Flap over costume party winner at Homeland Security.

[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."

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

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."

There's no discussion of your motivations in my post. You said you were being inclusive. That is factually incorrect, it has nothing to do with motives. If you were talking about the non-Latino, non-Black and non-Asian focused members of the NIC, you were excluding them from your statement, not including them. And, I don't think it's appropriate to be throwing the term "delusional" around, especially since in your line of work, "delusional" is most likely deemed to be pathological, which cannot be determined from a single post.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

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."

It's equally curious, in the context of this thread, to see how a person can take offense at what you said (or how you said it) even when your motivation was benign, and how you suggest that anyone taking offense where none was intended might be "delusional."

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

It's equally curious, in the context of this thread, to see how a person can take offense at what you said (or how you said it) even when your motivation was benign, and how you suggest that anyone taking offense where none was intended might be "delusional."

I've taken this to the level of the PM. What's important is the story in the thread, not this "aside."

[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

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

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

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

GOOD!

From the article:

Myers met resistance in 2005, the first time President Bush tried to appoint her to the Homeland Security Department post, after Democrats and Republicans said she had weak credentials for the high-profile job. To avoid a fight, Bush installed her during a Senate recess and her position expires at year's end unless the Senate votes to confirm her.

See, that is what is just so, so wrong with bureaucratic appointments...

[Tom Earp]

I damn sure hope this is not swept under the typical carpet.

There better not be any difference than if a GLO does it and it get national media coverage and banned.