy is a state trooper and responsible for upholding the law.

[dornoforpyros]

Tuma said a review of Henderson's record showed no pattern of bias or misconduct against minorities.

I'm going on this statement that he's doing a balanced job.

Granted, if this guy has one reported insistent of racist conduct while on the job then yes, bounce him.

But I still stand by my opinion that what people do on their own time is their business provided it doesn't interfere with work. If I wanna go and smoke a big joint after work but I'm always sober at work, then it's none of my bosses business.

[stubeeef]

sounds as though he would be unfair to a black person if he was or was not a member of KKK.
As stated if you could eliminate him from his job for this affiliation, what about jobs that are contrary to green peace (nuke facility emp) or Sierra Club (paper mill employee) PeTA and jello factory employee? (some of those are silly and meant to be so.....you may get the drift).
If there is any tie to him and minority claims then the answer is obvious.

Does being a member of a religion and a gov't employee violate church and state issues?

[mactastic]

Hmm... good question. Obvious potential conflict of interest in having an officer who may or may not be pre-disposed towards treating certain people differently than others. And of course a first amendment issue.

Plus, the employer faces a potential liability should they ever be sued for any actions taken by this officer.

And there is a difference between thought and deed. No evidence has been presented that this officer has let his personal feelings affect his job.

But still, what if a teacher was found to be a member of NAMBLA, but no complaints against the teacher had been brought? Would there be any question as to whether that teacher should be fired? Would not many of you be demanding that they be fired?

[zimv20]

has anyone bothered to ask henderson if he believes he can fulfill is duties in a disinterested manner?

[CorvusCamenarum]

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/26/trooper.racism.ap/index.html)

What say you?

My first question is how they found out he was a member of these organizations. The article is unclear.

Robert Henderson was not fired as a state trooper because he belonged to the Ku Klux Klan and another white supremacist group, authorities said.

Instead, he was ousted because he could not uphold public trust while participating in such groups, they said.

This just sounds like semantic hair-splitting to me, as well as BS. Were he not a member of these groups, there would be no perceived breach of public trust as it were. Ergo, he's being fired because of his affiliation.

Everyone has freedom of speech, but evidently some speech is less free than other speech when it's socially undesirable.

[mactastic]

My first question is how they found out he was a member of these organizations. The article is unclear.
My guess would be this:
According to a copy of Caffera's ruling, Henderson was interviewed by a patrol captain in February. He confirmed he had been a member of the Knights Party since June 2004 and made postings on its members-only Web site while off-duty.
(my emphasis)

This just sounds like semantic hair-splitting to me, as well as BS. Were he not a member of these groups, there would be no perceived breach of public trust as it were. Ergo, he's being fired because of his affiliation.
Would you be comfortable with a teacher posting on NAMBLA's website?

Or, to muddle this further, can Apple (which I realize is a private employer, and therefore subject to slightly different rules) restrict the ability of an employee to post on Apple-rumor related sites?

Everyone has freedom of speech, but evidently some speech is less free than other speech when it's socially undesirable.That is sadly the case.

[zap2]

Well if he could be a good cop, and not do anything racist when he was there, i think its fine, but if he did anything almost hurtful, to a minority, people would be all over him, even if he didn't do anything, but i bet he would be treating minoritys different then white people.

I doubt he would ever be able to leave his views at home, come to work and not be a racist.Also its not only about being a KKK member, its that he would likly be racist ON THE JOB. But if he had not been up to this point, i can't see how they should be allowed to fire him, because he had not done anything yet. This is a hard question

[pseudobrit]

But I still stand by my opinion that what people do on their own time is their business provided it doesn't interfere with work. If I wanna go and smoke a big joint after work but I'm always sober at work, then it's none of my bosses business.

But you don't have that right. To those who tried to cite the Bill of Rights, let's remember that First Amendment rights in the workplace don't exist. There are laws protecting against discrimination and insulating whistleblowers but your freedom of speech is only as unrestricted as your employer will have it; they retain the freedom to fire you.

This KKK instance is as clear a case of allowed presupposed bias as those which occur in many a workplace with rules to prevent nepotism. Employers don't want to allow the appearance of potential impropriety so they separate related employees. If this cop arrests a black or Hispanic kid and the kid has bruises and blames the cop, the Nebraska State Police are going to lose their ass in lawsuit for allowing this known member of a racist hate group on the job. We're not talking about a protest group here, we're talking about a group proven to incite violence against minorities.

This cop should be given the department's crappiest desk job and have no contact with the public. Then he'll quit and go back to mall security. End of story.

[Ugg]

My first question is how they found out he was a member of these organizations. The article is unclear.



This just sounds like semantic hair-splitting to me, as well as BS. Were he not a member of these groups, there would be no perceived breach of public trust as it were. Ergo, he's being fired because of his affiliation.

Everyone has freedom of speech, but evidently some speech is less free than other speech when it's socially undesirable.

Nebraska's a pretty small state so I'm sure the rumor mill is pretty effective there. Why do you ask? Do you think all state troopers in NE are being spied upon?

He's being fired because of his beliefs. The article only stated that:

Tuma said a review of Henderson's record showed no pattern of bias or misconduct against minorities.

There's nothing there that said he has never shown bias or misconduct, only not a pattern of such.

IMO, it's pretty hard to uphold the law when you believe that people with different colored skins and with different religious beliefs aren't deserving of the same protections as "white x-ian folk".

[CorvusCamenarum]

My guess would be this:
Hmm guess I missed that. Oops. ;)

Would you be comfortable with a teacher posting on NAMBLA's website?
Obviously I would not. I'm not defending this guy. If he wants to be silly that's his affair. But the way the record stands, his job performance hasn't been affected by his views, and as long as he can keep the two separate then fine. Right now it sounds like he's being fired for either appearance's sake or for something he might do as opposed to something he has done. Using your NAMBLA reference as a point of comparison, sleeping with a child is a crime. Not liking anyone who isn't white is repugnant, but not criminal.

Or, to muddle this further, can Apple (which I realize is a private employer, and therefore subject to slightly different rules) restrict the ability of an employee to post on Apple-rumor related sites?
Non-disclosure agreements aside, if an employee were to post something Apple-related say on here, that is harmful to Apple in real terms, trade secrets and all that. Yes, the trooper could do something stupid and get the department and himself sued, but anyone who works for that department is in the same position.

[thedude110]

Am interested in the larger question of "police accountability," if only because during "new teacher" orientation the past few days I've had my head filled with the ways that teachers are held accountable (read: test scores entirely divorced from the reality of learning).

Are police officers regularly subjected to reviews of their actions (read: people pulled over, arrested, warned, etc.)? If so, what is the context of those reviews?

If this guy performs adequately according to such a test and no evidence surfaces that he has actively partaken in discrimination (not posting on message boards but acting on his posts on message boards) outside of his employment either, then he should keep his job. But the force should be prepared for significant -- and likely deserved -- community outrage/anger.

The "soft bigotry" of poverty isn't far beneath the surface of this story, either ...

[Desertrat]

Following up on pseudobrit's idea, a desk job would keep the guy from interacting with the public. Lotsa clerical stuff around a copshop.

Could keep both the guy and the state out of trouble...

'Rat

[Ugg]

Following up on pseudobrit's idea, a desk job would keep the guy from interacting with the public. Lotsa clerical stuff around a copshop.

Could keep both the guy and the state out of trouble...

'Rat

That is probably what will happen but if he is a hard core racist and has feelings of revenge he could still cause a lot of problems for anyone with a "foreign" sounding name.

[mactastic]

Hmm guess I missed that. Oops. ;)
Yeah, people often forget that what they say online becomes part of the public domain. :eek:

Obviously I would not. I'm not defending this guy. If he wants to be silly that's his affair. But the way the record stands, his job performance hasn't been affected by his views, and as long as he can keep the two separate then fine. Right now it sounds like he's being fired for either appearance's sake or for something he might do as opposed to something he has done. Using your NAMBLA reference as a point of comparison, sleeping with a child is a crime. Not liking anyone who isn't white is repugnant, but not criminal.
Ah, but treating someone who isn't white differently that a white person --as an agent of the State -- IS a crime. That's the parallel I'm trying to draw between NAMBLA and the Klan. Thinking about having sex with kids -- or killing/mistreating blacks -- is, and should be, legal. Acting on either of those ideas is, and should be, illegal.

Non-disclosure agreements aside, if an employee were to post something Apple-related say on here, that is harmful to Apple in real terms, trade secrets and all that. Yes, the trooper could do something stupid and get the department and himself sued, but anyone who works for that department is in the same position.It goes beyond that though. Apple, from my understanding, doesn't even like their Apple Store employees -- the grunts -- posting anything here, even if the person was just hanging out in the community sections in their free time. Yet we don't have a problem with that. Teachers would be expected to refrain from posting on child-porn web sites. People who dole out government contracts probably shouldn't be posting to business-related forums. Ad infinitum.

I'm just saying it's not unreasonable for an employer to demand certain behaviors *that directly relate to the employees duties* to be off-limits. Obviously there is a delicate balance here, and it would be easy for employers to take this too far.

I'm not sure yet. I haven't made up my mind on this. But I'm leaning this way at this point.

[Desertrat]

"His wife had "divorced him for a minority" and the KKK gave him an avenue to vent his frustration."

Outside of that comment, we don't know much about what the guy's basic views are. A divorce is a time of high emotion, and people can do and say a bunch of irrational crap. Could have been a short-term thing and he got over it. I dunno.

OTOH, I've seen divorced people carry grudges for decades.

Based on no more that the news article's info, and pretty much personal opinion, I think all concerned would be better off if the guy wasn't out on the street doing cop duty with a gun on his hip.

This sort of stuff, I don't think there's any "perfect" solution. Only pragmatism.

'Rat

[adroit]

Isn't the KKK an illegal organisation?:confused:

[mactastic]

Isn't the KKK an illegal organisation?:confused:
Nope. You can't criminalize a private citizen's thoughts, no matter how repugnant.

[hulugu]

Obviously I would not. I'm not defending this guy. If he wants to be silly that's his affair. But the way the record stands, his job performance hasn't been affected by his views, and as long as he can keep the two separate then fine. Right now it sounds like he's being fired for either appearance's sake or for something he might do as opposed to something he has done....

But, you have to admit there's a inherent incompatibility between an officer of the law and the KKK. I would wonder if the reaction would be similar if a TSA agent was a member of the Islamic Brotherhood.
The KKK isn't just a racist organization, but has until recently, acted as a terrorist group (church burnings, bombings, and lynchings are terror) and has used its political and social affiliations to attack and abuse minorities.

[mactastic]

The KKK isn't just a racist organization, but has until recently, acted as a terrorist group...
You bring up an interesting point. People in this country and in this forum are quick to denounce those who voice support for terrorist organizations like Hezbollah as terrorist sympathizers.

By those standards, would this officer not be considered a terrorist sympathizer?

[Desertrat]

:) Let's not get too carried away. There's always the ALF & PETA association...

The KKK might be better described as an ex-terrorist organization. They had too many FBI agents as members. :D

'Rat

[mactastic]

:) Let's not get too carried away. There's always the ALF & PETA association...
Well, let's explore that a little. Would you be OK with a USDA employee posting pro-PETA viewpoints on PETAs website? Or with USDoI employee posting to Earth First! websites?

The KKK might be better described as an ex-terrorist organization. They had too many FBI agents as members. :D

'Rat
Perhaps. But the standard here seems to be that if your organizational charter states that you want Israel wiped out, that makes them a terrorist. So why, if you want blacks, Jews, gays, whatever, wiped out, does that not make you a terrorist?

[mactastic]

Here's the flip side (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11767029/) of the "can you force people to behave in a certain way during their free time" coin:
Former Whitewater special counsel Kenneth Starr petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take up Alaska’s “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case, a dispute involving a high school student, a banner and a tough school policy.

Starr, who gained national prominence while investigating former President Clinton’s Whitewater land deal and relationship with Monica Lewinsky, filed the petition Monday on behalf of the Juneau School District in response to a March ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appeals court sided with a high school student who displayed a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” during an Olympic torch relay in 2002. It ruled former Juneau-Douglas High School principal Deborah Morse violated former student Joseph Frederick’s free speech rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court petition must receive a minimum of four of the nine justices’ votes to be heard.

Frederick, then a senior, was off school property when he hoisted the banner but was suspended for violating the school’s policy of promoting illegal substances at a school-sanctioned event.

“The principal’s actions were so outrageous, basically leaving school grounds and punishing a student for a message that is not damaging to the school,” said his attorney, Doug Mertz.

Superintendent Peggy Cowan said clarification is needed on the rights of administrators when it comes to disciplinary action of students who break the district’s drug message policy.

“The district’s decision to move forward is not disrespectful to the First Amendment or the rights of students,” she said. “This is an important question about how the First Amendment applies to pro-drug messages in an educational setting.”

Starr, of the Los Angeles-based firm Kirkland & Ellis, took the case pro bono.

The outcome could have implications on how student-conduct policies are enforced around the nation, said Eric Hagen, one of two other attorneys from Starr’s office named on the petition.

“It makes it a little harder when teachers and principals in their daily duties might be subject to a damages lawsuit and be held personally liable,” Hagen said.
However, in this case, it doesn't sound like the student's feelings about bong hits affect his "job" of going to school. But this is why we have to be careful in limiting people's free speech, so as not to go overboard on speech we just don't like.

[hulugu]

Here's the flip side (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11767029/) of the "can you force people to behave in a certain way during their free time" coin:

However, in this case, it doesn't sound like the student's feelings about bong hits affect his "job" of going to school. But this is why we have to be careful in limiting people's free speech, so as not to go overboard on speech we just don't like.

The free speech issue is a red herring, the Nebraska State Trooper has joined and retains membership in a group that is completely and utterly philosophically opposed to his duties as an officer of the law. His loyalty will always be suspect and his ability to do his job will always be in opposition to his ability retain.
The KKK was a violent terrorist group and remains interested in overthrowing the US government and 'deporting' minorities. An officer of the law cannot seriously support both at the same time.

[pseudobrit]

his "job" of going to school

This is not a valid comparison. Employment is voluntary.

[zap2]

The KKK was a violent terrorist group and remains interested in overthrowing the US government and 'deporting' minorities. An officer of the law cannot seriously support both at the same time.


Was..is it still today? (Honestly i don't know, i'm not up to the KKK's daily plans) If it is, then no he can't be in both

[pseudobrit]

Was..is it still today? (Honestly i don't know, i'm not up to the KKK's daily plans) If it is, then no he can't be in both

Not openly. It's like bowling or golf. You say "I'm just playing a round/few frames" but everyone knows you go more to drink seven or eight beers much the same way a Klansman says "I'm just exercising my right to demonstrate my dislike of [everyone who doesn't fall into an increasingly rare ethno-religious-sexuality combination category amongst the Earth's diverse population]" when you know he's there to network with other whackjobs who'd really like to do some violence.

[iGary]

He got his job back.

[LethalWolfe]

I think I'm along the same lines as Mactastic. My gut reaction is that a KKK cop sounds like a bit of a conflict of interest, but at the same time there are speech and privacy issues here. And all we need is one court case to set precedent and our private lives become fair game to our employers.

But being a cop isn't like working as a office drone and belonging to the KKK isn't like belonging to the local bird watchers club.

Would there be a similar reaction if this was a black cop who was a member of the Black Panthers or the Nation of Islam?

German-American's were ostracized during WWI and Japanese-American's were interned during WWII for similar reasons, "How can they be trusted?" Should cops be bared from being members to any social or political organizations that might show signs of favoritism or hostility to different members of the general public? Would a cop who joined PETA or Green Peace be more harsh those wearing leather jackets or driving SUVs? At the KKK's most powerful most members joined because of social reasons, not because they had any intention of bombing a church or lynching the dude down the road. Who's to say this guy isn't any different?

Again, though, we are talking about a cop not a cashier at Target, and I have no problems w/people wanting government security clearance to be thoroughly checked out.

I don't know enough about the situation to make a steadfast decision one way or another, but I do think I know enough to say that stuff like this defines "slippery slope."


Lethal

[mactastic]

This is not a valid comparison. Employment is voluntary.
Thus the quotes. I realize it is an imperfect comparison, but it is illustrative of the difficulty of defining a hard and fast line between acceptable speech and unacceptable speech.

[Josh]

Just the police force being jealous because the man is hating minorities while not wearing a badge.

[hulugu]

I think I'm along the same lines as Mactastic. My gut reaction is that a KKK cop sounds like a bit of a conflict of interest, but at the same time there are speech and privacy issues here. And all we need is one court case to set precedent and our private lives become fair game to our employers.

I disagree, the genius posted statements to a website, thus making them public record and fair game. Our private lives are only private when we make them so.

But being a cop isn't like working as a office drone and belonging to the KKK isn't like belonging to the local bird watchers club.

Exactly. Cops are given extra-powers beyond other citizens and thus should be subject to more scrutiny.

Would there be a similar reaction if this was a black cop who was a member of the Black Panthers or the Nation of Islam?

I asked the same question earlier, if a TSA agent posted statements on an Islamic Jihad website would we still expect him to do his job right.

Should cops be bared from being members to any social or political organizations that might show signs of favoritism or hostility to different members of the general public? Would a cop who joined PETA or Green Peace be more harsh those wearing leather jackets or driving SUVs? At the KKK's most powerful most members joined because of social reasons, not because they had any intention of bombing a church or lynching the dude down the road. Who's to say this guy isn't any different?

This is bull pucky. There's a huge difference between PETA and the KKK. One's interested in saving animals and has used civil disobedience, the other is a terrorist group that, as recently as 1981, used lynchings, bombings, robbery, and beatings to subjugate a population. The KKK has recently put on a more 'respectable' face, but they still preach the same hate-filled insanity they did in 1867. Frankly, to ignore the difference between Greenpeace and the KKK shows an ignorance to history.

Again, though, we are talking about a cop not a cashier at Target, and I have no problems w/people wanting government security clearance to be thoroughly checked out...I don't know enough about the situation to make a steadfast decision one way or another, but I do think I know enough to say that stuff like this defines "slippery slope."

If there's a slippery slope with regard to your personal life versus your work life, we're already going down the hill.
We already make certain allowances for jobs that can be sensitive, we allow the government to peak into the lives of people who request a security clearance and we allow drug testing where necessary.

[iGary]

Just the police force being jealous because the man is hating minorities while not wearing a badge.

Would you knowingly fly on a plane piloted by a guy who gets tanked every night he isn't wearing his stripes?

[Josh]

Would you knowingly fly on a plane piloted by a guy who gets tanked every night he isn't wearing his stripes?

Of course not.

:confused: I don't see what you're getting at?

The guy *should* lose his job.

While I am all for free-speech, and believe anyone deserves the right to think/feel/say whatever they like, that cannot be done without consequence.

A man whose job it is to bring peace to a community and uphold dignitity and respect while protecting people of his community, cannot be part of a clan whose purpose it is to hate and belittle members of communities. The state has every right to remove him of his position.

It's pretty much along the lines of hiring a known child molester to be a babysitter.

You can't end hate while babying those who aim to prolong it.

(I'll also add that any comments about PETA being "civily disobedient" in their actions is far from the truth. Being a non-profit organization, their tax records are required to be public. Anyone who thinks PETA is a great organization should read those records. Doing so would show you that a) The majority of the money they receive from their supporters is being sent to a known terrorist's father (the father is not part of PETA) who openly admits he gives it to his son, who has been arrested numerous times for bombings. B) They kill more animals than they save. PETA puts down roughly 75% of all animals that they supposedly "rescue." The organization is a sham, and they make fools of the honest folks who genuinely support them, not knowing the real PETA)

[iGary]

Of course not.

:confused: I don't see what you're getting at?

The guy *should* lose his job.

While I am all for free-speech, and believe anyone deserves the right to think/feel/say whatever they like, that cannot be done without consequence.

A man whose job it is to bring peace to a community and uphold dignitity and respect while protecting people of his community, cannot be part of a clan whose purpose it is to hate and belittle members of communities. The state has every right to remove him of his position.

It's pretty much along the lines of hiring a known child molester to be a babysitter.

You can't end hate while babying those who aim to prolong it.

(I'll also add that any comments about PETA being "civily disobedient" in their actions is far from the truth. Being a non-profit organization, their tax records are required to be public. Anyone who thinks PETA is a great organization should read those records. Doing so would show you that a) The majority of the money they receive from their supporters is being sent to a known terrorist's father (the father is not part of PETA) who openly admits he gives it to his son, who has been arrested numerous times for bombings. B) They kill more animals than they save. PETA puts down roughly 75% of all animals that they supposedly "rescue." The organization is a sham, and they make fools of the honest folks who genuinely support them, not knowing the real PETA)

Oh, well you last quote sounded like you supported the re-hiring.

Sorry if I misunderstood. :o

[Josh]

Oh, well you last quote sounded like you supported the re-hiring.

Sorry if I misunderstood. :o

No biggie :)

(I was just saying that it isn't uncommon for officers to descriminate, and the police force was upset because he was hating for another "team" than just the police force alone)

[whocares]

My only comment would be: the KKK should not be legal. Any organisation that promotes discrimination against people based on their colour, religion, sexual orientation or beliefs should be illegal.

Bear in mind we have a slightly different interpretation of free speech where I come from. :rolleyes:

[Josh]

My only comment would be: the KKK should not be legal. Any organisation that promotes discrimination against people based on their colour, religion, sexual orientation or beliefs should be illegal.

Bear in mind we have a slightly different interpretation of free speech where I come from. :rolleyes:
I'll agree - but at what point do discrimination and pride differ?

Discrimination against black people or non-white races: Bad.

White pride: Could go either way, most would relate it to negative contexts.

Asian pride: seems to be typical and acceptable in every way.

The lines are too fuzzy for me.

[pseudobrit]

If there's a slippery slope with regard to your personal life versus your work life, we're already going down the hill.
We already make certain allowances for jobs that can be sensitive, we allow the government to peak into the lives of people who request a security clearance and we allow drug testing where necessary.

Hell, if you apply to be a cashier most places you must pass a piss test.

[KingYaba]

If the cop's personal life does not negatively interfere with his duties, what is the problem?

[pseudobrit]

If the cop's personal life does not negatively interfere with his duties, what is the problem?

He's an employee and his employers hold all the cards. That's how it works for everyone else, that's how it should work for a man who's publicly an active racist.

[iGary]

If the cop's personal life does not negatively interfere with his duties, what is the problem?

How could you tell?

[mactastic]

If the cop's personal life does not negatively interfere with his duties, what is the problem?
A good example is the piss test, as noted. Should an employer have a right to know if I'm using drugs in my off time? The courts have decided that they do. I don't necessarily agree, but such is the law. My understanding (admittedly limited) is that this is based on the right of the employer to do things that reduce their risk of incurring liability (ie. they get lower insurance rates if they piss-test their employees). So if my employer can stipulate that I stay off the drugs, what is to prevent them from telling me that I can't be a hater as well?

[KingYaba]

If you take drugs on your own time, and doesn't inhibit your ability to succesfully do your job, there ought not to be a problem. I'm very against government mandated drug tests. Employers can only if their employees agree to drug screening. (Some have you sign a waiver saying you submit to screening when you take up the job) If others don't have you sign a waiver, and make you take a piss test, then we have a problem.

Someone is bound to say "What if an airline pilot gets loaded before a flight." I'll just point to how what he did in his personal life is seriously inhibiting him to succesfully operate a plane. That is when the employer should step in. Secondly pilots sign waivers saying "I agree to drug testing while employed for _____ airline."

How could you tell?
Untill that cop's actions while on the clock breaks any law, policy then he shouldn't be fired. But who's to say an active racist can simply put away his/her feelings aside while on duty. It' hard to believe, but we must give the benifit of the doubt untill proven otherwise.

[hulugu]

If the cop's personal life does not negatively interfere with his duties, what is the problem?
Untill that cop's actions while on the clock breaks any law, policy then he shouldn't be fired. But who's to say an active racist can simply put away his/her feelings aside while on duty. It' hard to believe, but we must give the benifit of the doubt untill proven otherwise.

A personal life is playing golf on the weekends, joining a (former?) terrorist group is an entirely different matter.

Furthermore, can a doctor also be a Christian Scientist? Can an Air Marshall be a member of the PLO? How about my TSA agent?

If we assume that piss tests are okay because of an insurance question, then wouldn't firing an officer who belonged to the KKK also be a way to eliminate the eventual civil rights lawsuit for the state?

The kind of internal schism required to be both a Klan member and a police officer is at the very best suspect and at the very worst dangerous. He has to choose between the two.

[mactastic]

If you take drugs on your own time, and doesn't inhibit your ability to succesfully do your job, there ought not to be a problem. I'm very against government mandated drug tests. Employers can only if their employees agree to drug screening. (Some have you sign a waiver saying you submit to screening when you take up the job) If others don't have you sign a waiver, and make you take a piss test, then we have a problem.

Someone is bound to say "What if an airline pilot gets loaded before a flight." I'll just point to how what he did in his personal life is seriously inhibiting him to succesfully operate a plane. That is when the employer should step in. Secondly pilots sign waivers saying "I agree to drug testing while employed for _____ airline."
If you noticed, I agree with you here that employers don't have carte blanche to dictate what you do in your free time. What I'm more interested in is the debate within the framework of the courts decision to allow employers the right to control their own liability - which is essentially what this comes down to. All notions of right or wrong aside, do you -- as an employer, not an employee -- have the right to control your liability exposure? Of course to some extent you do, but when that control infringes on someone else's right to free speech, who's right trumps who's? Does a child's right to safety trump a teacher's right to fantasize about sex with children? Does an addict's right to shoot up trump an employers right to cheaper insurance? Does a traveler's right to safety trump a pilot's right to free association in the Muslim Brotherhood?

It's where rights come into conflict that things get interesting.

[zap2]

My only comment would be: the KKK should not be legal. Any organisation that promotes discrimination against people based on their colour, religion, sexual orientation or beliefs should be illegal.



As much i hate what the people are saying(truely i hate racist with a passion), i think it needs to be allowed to be said, simply because Free Speech(to me) is allowing people to say what ever they want, not matter how much you disagree. However if they start to attack people over their views...i'd go with the cops to stop them(if they let me, but i doubt they would).

[atszyman]

Let him keep his job but partner him with an officer who's a member of the Black Panthers. Let them negotiate to a fair position in job related situations...:)

If they fight too frequently or vehemently to do their jobs effectively you have a reason to fire both of them that doesn't tread on their free speech rights.

[pseudobrit]

If you take drugs on your own time, and doesn't inhibit your ability to succesfully do your job, there ought not to be a problem. I'm very against government mandated drug tests. Employers can only if their employees agree to drug screening. (Some have you sign a waiver saying you submit to screening when you take up the job) If others don't have you sign a waiver, and make you take a piss test, then we have a problem.

There's a big difference where "ought not" and "is" are. Employers have the right to not hire or to fire you for not consenting to drug screening. If you have a problem with that, you can find a job that does not require drug screening.

[StarbucksSam]

I do not trust anyone in any kind of hate group to carry a gun, write a speeding ticket, or uphold the law. Ever.

Sorry! He has the right to say what he wants - but that doesn't mean that the world can't point and scream "douchebag" and that he is protected from employment discrimination.

[takao]

hmm i don't see why being member of the KKK should _not_ be a reason to fire somebody ...