ACLU hoisted by its own petard

[Langue_doc]

Oh, the irony!

The A.C.L.U. Said a Worker Used Racist Tropes and Fired Her. But Did She?
The civil liberties group is defending itself in an unusual case that weighs what kind of language may be evidence of bias against Black people.

During her five years as a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, she was an unsparing critic of her superiors, known for sending long, blistering emails to human resources complaining about what she described as a hostile workplace.

She considered herself a whistle blower and advocate for other women in the office, drawing unflattering attention to an environment she said was rife with sexism, burdened by unmanageable workloads and stymied by a fear-based culture.

Then the tables turned, and Ms. Oh was the one slapped with an accusation of serious misconduct. The A.C.L.U. said her complaints about several superiors — all of whom were Black — used "racist stereotypes." She was fired in May 2022.

The A.C.L.U. acknowledges that Ms. Oh, who is Korean American, never used any kind of racial slur.

So, why was she fired? What was the evidence for her "racial animus"?

The A.C.L.U. acknowledges that Ms. Oh, who is Korean American, never used any kind of racial slur. But the group says that her use of certain phrases and words demonstrated a pattern of willful anti-Black animus.

In one instance, according to court documents, she told a Black superior that she was "afraid" to talk with him. In another, she told a manager that their conversation was "chastising." And in a meeting, she repeated a satirical phrase likening her bosses' behavior to suffering "beatings."

Did her language add up to racism? Or was she just speaking harshly about bosses who happened to be Black? That question is the subject of an unusual unfair-labor-practice case brought against the A.C.L.U. by the National Labor Relations Board, which has accused the organization of retaliating against Ms. Oh.

The heart of the A.C.L.U.'s defense — arguing for an expansive definition of what constitutes racist or racially coded speech — has struck some labor and free-speech lawyers as peculiar, since the organization has traditionally protected the right to free expression, operating on the principle that it may not like what someone says, but will fight for the right to say it.

The case raises some intriguing questions about the wide swath of employee behavior and speech that labor law protects — and how the nation's pre-eminent civil rights organization finds itself on the opposite side of that law, arguing that those protections should not apply to its former employee.

[marshwiggle]

The heart of the A.C.L.U.'s defense — arguing for an expansive definition of what constitutes racist or racially coded speech — has struck some labor and free-speech lawyers as peculiar, since the organization has traditionally protected the right to free expression, operating on the principle that it may not like what someone says, but will fight for the right to say it.

"Peculiar" doesn't even come close; hilariously hypocritical would be closer to the mark.

[Parasaurolophus]

Sounds like a pretext.

[Langue_doc]

The ACLU appears to be a very toxic workplace and not at all diverse.

A lawyer representing the A.C.L.U., Ken Margolis, said during a legal proceeding last year that it was irrelevant whether Ms. Oh bore no racist ill will. All that mattered, he said, was that her Black colleagues were offended and injured.

"We're not here to prove anything other than the impact of her actions was very real — that she caused harm," Mr. Margolis said, according to a transcript of his remarks. "She caused serious harm to Black members of the A.C.L.U. community."

Rick Bialczak, the lawyer who represents Ms. Oh through her union, responded sarcastically, saying he wanted to congratulate Mr. Margolis for making an exhaustive presentation of the A.C.L.U.'s evidence: three interactions Ms. Oh had with colleagues that were reported to human resources.

"I would note, and commend Ken, for spending 40 minutes explaining why three discreet comments over a multi-month period of time constitutes serious harm to the A.C.L.U. members, Black employees," he said.

Yes, she had complained about Black supervisors, Mr. Bialczak acknowledged. But her direct boss and that boss's boss were Black.

"Those were her supervisors," he said. "If she has complaints about her supervision, who is she supposed to complain about?"

The beginning of the end for Ms. Oh, who worked in the A.C.L.U.'s political advocacy department, started in late February 2022, according to court papers and interviews with lawyers and others familiar with the case.

The A.C.L.U. was hosting a virtual organization-wide meeting under heavy circumstances. The national political director, who was Black, had suddenly departed following multiple complaints about his abrasive treatment of subordinates. Ms. Oh, who was one of the employees who had complained, spoke up during the meeting to declare herself skeptical that conditions would actually improve.

"Why shouldn't we simply expect that 'the beatings will continue until morale improves,'" she said in a Zoom group chat, invoking a well-known phrase that is printed and sold on T-shirts, usually accompanied by the skull and crossbones of a pirate flag. She explained that she was being "definitely metaphorical."

[marshwiggle]

The ACLU appears to be a very toxic workplace and not at all diverse.

A lawyer representing the A.C.L.U., Ken Margolis, said during a legal proceeding last year that it was irrelevant whether Ms. Oh bore no racist ill will. All that mattered, he said, was that her Black colleagues were offended and injured.

"We're not here to prove anything other than the impact of her actions was very real — that she caused harm," Mr. Margolis said, according to a transcript of his remarks. "She caused serious harm to Black members of the A.C.L.U. community."

Wow! The organization has become a parody of its former self.

[apl68]

While I confess to being tempted toward a certain feeling of Schadenfreude here, work situations like this are no laughing matter.  Really, they're pretty sad.  It's a tragedy that so many interactions in so many institutions have come to revolve around arguments over who's the "privileged" here and who's the "victimized."  If we get sucked into stuff like this all the time, then we all end up becoming perpetrators who victimize each other.

[ciao_yall]

I'm not seeing the racist tropes here... even tangentially.

[kaysixteen]

1) It would seem like this will engender significant blowback for the Union from its own membership, likely ending up with the Union crying uncle and paying the woman...?

2) For the Canadians here- there is such a thing as the 'Canadian Civil Liberties Union', or some such nomenclature, right?   How different is this from the ACLU?

[jimbogumbo]

Can't read the article, but would like to know if this was the national ACLU. The ACLU has been in my opinion along term net force for good in the US. Each state has a chapter, and some more than one. It is certainly not a monolith.

Link to structure: https://www.aclu.org/documents/american-federalism-and-aclu#:~:text=The%20ACLU%20generally%20has%20one,ACLU%20chapters%20run%20by%20National.

[Langue_doc]

Can't read the article, but would like to know if this was the national ACLU. The ACLU has been in my opinion along term net force for good in the US. Each state has a chapter, and some more than one. It is certainly not a monolith.

Link to structure: https://www.aclu.org/documents/american-federalism-and-aclu#:~:text=The%20ACLU%20generally%20has%20one,ACLU%20chapters%20run%20by%20National.

Here's the non-paywalled link to the article.

[RatGuy]

Can't read the article, but would like to know if this was the national ACLU. The ACLU has been in my opinion along term net force for good in the US. Each state has a chapter, and some more than one. It is certainly not a monolith.

Link to structure: https://www.aclu.org/documents/american-federalism-and-aclu#:~:text=The%20ACLU%20generally%20has%20one,ACLU%20chapters%20run%20by%20National.

Oh's bio says she's a chief policy officer in the national office

[Wahoo Redux]

It sounds to me like they wanted to get rid of Ms. Oh, who sounds like a real piece of work, and thought they had a surefire way of doing it...only to find out that they had underestimated Ms. Oh's combative temperament. 

We are zealous in our culture about stamping out racism.

As with all zealotry, it sometimes slips the leash----as it seems to have done here.

What's too bad is that FOX et al. will have a field day with this.  I never understand why the ideologues in culture can't figure this out before they lose control. 

But to critics of the A.C.L.U., Ms. Oh's case is a sign of how far the group has strayed from its core mission — defending free speech — and has instead aligned itself with a progressive politics that is intensely focused on identity.

[marshwiggle]

It sounds to me like they wanted to get rid of Ms. Oh, who sounds like a real piece of work, and thought they had a surefire way of doing it...only to find out that they had underestimated Ms. Oh's combative temperament. 

Who would have guessed that a lawyer would have a combative temperament?

[apl68]

Can't read the article, but would like to know if this was the national ACLU. The ACLU has been in my opinion along term net force for good in the US. Each state has a chapter, and some more than one. It is certainly not a monolith.

Link to structure: https://www.aclu.org/documents/american-federalism-and-aclu#:~:text=The%20ACLU%20generally%20has%20one,ACLU%20chapters%20run%20by%20National.

If recent history should teach us anything it's that every institution of any size or influence contains its bad actors and conflicts, no matter how "good" anybody may think the institution or its goals are.  Institutions will always to some extent let us down sooner or later.  Yet we can't live without them.

Something I heard a minister say recently about churches could be extended to speak about human institutions in general.  If you ever find one that's absolutely perfect, don't join it--you'll spoil it by your own imperfect presence.

[marshwiggle]

Can't read the article, but would like to know if this was the national ACLU. The ACLU has been in my opinion along term net force for good in the US. Each state has a chapter, and some more than one. It is certainly not a monolith.

Link to structure: https://www.aclu.org/documents/american-federalism-and-aclu#:~:text=The%20ACLU%20generally%20has%20one,ACLU%20chapters%20run%20by%20National.

If recent history should teach us anything it's that every institution of any size or influence contains its bad actors and conflicts, no matter how "good" anybody may think the institution or its goals are.  Institutions will always to some extent let us down sooner or later.  Yet we can't live without them.

Something I heard a minister say recently about churches could be extended to speak about human institutions in general.  If you ever find one that's absolutely perfect, don't join it--you'll spoil it by your own imperfect presence.

You don't have to be very old to remember a company whose motto used to be "Don't be evil."