When Is Speech Bigoted?
Posted by Mitch Mitchell on Aug 6, 2012
I've talked often on this blog about my belief that there's a need for people to watch their language in the workplace. To whit, here's a short list of posts I've written on the subject:
The Misunderstanding Of The First Amendment
Intentional Unintentional Freudian Slips
Consequences For Actions Again
 via Compfight |
It is in that vein that I introduce this topic. A couple of days ago on Facebook someone asked this interesting question: "Why is it that when someone says something you don't like it's considered bigoted, but when you say something supporting the other side it's free speech?"
Other people got to the question before me and their statements were all about a particular incident and admonitions as to why they felt free to say what they'd said. My response was something quite different; I said:
All opinions are the same in that others evaluate them. They're always in the eye of the beholder; that's just how it goes. So, if a number of people judge an opinion as either open-minded or bigoted, majority rules. Doesn't mean it's necessarily always right, but it's the reality.
The response is simple; the aftermath isn't always so simple. The thing about words is that most of the time once they're out there it's too late to try to do anything about it. Utter the N-word in the wrong place and time and you're pretty much done. Make a negative statement against any group that someone considers oppressed and you might need to start looking for another job.
What people say in their personal lives might be abhorrent, but most of them at least are saying it to people who agree with their position for the most part. That doesn't make it any better, but when you're among those who agree with you it's never considered bigoted speech.
That is, until there's someone in the group that has a horse in the race. Let it be someone with a grandchild of mixed heritage or a child that happens to be homosexual, or even a friend or relative who was killed because of someone who abused their Constitutional rights and suddenly the majority is fighting the one person who sees them all as bigoted. And what can these people say except "sorry"?
So that's personal life. When it happens in the workplace, suddenly a whole new thing starts taking place. Problems could start to arise when people don't want to work with each other. It could create a hostile environment. It could make the office a terrible place to be, and it might never get resolved. When people are forced to be with each other and they don't want to, it's volatile, and no leader wants to work with that on a daily basis.
When is speech bigoted in the workplace? When one person takes offense. It doesn't take a majority; all it takes is one person to be offended and that's when problems start. It's up to leaders to set the tone for how everyone else behaves. If written rules need to be scripted, do so. However, it's best if everyone adheres to being circumspect in what they have to say because it's the right thing to do in the wrong place to be boorish.
Or bigoted; no one likes being accused of it, but it takes some behavioral control and some forethought not to cross lines.
Mitch,
This blog immediately caught my eye because of something I recently experienced on FB. One of my followers posted something about the Chick Fil A SUPPORT MARRIAGE thing and the conversation then went to some negative comments about President Obama. One of her followers said something contrary to her post and an argument started brewing between them.
After reading the posts, I jumped in and offered my two cents and then told her based on her comments, I was de-friending her. It wasn’t so much that she had an opposing view because I do respect people with differing views but she was so VICIOUS in her attack and it was racist in my opinion.
I told her she had the right to express her views but I didn;t have to be a party to it so “keep being the Christian you claim to be and God Bless” and CLICK.
Before I de-friended her, she commented back saying she was confused by my comments and was just stating her opinion of how she felt the country has strayed so far away from its moral and ethical values because of Obama.
Sadly, she didn’t view her speech as bigoted and after looking thru her friends list, I saw I was one of less than a handful of minorities on her list—which makes me question why I friended her in the first place.
Beverly, I feel you. In 2008 I dropped a lot of people on Twitter because I saw things that just made me cringe. It’s okay not to like President Obama, but some of what was being said went beyond that. I had to stop myself over the weekend from responding to something that another person wrote on the page of a friend of mine that lives out of the country because I just didn’t want to go there.
I’m connected to maybe 3 people whose overall opinions are different than mine on political issues and that’s enough for me. Some people say that you can’t be open minded if everyone you connect with thinks like you. I find that to be untrue because even people who agree with my positions disagree with me on specifics. That’s enough of a battle I feel.
And it’s for reasons above that I say when it comes to business people need to remember that their personal opinions aren’t shared by everyone, and unless they don’t care or feel strongly enough about it they might need to think about withholding that information for some people. Thanks for your great comment.
I think you wrote a very thoughtful discourse on this subject, Mitch. After reading it, I am very grateful to work from home because if I had to work in an environment like I see of my FB wall, I would probably be miserable. At least with FB, I can log-off and think about the things I read before making a hasty reply. I can give myself time to thoughtfully consider the other person’s opinion. IRL, I may not be as restrained (unless I have my own office and I can go sit quietly to ponder the situation). That being said, I find myself struggling lately with voicing my own opinion and risking the ire of others, or keeping silent and not making waves. Which is the more authentic position? Or better, more prudent?
First Kim, thanks for inspiring the post. Second, authenticity is based on action, not thoughts. If you’re normally a prudent person, that’s your authenticity. I go both ways depending on the situation. I’ll call out intolerance almost every time I see it, but on FB I withhold more often if it’s on someone else’s thread, especially if that person is from another country and doesn’t quite understand us.
With that said, I think it all comes down to what you’re ready to deal with. Very few people consider their words as bigoted or insensitive, and calling them out on it more often than not puts them on the defensive than makes them think about what they said. If you know someone might be willing to listen, take your shot. If you think it’s going to eventually devolve into something with no resolution, it might be better to pass. In any case, if you state your position then leave, nothing wrong with that either. Thanks for sharing your thoughts here.
Mitch, the age of enlightenment has yet to reach the darkest corners of the human mind – mine included. I don’t know enough about social science to ascribe bigotry to anything meaningful but, at the very least, the point you made about speech “behind closed doors” was very insightful. It’s all fine until one of your own disagrees.
As for the workplace, I recall a horrible double-standard from my experience at the Philadelphia Police Department. Sworn personnel stuck together no matter what. We civilians didn’t stand a chance of having those potty-mouthed officers disciplined. On the other hand, we were suspended left and right for the most trivial infractions – words spoken in anger – that, coming from the mouths of cops, was considered workaday language.
By far, the most offensive behavior to me was what I called presumptive bigotry. That’s your tee-shirt wearers, with slogans convicting people in the court of public opinion. It’s also the guy who wants to bomb Iraq and “turn it into a giant glass parking lot.”
One co-worker, in particular, was so racist that I couldn’t stand to be in the same room with him. (He was a tee-shirt wearer – despite directives forbidding such offensive apparel.) Unfortunately, the supervisors all yucked it up with him!
Sure, we could have pursued matters with the City’s EEOC office. But, like you said, the culture of the office is dictated by the leaders, not the iron fist of government.
Cheers,
Mitch
Thank you for sharing your story Mitch. You know, things like this happen all the time and yet people think they’re either made up stories or stories that have been enhanced to sound worse than they are. This is a case where the ruling majority is incorrect and someone within the majority has to be ready to step forward and say “this has to stop”. Unfortunately that doesn’t happen often enough, which manes you appreciate those people who actually have stepped forward in history when they didn’t have to for others.
Mitch your articles are thought provoking. A bigot usually knows his words are offensive or at least they offend others.
Many times people feel safe among their cronies in the workplace.
You are right to speak against people who disrespect other people, but I would be careful trying to speak rationally to irrational people.
Michael, that’s a great statement, and in general I follow exactly what you’ve said here. The only time I don’t hold back so much is when it comes to race; it’s one I just can’t let go, being a diversity trainer as well. If one isn’t willing to stand up for a principle that touches them deeply then how can anyone ever trust that person as a leader? Still, time and place are always important as well.
Mitch: great post. As a college student, I got a summer job working for a business downtown. I was politically active on campus and had a couple of the buttons on my backpack that you see around campuses: “support this, oppose that.” I was told to take the buttons off or not bring may backpack to work. Why? They gave me a reason that even my sophomoric political mind had to admit was legitimate: What if one of our customers doesn’t support what you are promoting? We don’t want to lose customers.
It was nothing personal and I learned a powerful lesson–the business world must often be kept separate from your private world.
Good stuff Phil, on both comments; you must have had that extra thought you’d wanted to get in there. lol Bigotry is strong in America, but it’s not really an American problem, it’s a world problem. I’m not religious, but those who are might think some comments I make here and there are bigoted towards them. They may or may not be right, but the thing is that one has to weigh when and where to make a stand and then be ready for whatever the outcome might be. If a person utters a word accidentally, you might forgive them for it but you never forget it, and that will change the relationship in some way forever.
I’ve also long maintained that the term bigoted should be used instead of the term racist when referring to personal comments and actions. Racism defines a set of power relationships within society that maintains white privilege over other races.
It doesn’t refer to the nasty comments that narrow-minded folks make about others. All whites benefit from the racism of our society–but not all whites are bigoted (although some surely are.) Other racial groups suffer due to American racism. Members of these groups may also be bigoted towards others.