In Bari's case, she can be simultaneously in favor of free speech but not want to work someplace where she is incessantly criticized or where she lends her credibility to an institution that is ultimately morally corrupt. There's no contradiction here. Specifically, I don't see anything that supports "she wants her detractors silenced by the law". She asks for company policy with respect to social media harassment to apply to those who harass her as it applies to other cases in which she's not the subject of the harassment. This seems like a pretty reasonable policy and one which isn't especially at odds with free speech ideals. I grant that there's a fine line between "harassing" and "criticizing with appropriate respect", and while I think axe emojis and consistent references to her Jewish identity make this pretty clearly a case of harassment, my opinion doesn't matter--what matters is whether the NYT's own standard for harassment. For example, would the NYT consider it harassment if the target were a black progressive instead of a Jewish liberal?
Further, as far as I can tell, this all centers around things she did in college and I'm of the opinion that people shouldn't be faulted for their college antics. Ibram X. Kendi wrote that white people were literally aliens and Nikole Hannah-Jones wrote that "the white race ... is the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world" and "the descendants of these savage people ... continue to be bloodsuckers in our communities". The had abhorrent views, and now they're gainfully propagating moderately improved views on an international stage. Perhaps she (like many on this forum and elsewhere in the debate) was still trying to understand the difference between "cancellation" and "criticism"?
In any case, to the extent that she participated in any cancellation, she was wrong to do so.
Not sure we read the same letter. Can you support these assertions based on the text?
I’m not sure your mind reading skills are quite up to the job you’ve assigned yourself...
"this behavior" being insults, mobbing and "ax emojis + name", not "disagreement", apparently.
Wouldn't you? And if you don't, why would you draw any line? Why shouldn't it be okay to get beaten up for saying "the wrong thing", it shouldn't be "consequence free speech" after all?
> There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong
I don't think this is referring to curbing any specific opinion or view, but rather her co-workers' interactions with her.
Its entirely appropriate to speak out against, say, the pervasive denial of climate change among evangelicals. That said if you have an evangelical coworker that doesn't believe in climate change, you will still be met with repercussions if you go around calling said co-worker a backwards dumbass and repeatedly post ax emojis next to their name in slack.
Also it is worth pointing out that Weiss's job was to voice opinions. It is entirely different for someone in that role to face backlash for their bad opinions than it is for someone in the role of let's say a mid-level software developer.
A correct statement, but one that skirts around the issue at hand: in this situation the people berating their evangelical coworker are creating a hostile workplace environment and the company is obligated to take actions to remidiate this situation. If the climate denier points out this hostile workplace behavior, they're not censoring any particular view. Only the hostile actions of their co-worker.
While Weiss' high profile position makes it much more likely to receive public scrutiny, she is indeed entitled to the same workplace protections as a mid level software developer. Working as a columnist doesn't absolve a company of their legal responsibility to curb workplace harassment. Your workplace is a captive audience. What is legal for some random person to say to you is not at all the same standard that is applied to co-workers. Weiss calling this behavior out as discrimination is not calling any particular belief illegal, only the treatment towards her by her coworkers.
I can call a co-worker an idiot and a worthless human being relentlessly, all day long. That's not discriminatory in nature. I'm not referring to a protected class like gender, race, or religion. Does it follow that it isn't creating a hostile workplace?
> Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.
So, yes, for it to be a hostile workplace under the laws you're talking about, it would need to be based on one of those aspects, not just because people disagree with her opinions.
A shape with four equal length sides is a quadrilateral. Does it mean that a shape with four sides of unequal lengths isn't quadrilateral?
Put this in a more concrete scenario. You have a co worker that stops by your desk every hour and says, "Joshua you are a worthless idiot and your team is worsened by your presence" and relentlessly bullies you throughout the day. Is this not harassment because it isn't based on a protected class like race or gender."
As I said on your other post, this would not be workplace harassment. It could possibly be criminal harassment, but that is also unlikely, since criminal harassment usually requires threats of violence.
Speech protections in the US are strong. I'm surprised people aren't just telling Weiss to "toughen up". Which to be clear isn't advice I'm giving her, and I empathize with her discomfort, but that is the advice given to people very often, so I'm curious as to the inconsistency here. Perhaps it's not as easy to tell someone to toughen up when you see yourself in them.
>Harassment is a form of employment discrimination...
It goes on to say:
>Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.
They are defining harassment as requiring the behavior to be based on a protected class and categorizing it as a subset of discrimination. Therefore if a hostile environment requires harassment, it inherently requires discrimination.
And regardless even if harassment does require discrimination, Weiss has grounds to claim it on the basis of religion.
No she doesn't. The harassment isn't due to her religion, it's due to how she conducts herself as part of her job. (and it doesn't meet the line for harassment anyway, people expressing workplace disagreements isn't harassment, as much as she may want to dress it up).
> "Slg is an idiot and a worthless human being who makes the company worse with his or her presence" that's not harassment?
It could be criminal harassment (but even this is unlikely) it is not, however, workplace harassment. Speech protections in the united states are incredibly broad and protect many forms of assholery. This is not news to many people to have been subject to harassment that isn't legally harassment before.
To elaborate, a workplace certainly could take action on such harassment, as they have the right to associate how they please. But they are also free to not do that. And in fact many people face workplace harassment every day, but have no recourse except to suck it up.
Personally, I absolutely support stronger protections for workers, but they don't exist today.
I have not seen a single instance of Weiss being targeted based on religion and Weiss provided zero examples in the body of her letter. Like Weiss, I am also Jewish. Criticizing a Jewish person's political opinions on the state of Israel is not inherently antisemitism. If you can point out a specific example of Weiss being targeted based on her religion, I would concede that I am wrong.
Illegal is when you call the police. There's lots of behaviors that the employer is better to prevent before you have to call the police. If it rose to the level of illegal, there's a lot of things that already went wrong.
> Weiss specifically called out this behavior as unlawful discrimination.
If she was uniquely subjected to harassing and hostile behavior then it's discrimination, by definition. If that treatment is routine for anyone that dares to voice an unorthodox though in NYT, then it's not discrimination - it's just deeply sick and broken culture.
It could be that she is, not being a lawyer, wrong on the "unlawful" part (it's impossible to know without knowing the details and the NY anti-discrimination statutes and caselaw). So what? It's not an argument in a lawsuit, exact precision of all legal terms is not the most important thing here.
> others post ax emojis next to my name.
> Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter
From how I read the letter, she's not looking for consequence-free speech. She's looking to not be attacked personally for what are beliefs that are not all that far out there. Since I stopped reading the Times a long while ago for exactly the reasons she stated ("it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers"), I haven't read anything from her before today. From what I can tell, she advances arguments for points of view that are reasonable and that one may choose to disagree with if one wishes, but she has not expressed opinions worthy of threats of violence.
Yet it's ironic because left-wing views were consistently canceled. Even being against the Iraq War in 2003 was considered treasonous for a while.
On February 25, 2003, MSNBC canceled the show.
Soon after the show's cancellation, an internal MSNBC memo was leaked to the press stating that Donahue should be fired because he opposed the imminent U.S. invasion of Iraq and that he would be a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war" and that his program could be “a home for the liberal anti-war agenda”.
> There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong.
This is what claiming victimhood looks like.
Agreed, I only mean it pejoratively inasmuch as the parent ("victim culture that pervades the others") did as well.
That said, she has provided no evidence in this letter, and she is appealing to her identity as a member of a historically oppressed group, so I'm curious as to why her claims of victimhood seem to be believed by people who otherwise tend toward incredulity for such things.
Notedly, political viewpoints are not a protected trait.
If you did that kind of stuff at most places I've worked, you'd get fired for it, regardless of whether it fit the legal definition of "hostile work environment".
If the behavior is because of your race and they aren’t fired, you can (successfully) sue your employer. That’s the difference.
In her letter, she asserts that behavior that fits the first scenario is illegal- it’s not.
So, intimidation?
For example, I might uncharitably interpret your previous comment.
> it always amazes me when the people who champion "the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society" will also turn around and say something like their political beliefs being mocking by coworkers is "unlawful discrimination".
This appears to mean you think it's perfectly reasonable for a talented Jewish woman to be hounded out of her job by co-workers indulging in blatant anti-semitism with comments like "writing about the Jews again"? Would you support someone who asked a black writer if they were "writing about the blacks again?" No? Why is it OK when it's a Jew then? You appear believe that it is reasonable workplace behavior to call a Jewish colleague "a Nazi". Now, what can I deduce about your attitude to Jews from your support for this behavior? Perhaps your employer should be told about it. Etc, etc.