Burnt Orange ReportNews, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas |
![]() |
November 26, 2003Free the hard drives!By Jim DallasI see where they are coming from, but frankly I think this is "liberal guilt" run amok -- CNN: 'Master' and 'slave' computer labels unacceptable, officials say
For the record, a "slave" in computer jargon is defined as "a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another." (Alternative definition). It is not a direct reference to slavery (as it existed in the Untied States) nor does it impugne the descendants of slaves. It's things like this that undermines the credibility of institutions who have, in the past, had reasonably progressive positions on race. It's a juicy target for those backwards people who haven't gotten around to accepting that the South lost the Civil War (indeed, one is tempted to say "it's too good to be true" -- except this is true, according to Snopes.com).Being sensitive to others in the way that we talk and write is a noble enterprise, but, "discretion," as they say, "is the better part of valor." Posted by Jim Dallas at November 26, 2003 03:47 PM | TrackBackComments
This is certainly not an isolated example of PC run amok, Jim - and it's even worse when people are unjustly demonized. Excuse the length of the following, but there is no permalink: ***** University President John T. Casteen, III issued a statement yesterday responding to allegations that a Medical Center employee used a racial epithet during a conversation at a recent staff meeting, calling the usage "offensive" and "insulting." . . . In an e-mail sent to a black faculty e-mail list, History Prof. Julian Bond, national chair of the NAACP, called for the employee to make a public apology and take sensitivity training. "My first impulse is that this should be a dismissible infraction--but free speech protections I hold dear tell me that shouldn't be so," Bond wrote, adding that the administration "ought to disavow such language." "The University expects all members of the University community to be alert to the rights and dignity of all our people and also alert to racial and other insults," said Casteen in his statement. So what did the employee say that was so offensive? R. Edward Howell, CEO of the medical center, reports it was "something like this: 'I can't believe in this day and age that there's a sports team in our nation's capital named the Redskins. That is as derogatory to Indians as having a team called Niggers would be to blacks.' " In other words, the "offender" used a politically incorrect word in the course of expressing a very PC sentiment. But that's not good enough. Political correctness, like other totalitarian ideologies, demands absolute purity. Well, considering we don't have a verbatim statement here, since it seems like the exact wording is under debate from the people who were at the staff meeting over that. I can see how one might say "something like" that (that means the same thing) in a way that would sound (on the surface) fairly offensive. e.g. "If they can offend Indians by having a team called the Redskins, then why can't they offend blacks by having a team called the N******?" It really depends on exactly how the guy phrased it, whether it was offensive or not. So, I don't know, Bond might have a point and since we're not privy to the exact wording, I'm not going to comment, other than saying it's usually a bad idea to use the n-word in mixed company. I don't really have anything against "political correctness" or whatever you want to call it. It bothers me when people act objectively stupid. Posted by: Jim D at November 26, 2003 09:50 PMIt really depends on exactly how the guy phrased it, whether it was offensive or not. ???? The context was in revulsion at the team name of the "redskins" and saying that no one would stand for a team today to be named the "N-word". The exact phrasing is not at issue - she was SUPPORTING THE PC POSITION AGAINST THE TEAM NAME OF THE REDSKINS...yet, despite her intent, was reflexively pilloried by the PC inquisition...nearly threatened with the loss of her job! And you're worried about John Ashcroft?? Posted by: Mark Harden at November 28, 2003 10:18 AMBut Jim's got a point. The only person we're hearing from in this story is the CEO of the Medical Center. Doesn't it make sense that the CEO's gonna stick up for the employee? What did the offended party say the employee said? If that's truly what he said, then yeah, that's overreaction (though there are some people who are offended at any use of that word, no matter the context). Posted by: Brady at November 28, 2003 10:17 PMPost a comment
|
|