To Create a “Fairer” Workplace, Start by Treating ALL Workers as Equals

Chief Justice John Roberts famously said, “To stop racial discrimination, we must simply STOP discriminating (counting) by race.”

In recent years there have been dozens of lawsuits centered around race and gender, many of them directly impacting the Fire Service.

In many ways these lawsuits have transformed the workplace. The old rules and old saws (appeals to MORE and BETTER training and strong leadership) simply DO NOT work. Many sexual harassers, even sexual assaulters are well-educated, many are in supervisory positions, in fact, in today’s workplace, some of them are even female!

None of that should be at all surprising, considering that we had a President of the United States (Bill Clinton), who in ANY other job, would’ve been charged with sexual harassment, and perhaps much worse. The mere appearance of impropriety (like the massive power differential between a supervisor and a subordinate, let alone the President of the United States and a young intern) would be enough to force a Corporate or Municipal leader out of that position and possibly into prison.

However, the working world STILL suffers from a plethora of arcane and outdated Victorian fantasies, especially about men and women. Too many men still hold to outdated, wrong-headed and chauvinistic views about males and females. Treating women as perpetual victims not only reeks of paternalism, but it locks women into the “damsel in distress” mode, that all too often has no bearing in reality.

The TRUTH About Men & Women

Women are NOT helpless. They are no more prone to victimization then males are, and they are also no LESS prone to be predators, despite the fact that men and women generally choose different methods of predation.

No less a person than Alan Dershowitz noted the disparities in actions and consequences for female predators; While “women in general account for only about 10 percent of defendants charged with all murders...for all spousal murders, women accounted for more than 40 percent of defendants. And "among black marital partners, wives were just about as likely to kill their husbands as husbands were to kill their wives."

Not surprisingly, when it comes to parents who kill their children, mothers kill more often than fathers.

The real headline of this report, therefore, is that women kill almost as often as men do in the context of all family murders, though men much more often kill strangers - nearly always other men.

The other shocker in this report is that husbands who kill their wives are not treated more leniently than men who kill strangers, despite the media myth to the contrary...” the “data dramatically undercuts the myth that husbands who kill their wives are treated more leniently than wives who kill their husbands. The available evidence points overwhelmingly in the opposite direction, Wives who kill their husbands were acquitted in 12.9 percent of the cases studied, while husbands who kill their wives were acquitted in only 1.4 percent of the cases. Women who were convicted of killing their husbands were sentenced to an average of six years in prison, while men received an average of seventeen years for killing their wives, Sixteen percent of female spousal killers get probation, compared to 1.6 percent for males. By almost every other measure as well, female spousal killers are treated more leniently than male spousal killers.”

The point of all this is that the old male chauvinist paradigm that sees all women as “soft, sweet, gentle creatures,” is not only wrong, but dangerous in today’s workplace. There are rewards (civil jackpots) for predatory “victims” adept at manipulating the system. Frankly, the ONLY way to get those old, outdated and wrong-headed ideas OUT of today’s workplace, is to replace the (mostly) male leadership that still clings to them. NOT (necessarily) by women, but at least by a combination of men and women who DON’T hold to those outdated and corrosive ideas.

For the most part, the men who still hold to such views aren’t bad people at all. In fact, most are well-intentioned, but we all know what’s said about good intentions and the road to hell. It is unfortunate, but ideas and views like these die hard and that’s why the purveyors of these antiquated beliefs simply NEED to be replaced.

Treating ALL Workers EQUALLY is a Legal MANDATE

A few years back the DSNY (NYC’s Dept of Sanitation) sought to reduce the workload (the amount of trash female workers had to pick up each day). The Sanitation Worker’s Union rightly sued the DSNY and the City of NY and the courts correctly ruled that the workloads for ALL workers must be reduced, or otherwise kept the same for ALL workers.

That ruling proved that no worker is entitled to special accommodations. Every worker in every Department is seen as “an interchangeable cog.”

The lawsuits that altered physical standards to get more women on various Fire Departments REJECTED the arguments about male/female differentials in upper body strength and in ignoring them, eliminated the right of supervisory personnel to seek to “minimize” such “nonexistent” strength differentials.

THAT is the very essence of today’s “disparate impact” rulings. They have NOT ruled that “various disparities exist, but are considered superfluous,” INSTEAD they’ve ruled that NO such disparities exist.

In cases in which written exams were challenged based on their “disparate impacts,” the courts DID NOT rule that such differentials exist, but are NOT important, but instead, that the tests utilized were flawed and that no actual disparities were recognized by the courts.

That’s a vital distinction because it makes clear that EVERY person who gets on a Fire Department can be subjected to the most rigorous physical and cognitive standards in training (at the Fire Academy) and in subsequent on-the-job drills and outside classes.

A supervisor has neither the legal authority, nor rationale to treat different workers (male/female, black/white, etc.) differently. In fact, such actions amount to “disparate treatment” (or “deliberate/intentional discrimination”) and can be civilly actionable.

Sexual Harassment, Sexual Assault, Rape and Bullying in the Workplace

In another discussion on LinkedIn, I took issue with another member about both the prevalence and abusiveness of false allegations. In virtually EVERY case, false allegations amount to “bullying,” by a predator masquerading as a victim.

Few EEO Departments take this form of bullying at all seriously and that in itself is criminal.

Just how prevalent are false allegations of sexual misconduct? Well, as to rape allegations, several decent studies have been done recently on the frequency of false rape accusations.

“A meta-analysis by Rumney (2006) suggests that between 10-50% of rape allegations are false. Kanin (1994) arrived at an estimate of 40%, using methodology that strikes me as more trustworthy than a simple count of police-recorded ‘malicious accusations’, since many false rape claims are ignored. Kanin’s unique process was as follows:

“Kanin investigated the incidences of false rape allegations made to the police in one small urban community between 1978 and 1987. He states that unlike those in many larger jurisdictions, this police department had the resources to “seriously record and pursue to closure all rape complaints, regardless of their merits.” He further states each investigation “always involves a serious offer to polygraph the complainants and the suspects” and “the complainant must admit that no rape had occurred. She is the sole agent who can say that the rape charge is false.”

The number of false rape allegations in the studied period was 45; this was 41% of the 109 total complaints filed in this period. The researchers verified, whenever possible, for all of the complainants who recanted their allegations, that their new account of the events matched the accused’s version of events.”

As a recent article in Slater magazine asked, “What is rape, anyways? Once upon a time it was when a man had sex with a woman even while she was saying ‘No.’

“Today, there are many articles that argue that a “weak yes” can also be considered a “No”. Feminists are actively working to re-define the definition of consent to make it as subjective and open to manipulation as possible. The days of “No Means No” are long gone, replaced by a new paradigm of “If I Wake Up and Feel Uncomfortable With What Happened, Well I Guess I Must Have Been Feeling No.” ”

This data is vital because it highlights another form of bullying that has largely gone unnoticed and unresolved.

Thankfully, new changes in technology are also quickly transforming our workplace as well and some of these technologies might very well make dealing with such incidents a whole lot easier.

DEALING WITH Rape, Workplace Violence and Bullying...

While maintaining our empathy for anyone claiming “victim’s status,” we must ALSO maintain a healthy skepticism. That skepticism SHOULD BE heightened considerably when a “victim” refuses to file an official report, or file criminal charges.

If a serious physical assault occurs between members, we expect both Departmental and criminal charges to be filed. ALL actual sexual assaults should be considered serious. IF an individual who claims to be a “victim” refuses to come forward, that’s indicative of either a pervasive atmosphere of bullying, or that perhaps the alleged “victim,” is the actual predator, or “bully.”

As you’ve probably noticed, we now live in a virtual surveillance state, where private phone conversations can be made public, where individuals can digitally record the events of the day on a wide array of easily concealable devices and in at least 37 states, it is perfectly legal for any individual to record others, so long as ONE person (the recorder) is aware that the event is being recorded.

In short, “privacy,” as we once knew it, is functionally obsolete. In fact the very term “privacy” has been transformed today with the introduction of ubiquitous camera. I routinely have 3 video cams set up in my car alone (front-view, rear-view and side view). My home is ringed with surveillance cameras, many that monitor the street in front of my home and I have more such cameras set up inside my home. I act accordingly. I have NO expectation of privacy once I step outside my front door. My neighbor has every right to record everything he/she sees, whether through mobile cameras, either on mobile phones, OR emerging technology like Google Glass.

Moreover, surveillance cameras actually reduce illicit action BY reducing that illusion of privacy and, believe me, “privacy in a public space” today, is very much an illusion. More than that, such images demonstrably illustrate what happened and who was a fault and given the inherent murkiness of sexual, racial and other charges today, nothing could be more vital than getting to the bottom of who is who in any given situation.

There will ALWAYS be bigots and sexists everywhere in society and sadly “better leadership,” and “more training, better education,” etc. WILL NOT change the human condition.

Interdiction is the ONLY real way to combat such problems. Such interdiction requires getting to the bottom of “who’s who,” which party is at fault – Is there a violation here, or a false report – and the most effective and reliable way to do that is via surreptitious surveillance. The charge that such surveillance is an “after-the-fact” approach is utter nonsense. A verbal/written “victim’s statement” or report is an “after-the-fact” response, while an actual real-time video recording of an event gives an immediate (“in the moment”) documentation of the event in question.

One thing we all must be clear on is the days of us saying things like, “Why would a ‘victim’ lie,” SHOULD be over. Countless incidents over the past few decades have proven conclusively that not only has there been a plethora of false rape allegations, but false racial incidents, or hoaxes, as well. These are complex issues and are NOT open to simple, straightforward approaches...they DON’T work.

When looking to deal with such issues, the FACTS must guide us and thankfully, the ubiquitous surveillance camera may yet provide us with the BEST possible tool for doing that.



JMK

Against a New Apartheid....

The 1978 Bakke Decision had ostensibly ended the segregation of standards that some folks had tried to instill with Affirmative Action’s preferential policies throughout the 1970s.

After that decision outright quotas were legally banned, although through the 1980s and into the 1990s various apartheid-like schemes that sought to utilize racial preferences in lieu of quotas were challenged and scaled back.

Still, with each new challenge scaling back their uses, new schemes to utilize race to favor “protected races” at the expense of other races (most notably Asians and whites) came into play.

Much, if not ALL of this was/IS rooted in a “liberal” paternalism,” that sees blacks are innately incompetent and intellectually inferior and thus unable to compete with other races.

Moreover, this paternalism has no Party boundaries. The current lawsuit against the FDNY, for instance, was initiated by the G W Bush Department of Justice under then Attorney General Alberto Salazar.

In recent years all manner of Civil Service Entry level and promotion exams have been sued over “disparate impact” (differing outcomes between various ethnicities). In the case of the FDNY’s Entrance Exams, its written has been dumbed down to such a point (a 7^th grade reading level) that it’s hardly a “test” any more.

Regardless, due to the significant “disparate impact” (more blacks do poorly than whites) the test has been sued.

BUT this is hardly an isolated example of this new apartheid. In Chicago, eleven Chicago police officers are suing the city over claims they were demoted from Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s security detail simply because they aren't black.

According to published reports one Police commander told one of the plaintiffs that, "The color of your skin is your sin," when that plaintiff asked why he was being demoted and the black officers were not, according to the suit.

The suit, filed Monday (August 13^th, 2012) in U.S. District Court in Illinois, contains some explosive accusations that the officers had their civil rights violated after Emanuel took office last year.

In another recent case, a federal jury ruled in favor of a former Las Vegas deputy fire chief Friday in his racial discrimination lawsuit against the city and his former supervisor.

According to that complaint filed in U.S. District Court, former fire deputy chief Ken Riddle had worked for the city of Las Vegas since 1978 and was fired in August 2006.

The jury found that his race was a "determinative factor" in his termination. Riddle, a white man, sued for damages, including lost income, employee benefits, emotional distress and mental anguish.

David Washington, a black man, was fire chief and Riddle's supervisor. The response filed by Washington and the city denied the charges.

Riddle's attorney Mary Chapman said the jury ruled in favor of Riddle and awarded him $365,000 in compensatory damages.

The jury also charged $25,000 in punitive damages against Washington, which according to Chapman, federal law only allows punitive damages to be awarded if malice is shown.

How much more proof do those who remain “undecided” about this issue need, before deciding that this IS about defending the principles of “Equality of Opportunity” (EVERYONE being judge by the SAME standards) and “Equality before the Law” (the very concept of “protected/favored groups violates this precept)?

This is not an area in which “reasonable people can agree to disagree,” this is about proponents of racial preferences INSISTING on an apartheid-like policy that discriminates against whites, Asians and puts high-quality applicants from ALL backgrounds at a distinct disadvantage.

It is imperative that all Americans of good faith and traditional values stand up to oppose this new apartheid, this modern-day segregation of standards, this misguided celebration of mediocrity.

JMK

Paternalism Fuels “Racism”

Liberalism tends to see blacks as incompetents who can't possibly compete on an equal level and need paternalistic "help" from "enlightened white liberals" to get by.

That kind of paternalism is rooted in a confirmed sense of black inferiority. Those blacks who agree with white liberals on that are so beaten down and so convinced of their own innate inferiority that they gladly accept that liberal paternalism. It's really pretty sad.

A recent incident at UCLA’s Medical Program and a lawsuit by a physician there, Dr Christian Head has again brought that issue to the forefront. (SEE: http://wavenewspapers.com/opinion/article_b8035aa8-94ce-11e1-ac61-0019bb30f31a.html)

Without question, Dr. Head appears a very sympathetic figure, BUT....he has been unable to find the alleged slides he describes. (SEE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eMwYtycb_I&feature=share)

Even more problematic is that, according to University spokesman Phil Hampton, "The university "has investigated this matter and found that the evidence does not substantiate the claims of unlawful activity"...."Dr. Head was directed to take up the issues with the Academic Senate committee charged with resolving faculty allegations of mistreatment, and thus far he has declined to do so," Hampton continued.

So Dr. Head himself has refused to avail himself of the option of taking the matter up with the Academic Senate Committee, which doesn't bode well for Dr. Head's claims.

Worse still, is the fact that according to all involved, these "slide shows at the graduation events are typically a roast of faculty members."

Absent the plaintiff (that's Dr. Head) finding those slides, there seems to be little to no evidence supporting his claims.

I'm a DEMOCRAT. I've remained a lifelong Democrat, albeit a Conservative ("Zell Miller Democrat," for the most part) all my life.

However, I'm NOT a liberal. I far too much respect for the dignity and abilities of other people to ever endorse that kind of paternalism.

Race-based preferences are rooted in the view (promulgated primarily by liberal whites) that blacks cannot possibly compete on an equal level and will never improve based on their own efforts.

In the piece on Dr. Head, it's noted that just 3 African-Americans made it into UCLA's Medical program (a program of 200). I have very little doubt that IF all applicants were admitted purely based on grades and test scores there'd be even fewer blacks, somewhat less whites and more Asians in that program...that's just the way things tend to break down at this point.

What's the "liberal" solution?

Admitting blacks on a LOWER criteria...any black with a 3.0 GPA would be eligible for consideration.

Whites and Asians are (and would continue to be) only considered with a 3.75 GPAs or better.

THAT'S paternalism...rooted in the view that blacks will never be able to compete on an equal level. That's a very damning critique of blacks and those blacks who support such preferences ARE buying into that, whether they attempt to rationalize it in other ways or not.

One article on the Dr. Head lawsuit DID shed some additional light on Dr. Head's conflicts. "...Dr. Marilene Wang, a full professor who supervises Dr. Head, was dismissive of his qualifications and repeatedly referred to him as “an affirmative action hire” and “part of the university’s affirmative action program” in conversations with medical colleagues despite his training, awards and certification in his speciality...[Dr Head's] "lawsuit states that Dr. Wang said Dr. Head “and doctors like him — who are African-American, were the reason for failed hospitals like King Drew"....Wang reportedly issued Head nothing but negative supervisor and peer evaluations until the medical school’s dean, the late William F. Friedman, ordered her to stop in accordance with the 2004 Equal Employment Opportunity Resolution enacted after she called Head an “affirmative action hire.”
http://wavenewspapers.com/opinion/article_b8035aa8-94ce-11e1-ac61-0019bb30f31a.html

The most vital questions are, (1) DID Dr. Head get into that program under preferential (less competitive policies) and (2) Was his work under Dr Wang sub-par?

If so, then Dr. Wang is entirely justified in BOTH her opposition to such preferential policies that allow sub-standard students to become physicians and her antagonism toward Dr. Head.

Abigail Thernstrom correctly notes, "I think there's a running assumption through all of the writing on the left about racial issues that, were it not for racism, you would have random distribution of racial and ethnic groups in education, employment, contracting, elections — whatever you're looking at. But the notion of random distribution of blacks, Latinos, Jews, Armenians or whomever is absurd. It's indifferent to the reality of society. That's just not how people distribute themselves."

It's highly doubtful that Dr. Marilene Wang is motivated by any racial bigotry. In fact, generally the bigotry/racism between blacks and Asians seems largely one-sided, blacks exhibiting a pronounced bigotry toward Asians NOT the reverse.

Considering how the Trayvon Martin case seems to be unraveling, with new evidence and witness accounts that put the attack at Zimmerman's car, with Trayvon Martin as the initial aggressor, it's best not to take mere "charges" as gospel. We saw how tragically that worked out with "the Duke University Rape Hoax" back in '08.

How many people, including at least 30 instructors at Duke University initially supported those scurrilous and unfounded charges by the two “exotic dancers,” until those Duke students were ultimately were forced to prove their own innocence (which they DID) in violation of due process....and, in the end, taking both a rather generous settlement from Duke University, as well as D.A. Nifong's law license!

All of those tragedies were exacerbated by liberal paternalism that sees grievances were none actually exist.

The Week That Disco Died

With the passing of Donna Summer (lung cancer) at 63 y/o and Robin Gibb (colon and live cancer) at 62 y/o (the 3^rd of the 4 Gibb brothers to pass on) last week, the two most prominent sounds of the “Disco Era” (Donna Summer & The Bee Gees) were silenced forever.

I was not much of a Disco fan, but then again, I’ve always had two left feet, but the Disco Era was the first musical genre, followed by Punk and Grunge to move music from its hard rock center.

Until the mid to late 1970s, Rock & Roll seemed the be all, end all of contemporary music. Disco was the first genre to move away from that, with its pulsating dance beats.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s WKTU in New York was one of the popular FM radio stations in the Tri-State.

Disco’s reach was so great that it inspired its own backlash by the mid-1980s, the “Disco Sucks” movement.

But both Summer and the Gibb’s were able to move beyond Disco and flourish among dance music fans for decades after. In the Bee Gees case, their soft rock roots had showed their resilience prior to the Disco craze.

After the death of Maurice Gibb in 2003, Barry and Robin went on with the Bee Gee sound.

The passing of Donna Summer and Robin Gibb, doesn’t only represent the passing of a familiar sound, but it marks the passing of an age, especially for the Baby Boomers who came of age during the 1970s.

Slavery and the Spawning of the Age of Piracy

History has a lot of lessons, but a primary one is that every incident or eventuality creates unintended and often unexpected opportunities.

The advent of the European slave trade was one example.

The Europeans were late comers to the slave trade, trailing the Arabs’ Zanzibar trade by a few Centuries.

Short shrift is given to the fact that the initial European slave trade involved the Irish and was part of Cromwell’s attempted and nearly successful extermination of that race.

Throughout the 17^th Century, Ireland saw its population drop from 1.6 million to under 500,000 as England’s war against the Irish proceeded. Not disposed to pass up an opportunity, Cromwell’s forces saw the legions of homeless Irish, many of them women and children dispossessed in the wake of their husband’s and father’s death, were scooped up and shipped to the America’s as slaves NOT “indentured servants.”

Until the early 1700s there were far more Irish slaves in the America’s than there were Africans.

Debtors and others found in the workhouses were often plied with drink to get them to sign on to work onboard slave ships.

Large crews were necessary on the voyage to the Americas to reduce the possibility of any slave revolt, but few were needed on the return trip when the ships were laden with tobacco, sugar and other crops.

The slave-ship seamen’s lives were brutal and often short, as well.

While about 12% of the slaves died in passage from Africa to “The New World,” fully 21% of the crews did, as well. Many more of them were often left stranded penniless in the Americas when the ships returned to Europe. Many of those starved to death, since there was no work available in such slave-based economies.

The Captains of these ships were supreme rulers, in effect, “gods” to their men...their word was law.

Many delighted in inflicting brutal punishments on their crews, often keel-hauling (pulling a man’s body from stem to stern along the bottom of the ship by means of a rope and pulleys) or fastening iron bolts into the mouths of those who complained “too much.”

As luck would have it, this created a fertile opportunity for the new breed of pirates, who’d moved from the ranks of “official Privateers,” under the aegis of various governments, to independent “enemies of all mankind.”

These independent pirates constantly needed an infusion of manpower, given the violent and often short-lived nature of their work. Slave ships became a favorite target of pirates for exactly that reason – to “recruit” their crews.

Often the crews of such ships were more than happy to see their officers punished and often pirates would put such officers “on trial” before their crews.

Most crew members saw a much better chance of survival aboard a pirate ship than with the slave-ships they worked on, making them more than willing recruits.

That’s how Bart Roberts (the most successful pirate in history) was recruited into piracy. He was a reluctant 3^rd Officer on a slave-ship attacked by the pirate Howell Davis’ crew.

They found themselves in need of a navigator and Roberts could read maps and navigate so his skill-set was valuable to the pirates.

When Captain Davis was killed in a battle a short while later, the crew appealed to the reluctant Roberts, a non-drinker and one who did not delight in the violence he’d been immersed in and he accepted.

Throughout the 18^th Century the slave trade fueled the growing pirate menace until the Caribbean became an untenable pirates cove, from which neither American nor European ships were safe.

In that regard, the rise of independent piracy is a testament to unintended consequences and expanding variability.

Atheism and Agnosticism

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) atheism is the disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god, while agnosticism is the view that the existence of anything beyond and behind the natural and material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.

People who don't take enough variables into account, often find themselves confusing the two. Occasionally, some "gnostic atheists" (those who believe "god does NOT exist") seek to include empirical agnostics into their midst by erroneously claiming "Agnosticism is a form of atheism and vice versa." THAT is patently UNTRUE.

Agnostics are empiricists who merely acknowledge that there are some things that appear humanly unknowable. They tend to hold this position because reason compels them to doubt the existence of any specific god/gods, yet they resist calling themselves atheists because they hold to that view tentatively.

Agnosticism is the position counter to Gnosticism - the belief that a human being can possess knowledge about a god. It's an epistemological term - about the possibility of knowledge in regard to 'god' claims - and not a statement about matters of belief. 'Agnostics' hold to the epistemological position that human beings can't actually know anything about something beyond nature, something theists call 'supernatural'. So they believe that there's no way for a human to know anything about a 'god' and there are many theists who agree with agnostics on that.

Theists can be agnostics, in fact, many theists say that they hold to their god belief on faith because they agree that we humans can't know things about the supernatural, or 'god'. Some very famous theologians have agreed that man is limited and that this means that man cannot have 'god knowledge". The list of theologians would include people like Martin Luther or Soren Kierkegaard.

It is this empirical doubt that separates agnostics from both Gnostics AND atheists, who, all too often imply that there is some (“scientific”) reason or some evidence to support the view “God does not exist,” whereas ALL empirical thought leads ONLY to the conclusion that “we DO NOT know.”

What is Expanding Variability?.....

“Expanding Variability,” merely acknowledges the very real conundrum, that the MORE information/data we have, the MORE new (or previously unseen) variables/unknowns we find ourselves faced with. In other words, problems become more complex the closer we look at them.

More data uncovers more variables/unknowns. It DOESN'T create or generate new variables/unknowns, it merely brings into light variables/unknowns that were previously unseen or unconsidered.

This is why so many "experts" are wrong so often.

Most experts were good students and as students (especially in math and physics) we are often given problems that "assume a perfect vacuum," precisely to sidestep the thorny problems that an increasing number of unknowns poses.

UNFORTUNATELY, many such good students take such practices with them into the real world, where unknowns cannot simply be ignored.

But even when we look to take into account as many variables as we're aware of, the more data we input, the more new information we glean, the more variables/unknowns we come across.

it is this "Expanding Variability" that often presents us with the greatest obstacle to solving our problems. It inevitably leads to over-simplification and "sloppy thinking."

I will devote this blog to highlighting instances where expanding variability has stymied some of our "best and brightest" who've operated earnestly and out of "the best of intentions.