Conversations about race continue, courtesy this time of the presidential campaign.
First, let’s review. It’s not ok to have a picture of a noose on a magazine cover. Next, it’s ok to have a picture of LeBron James looking a lot like King Kong on a magazine cover. And now, it’s not ok to refer to a couple of African-American kids playing in a tree as monkeys. (Click here and here.)
An Illinois woman who was a delegate for Senator Barack Obama was forced to relinquish this position, because she made a racially insensitive comment. This is how it went down.
She approached two black children playing in a tree next to her house and being supervised by their parents. She told the children to get out of the tree. According to the former delegate, she was concerned about the children’s safety and about damage to the small magnolia tree they were playing in. One of the parents told her to mind her own business. She responded, “The tree is not there for them to be climbing in there like monkeys.” The parents called the cops who gave the former delegate a $75 ticket for disorderly conduct. She says she will fight the ticket and that she meant nothing racial by her comment.
I’m still waiting for someone to help me out with all this. A noose has racial overtones, no doubt. Does this mean it can never be depicted for any purpose? LeBron James was clearly depicted as King Kong on the cover of Vogue. Not a problem? Now we have the monkey caper. Is monkey a racist term, if it is used toward an African-American, even if the person using the term is supporting an African-American for president?
Comments welcome, if not desperately needed, because when employers call me about language and symbols being used in the workplace, I need to be able to tell them what to do. I’m sorry to be confused. Maybe I’m just dense. Can you help me?
2 responses so far ↓
1 Jonathan Kroner, JD, MBA // May 30, 2008 at 9:32 am
As lawyers we wish we could give our clients bright line advice and counsel them with “these words/images are taboo …” but that’s just not the situation.
Context matters and some of the context is observable and empirical — where it was said, when it was said by who it was said and some of the context is subjective — what meaning was given by the recipient, what is the cultural background of the recipient.
As an aside, as HR professionals know too well, some employees will seek compensation for perceived wrongs even when there’s no cause of action. On the other hand, as HR professionals also know but mostly ignore, some employees will not complain even if they have a bona fide cause of action.
When I used to handle mostly plaintiff’s employment litigation my job, in part, was to screen out the former, and for my opt-in FLSA case, figure out the latter.
I discuss this a bit here http://jonathankroner.com/main/page_hr.html, but I would be interested in seeing who else has put some thought into these subjects.
Jonathan Kroner, Esq.
ps. B/t/w–Great blog! Thank you.
2 John Phillips // May 30, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Good points. Thanks for weighing in. On Saturdays, I do a post called “Other Blogs.” I’ve included in this post for May 31 a reference to your above comment and the link you put in the comment. Thanks again.
Leave a Comment