Flap over costume party winner at Homeland Security.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by macallan25

They were at a Halloween party. I'm pretty sure dressing up in a costume isn't a matter of national security.

Friend,do you have a job? There is such as thing as professional decorum and ethics. Government positions, like the legal profession and others, operate on the basis of public trust and fair play for all. Anything that would compromise that, esp. in the Dept. of Homeland Security, specifically in the Immigration area, is stupid politically and ethically. A couple of weeks ago at my place of employment, we had a staff meeting where my supervisor brought up issues similar to this which revolved around language and culture which she'd received compliants about.

The problem is that people who are likeminded, of the same culture or who have a certain comfort level together, at times, tend to engage in all kinds of "edgy" racial, ethnic, sexual or gender talk and behavior in the workplace, and most people come to accept or tolerate it. (Some won't speak up against it out of a sense of intimidation or a fear of being ostracized.) But this "tolerance" breeds a kind of impunity in the minds of some, where they feel as though they can say what they will and do what they will without there being any negative consequences, professionally speaking. I've had several talks with younger colleagues about these matters; they don't seem to understand quite as well the difference between acceptable speech and behavior in the "street" and a recreational/social setting and in the workplace.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

Friend,do you have a job? There is such as thing as professional decorum and ethics. Government positions, like the legal profession and others, operate on the basis of public trust and fair play for all. Anything that would compromise that, esp. in the Dept. of Homeland Security, specifically in the Immigration area, is stupid politically and ethically. A couple of weeks ago at my place of employment, we had a staff meeting where my supervisor brought up issues similar to this which revolved around language and culture which she'd received compliants about.

The problem is that people who are likeminded, of the same culture or who have a certain comfort level together, at times, tend to engage in all kinds of "edgy" racial, ethnic, sexual or gender talk and behavior in the workplace, and most people come to accept or tolerate it. (Some won't speak up against it out of a sense of intimidation or a fear of being ostracized.) But this "tolerance" breeds a kind of impunity in the minds of some, where they feel as though they can say what they will and do what they will without there being any negative consequences, professionally speaking. I've had several talks with younger colleagues about these matters; they don't seem to understand quite as well the difference between acceptable speech and behavior in the "street" and a recreational/social setting and in the workplace.

Just an FYI....I passed this story on to my s.o. who so happens to work in DHS here in DC...she was shocked ot hear about it and also understands why her section was not allowed to partake in Halloween....hehe....go figger.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

Friend,do you have a job? There is such as thing as professional decorum and ethics. Government positions, like the legal profession and others, operate on the basis of public trust and fair play for all. Anything that would compromise that, esp. in the Dept. of Homeland Security, specifically in the Immigration area, is stupid politically and ethically. A couple of weeks ago at my place of employment, we had a staff meeting where my supervisor brought up issues similar to this which revolved around language and culture which she'd received compliants about.

The problem is that people who are likeminded, of the same culture or who have a certain comfort level together, at times, tend to engage in all kinds of "edgy" racial, ethnic, sexual or gender talk and behavior in the workplace, and most people come to accept or tolerate it. (Some won't speak up against it out of a sense of intimidation or a fear of being ostracized.) But this "tolerance" breeds a kind of impunity in the minds of some, where they feel as though they can say what they will and do what they will without there being any negative consequences, professionally speaking. I've had several talks with younger colleagues about these matters; they don't seem to understand quite as well the difference between acceptable speech and behavior in the "street" and a recreational/social setting and in the workplace.

In law school, had internships, but no........I don't have a full time job.

I guess the only solution is to not have Halloween parties. Simple as that. It is ridiculous that this is news.

[Kevin]

If the administration had been a Democrat one, this wouldn't have been in the news.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by Kevin

If the administration had been a Democrat one

...it likely wouldn't have happened in the first place...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

...it likely wouldn't have happened in the first place...

Yes.. I forgot. Democrats are so much more socially enlightened. Thanks for straightening me out there.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DGTess

Soon the Department will have to publish a list of "acceptable" costumes. It's okay to represent something from column A, but not from column B.

Nah. The Department will ban Halloween costume parties.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yes.. I forgot. Democrats are so much more socially enlightened. Thanks for straightening me out there.

On behalf of nittanyalum, you're welcome. One day you'll get all of this straight.

Seriously, while it certainly could have happened in a Democratic administration, I do think it would be less likely to happen. I'll leave it to others to argue as to whether that is because Democrats are more socially enlightened or because those in charge would understand that Democrats might have more to lose from the bad publicity. I could also say that I think it would be less likely to happen in the administrations of some other Republicans. Like I said earlier, this situation says as much to me about political naivety as it does about racial insensitivity.

Which is one reason I have no doubt that it would have made the news had this been a Democratic administration.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by macallan25

In law school, had internships, but no........I don't have a full time job.

I guess the only solution is to not have Halloween parties. Simple as that. It is ridiculous that this is news.

In some cases, this may be the easiet route. On my job, in which I work with people with psychiatric diagnoses, a consumer (client) who is a devout Roman Catholic, asked if the agency would carry him to church to attend special Marian devotional services. His query was rejected.The assistant supervisor, who's also Catholic,explained the ratiionale to the client like this: Suppose, say,a client is a Satanist and wants to attend Satanic rituals and wants the agency to transport him/her? (This was an odious and unacceptable thing to the asst. supervisor, religiously speaking.) This means we'd have to honor their wishes just as we would the Christians, Jews, Muslims and non-believers in our agency. The best solution is that we won't do it for anyone.

Here's a story which reverses the DHS example. A few years ago, when I lived in Southern California, there was a Fraternity brother who was an engineer in the aerospace industry. He was close to retirement in years at the company. Per his dealing with Fraternity brothers as a district official, he was very good hearted yet brusque with an intimidating persona at times, as if he was still a DP (what you white NIC groups call the pledge trainer). This is the way he dealt with people, even on the job. It just so happened that he had a white female underling on his job with whom he motivated her to do her job as if she was a pledge. She complained to the higher ups that she was the victim of harassment and intimidation. Now, when this field was solely a male domain, I suppose you could possible get away with cussin' a slacker out or gettin' on his a@#, but now this is trickier when the employee is a woman and even trickier when your boss is a large African American male. The corporate higher ups basically exonerated him from any wrong doing but fearing litigation and negative press, and weighing the options, decided it was in the best interest of the company to give him an early retirement.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

(what you white NIC groups call the pledge trainer).

Eh, since this is already a thread about race, I'll go there...

NIC is sufficient, you can leave the "white" off, as NIC groups accept people of all races.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Eh, since this is already a thread about race, I'll go there...

NIC is sufficient, you can leave the "white" off, as NIC groups accept people of all races.

Au contraire, I was attempting to be inclusive because 3-5 NPHC fraternities and other Latino- and Asian-interest groups are members of the NIC also. We all do not share the same traditions and nomenclature; thus just saying NIC would give a wrong impression because most would not associate its member groups with African American fraternities. That's it, in a nutshell. It's simply descriptive, not pejorative. "Historically white" may have been a better expression; but your concern had nothing to do with the point I was making at all.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

Au contraire, I was attempting to be inclusive because 3-5 NPHC fraternities and other Latino- and Asian-interest groups are members of the NIC also. We all do not share the same traditions and nomenclature; thus just saying NIC would give a wrong impression because most would not associate its member groups with African American fraternities. That's it, in a nutshell. It's simply descriptive, not pejorative. "Historically white" may have been a better expression; but your concern had nothing to do with the point I was making at all.

No, you were attempting to be EXCLUSIVE...you were excluding the Latino and Asian groups who are members of the NIC. And "white" is descriptive, but certainly not accurate. Saying "what other groups call a pledge trainer" would have also worked for your point. But, the fact that my concern was not associated with the point you were making is not going to stop me from bringing it up. I and other NPC members make an attempt to use the terms that other groups (NIC/NPHC/IFC, etc) prefer, and all I ask is that you do the same. I know I'm not an NIC member, but I do see "white sororities", etc used just as much.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

No, you were attempting to be EXCLUSIVE...you were excluding the Latino and Asian groups who are members of the NIC. And "white" is descriptive, but certainly not accurate. Saying "what other groups call a pledge trainer" would have also worked for your point. But, the fact that my concern was not associated with the point you were making is not going to stop me from bringing it up. I and other NPC members make an attempt to use the terms that other groups (NIC/NPHC/IFC, etc) prefer, and all I ask is that you do the same. I know I'm not an NIC member, but I do see "white sororities", etc used just as much.

It's curious to hear someone tell me, the writer, what my motivations were, when, I assure you, that was not the case. In my line of work, imputing wrong motives to people and the like can be termed "delusional."

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

<snip> It just so happened that he had a white female underling on his job with whom he motivated her to do her job as if she was a pledge. She complained to the higher ups that she was the victim of harassment and intimidation. Now, when this field was solely a male domain, I suppose you could possible get away with cussin' a slacker out or gettin' on his a@#, but now this is trickier when the employee is a woman and even trickier when your boss is a large African American male. The corporate higher ups basically exonerated him from any wrong doing but fearing litigation and negative press, and weighing the options, decided it was in the best interest of the company to give him an early retirement.

This is why women don't get treated equally on the job -- when they do, they complain about it. Yes, that's a generalization, but it's true way too often to be simply anecdotal.

When we are equal, we will be able to be treated the same. This man was a victim of "what might happen" and the company may have lost the best, certainly the most experienced, years of his productivity.

So everyone loses. The women doesn't learn to deal on her own with all the personality types she'll find, the company loses one, perhaps two, good employees, and the man loses his job. How is this enlightened?

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by DGTess

This is why women don't get treated equally on the job -- when they do, they complain about it. Yes, that's a generalization, but it's true way too often to be simply anecdotal.

When we are equal, we will be able to be treated the same. This man was a victim of "what might happen" and the company may have lost the best, certainly the most experienced, years of his productivity.

So everyone loses. The women doesn't learn to deal on her own with all the personality types she'll find, the company loses one, perhaps two, good employees, and the man loses his job. How is this enlightened?

You make no sense. Not even a little.

-Rudey
--Now that's enlightened.

[Wolfman]

Costume flap may stall the vote on her rise to Immigration Service top job.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071117/...ensive_costume