Difficult Civil Rights Question
 

State fights to fire trooper tied to Klan

This brings up interesting questions about rights as a citizen and rights as a public servant. Everyone knows that gays can be barred from the military (and until recently the FBI) and that the code of conduct restricts other rights while in uniform.

Are police in the same position? Can an officer be held to a different standard of conduct as a civilian? Considering the a police officer has power to arrest, detain, and even assault citizens, can an officers off-duty interests be used as a reason to fire them or not hire them?

Would the same be true of a public official. If someone was hired as a government employee and this became known, could/should they be fired?

It sounds like this guy was dealing with his frustrations over his personal life and made a bad decision. It's hard to judge whether his apology was sincere. The question is whether this disqualifies him for the rest of his life.

I voted to reinstate him if he stays out of the Klan and, subsequently, keeps his nose clean (not discriminating against whoever he is pissed at on the job or off) and has counseling. He did a stupid thing but everyone deserves a chance to turn it around.

I'd say his membership of that organisation shows that he views the citizens he is supposed to protect differently depending upon their racial heritage. He isn't just a member of one white supremacist organisation, but two. That suggests a belief system rather than an isolated act of stupidity.

The fact that he claims his membership of these groups was based solely on the fact that his wife left him for a member of a minority is indicative of his inability to differentiate between a personal hurt and a political stance. I'd have had more sympathy had he gone loco on the guy for whom his wife left him. I wouldn't trust a man, who could feel anger at an entire demographic because one of them 'stole' his wife, to uphold the law in a fair and unbiased way.

If you serve the public, you should serve all of them. By joining two groups avowed to the supremacy of the 'white race', he has in my opinion made himself unfit to serve as an arm of the law which affects all the races who live under it.

DanaC eloquently put my feelings on the subject into words.

Nothing I can add to DanaC's post. I agree 100%.

Erm...the poll is worded a bit oddly. "No matter what he does off-duty" is a bit extreme, donchathink? That would include baby raping. But exactly how do we justify firing a cop for his political beliefs? This "he can join the Klan but he can't stay a cop if he does" begs the question of exactly what the justification for firing him actually is. It really means "He can do anything he wants but we can fire him if we don't like his beliefs".

For example, try "He can be gay if he wants, but he can't be a cop if he is."

Where's the ACLU? They will defend the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie, but not the rights of a Klan member to be a cop?

Just for the record, the Klan is anathema to me, and so are the Nazis. But somebody needs to explain to me why this guy can't be a cop, The instant he violates somebody's civil rights he should be out on his ass, and prosecuted to boot, but I didn't know we had a thoughtcrime statute on the books. This man's job is enforcing the law, not enforcing political correctness. That's also the job of his superiors, but they seem to have forgotten that.

He can't be a cop anymore because he automatically puts every other white male cop in increased danger. If the public knows a KKK member can be a cop, minority criminals are more likely to assume the worst and shoot/stab/take hostages when they might otherwise have cooperated.

I guess I'm just a lefty liberal. I don't think we can judge all white supremists on the actions of a few. I mean, just because white supremists call for the eradication of one whole race, dedicated to 'wiping them off the map', etc. is any reason to judge them all harshly.











;)

What if it was a black officer who had joined the Nation of Islam. Same answer?

Oh, no. Not same answer. That would be the black officers RIGHT.


I'm being bitchy, I know, but I have been wondering what the feelings are for the rights of neo-Nazi's and Klanners since we're all so OK with militant Muslim's calling for blood and beheadings.

I wouldn't say it's a reason generally for someone to lose their job. What they do in their own time is their own affair......but not when the job in question involves them looking to the wellbeing of the public. Policemen, Judges, Public officials. These are people who have to stand above our differences and be there for all citizens, regardless of our colour, religion or race.

It would be impossible to ascertain for sure whether his views had resulted in his being less effective/ even-handed in the carrying out of his duties. After all, how could we quantify how many white people he was less eager to arrest rather than give a warning as compared to the number of black men he arrested rather than considering a less serious response. These are very difficult to measure in anything smaller than largescale trends.

Other people who serve the public: Doctors, nurses, lab techs, mental health techs, firemen and women, parking meter enforcement, tour guides... All these people have the right to be Klanners or neo-nazi's.

So, you wouldn't have allowed David Duke to run for public office? Would you have a list of forbidden political parties or beliefs, or simply let higher officials discriminate based on their own judgement?

You're in quicksand here...I recommend not struggling.

I would have severe misgivings about a policeman who had joined any political group which espoused a lack of rights for any demographic within the community they were supposed to police.

Do the Nation of Islam espouse the violent removal of, or aggressive countering of particular groups within America?

If they argue merely that the Black man should live separately that is different to arguing for the violent removal/destruction of the white race. If the KKK was arguing merely for separation between the races on an equal footing, then I wouldn't like em much but I wouldn't consider them as dangerous.

I don't really know much about the Nation of Islam. Other than that it was historically a militant response to the lack of civil rights of black people in America at that time.

Can't stop people running for election. If people want to vote in someone with foul and dangerous views, that's their prerogative.

I'm talking about unelected people who have the right to sit in judgement of or enforce the law under which all groups have to live.

Actually, I just realised....Judges are elected over there are they?

If so that's a different matter. I would hope that a white supremacist woldn't be voted into any kind of public office but that's the publics' right if they want to.

Unelected and therefore imposed is a different matter altogether.

I really would think that any policeman who avocated beheadings would be in a very tenuous position vis a vis his job:P

I really, really, really, hate to say this, but I agree with Maggie. Ssshhhhh. And I don't feel the need to add anything or qualify anything she wrote. :eek:

Some judgeships are elective office here.

I just don't think you can summarily fire someone from a government job because of what they beleive. Again...would you make a list of forbidden parties? Or just forbidden beliefs? Or let the supervising official make individual judgements? Because that sounds like what you're saying.

I guess I really shouldn't be surprised given how you expected speech you considered racist to be policed here on the Cellar. But I am.

Absolutely.
An officer has no place in those kinds of organizations.
The reason, they take an oath to the organization above all governments... that is why.
If it was just a racist ideal, I would not like it, but would support their right to free speech and to keep their job.
Just because someone is racist does not mean they will act on it. Objectivity is the soul of the law.

I never considered it should be policed. I just expressed surprise and disgust when I found racism amongst people I respect. That then led to a debate on language and racism. At no point did I think some moderator should have policed that debate or the original word that sparked it. There's a difference between my expressing surprise and arguing vehemently against the use of a particular word ....and my thinking you don't have the right to use that word or that the cellar shold be in someway policing that.
It was a debate. That's the whole point about free speech isn't it?

I agree with rkzenrage. Having been off and googled some information on Nation of Islam. I'd be very uncomfortable about an Officer being a member of that group.

Everyone has the right to use any word they like. That is the whole point of free speech.

Yes they do. And everyone has the right to object to a word if they find it offensive. I guarantee if I started a thread about 'niggers' someone would object to my using that word.

I would say that it is objectionable, but would have no issue with the fact that you used it.
I have an issue with the fact that the Cellar is so wimpy about this issue.

I saw a word which is used as a racist taunt in England and launched straight into a debate on racism. I was surprised to find a racist slur used by someone who had never struck me as racist and posted that. Does that mean i don't think she had the right to use that word? No. I found it objectionable and posted as such. As it turned out, that word does not carry the same connotations over there as it does here. But I think most brits who saw it did a doubletake. I had as much right to express my disgust at seeing that term used as the person who used it did in posting it.

Words have power. Freedom of speech does not negate that. There is a difference between legislating against words....and objecting on a personal level to particular usages.

"Sorry, Constable, you'll have to turn in your badge. We've discovered you're a belever in Islam, and we're afraid you'll start doing your job according to Sharia law. "

LoL

Good point. But
"Sorry officer, you'll have to turn in your badge, we've discovered you are a signed up member of a group advocating the overthrow of the elected government" might wash.

It's a good thing public jobs here aren't awarded or kept on the basis of the "comfort" of individuals. Criteria have to be objective.

True enough. But aren't there laws ( or contractual rules)in place about this sort of thing? If there aren't then they had no right to deprive him of his job. If there are then he made a decision in full knowledge that he was putting himself into an untenable position.

Well, you can laugh if you like, but the analogy is on point. And it's not a joke.

I agree that advocating the overthrow of the goverment is over the line; it would be illegal to do so. and that was the reasoning behind forbidding Communists in government jobs.

What about advocating the execution of homosexuals?

If there were, I would have thought they'd have been cited.

That's why I prodded you about thoughtcrime laws. How would you write such a law? As a councillor, don't you have a legislative role? Here, the governing body of a municipality or county can pass ordinances.

Unless the person in queston is not going to have either power over or a duty to homosexual members of society then I would say that also makes it an untenable position. That's my own view. That wouldnt cover all members of Islam, because not all of them believe that in the same way that not all Christians believe homosexuality to be a mortal sin. However, if the person in question signed up to a political group whose express purpose was to eradicate homosexuals from the country then I would say they had no place in the policing of them.

I wold think it to be more of a matter for the Police themselves rather than legislation at a state level. For instance, our police force have ruled that it is not acceptable for a member of the force to also be a member of the far right party BNP. This ban was decided in consultation with Civil service unions and the Home Office, but ultimately taken by the Association of Chief Constables. It was thouht that this may need legislation to back it up, but the basic ruling was that being a member of BNP breached the existing rules on diversity.

I think it all boils down to one question.

Is the employee doing the job as required?

If not, fire them. If so, don't fire them. Doesn't matter what they do in their private time.

It gets sticky when you consider what a police officer's job is. Clodfobble has a good point that the cop endangers all fellow cops by being in KKK. On that point alone, he isn't doing his job. Fire him.

Glatt you make a good point. There are aspects of membership of that particular group which by definition affect the ability of that cop to do his job.

So it is ok (in the name of civil rights) to allow the same person whose duty it is to protect and serve every citizen, to investigate crimes and to keep the peace, to ALSO be a member of a group advocating violence and whose primary goal is to oppress an entire race (or races) through terrorism, intimidation and hatred? How can one not see a conflict so great as to totally impede the proper fulfillment of one's duty to their badge? The two masters are diametrically opposed and irreconcilable.

Stormie

Beautifully put!

That's a pretty sweeping pronouncement. I don't expect to see it stand up in court here.

It may give you a warm fuzzy to feel like you're striking a blow against racism, but your method is on extremely shaky ground.

I think you'll find modern Klan organizations have been extremely careful not to get caught openly advocating violence.

They may be racists, but they're not completely stupid.

I thought that post was a joke. Wasn't it?

The police can't simply do anything they feel like. They are ruled by the law and by their own regulations. If you want to fire a cop, it has to be based on a law or a regulation.

How would you write such a law or regulation? Bear in mind that here it must pass scrutiny for constitutionality. Also bear in mind that racism is not illegal. Racial discrimination, however, is.

The truth is that this is a very difficult and thorny issue. There is the question of the policeman's right to hold a particular view. There is the issue of the citizen's right to be defended/policed fairly regardless of their colour or race.

We recently had to deal with that issue here, when an undercover reporter joined up as a trainee in the police and secretly filmed police officers openly espousing racist views and advocating to the trainees the use of violence when dealing with blacks and asians. It was discovered during the investigation which followed that several police officers were active members of the BNP. Some of the officers in question were caught on film laughing about the fact that they had kicked the crap out of an asian man in their custody and telling the young 'trainee' the best ways to get away with such violence.

The problem with the BNP is that like the KKK they also try to be careful now about openly advocating violence. In the privacy of their meetings and ralllies however that is not the case.

And that is the reason there's a bright line between beliefs and behavior. You can't fire a cop for what he believes. And that's the crux of the case in question.

Becoming a member of the KKK was a shift from belief to behaviour. What he feels in his heart is his own affair. By signing up to such a group he takes on the collective responsibility for what they are and do.

And what they do is not illegal...or they would have been shut down. Remeber; these criteria must be objective; it's not a matter of what you personally are or are not "comfortable" with.

When you join the Klan, the Order, the Nation Of Islam, or anything like them, you take an oath, a binding oath, that your allegiance is to that order... above all else, ESPECIALLY the government.

I believe in anyone's right to feel that way, speak about it (short of incitement), but not to serve in ANY government capacity, as you cannot do both with a clear conscience.

I'm pretty certain that there are gov't officials who do repugnant things and have a very clear conscience about it.

Really? Which one of those have you joined?

And how would you define "anything like them"?

Would that include the Masons?

How about Skull and Bones?

It wasn't. His behavior damages the public trust in the police, and thus endangers both policemen and civilians. I agree that he's welcome to think whatever he likes as long as he can effectively do his job--but in this case, by simply allowing the information to become public, it has affected how effectively not only he, but the rest of the police force, can do their job.

I have family in both the Klan, the Order and more secret organizations & we have had this, exact, conversation. They place people in government jobs intentionally.
The Mason's oath does not supersede governments and, yes, I know it.
I define "anything" as anything that places itself above civil government, especially those diametrically opposed to the civil government. It ain't hard... having to spell things out for you that are patently obvious to everyone else is getting very tiresome.

It's only patently obvious to Klansmen, Members of the Order and the Nation of Islam, Masons and their confidants. (Ah...just found The Order on Wikipedia their oath is reproduced there in part.)

Sorry, I'm not any of those. The only oath I've ever taken was to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to bear true and faithful allegiance to the same.

As for Skull and Bones, we'll have to wait for someone here to 'fess up.

Man would I like to be a fly on the wall for some of your conversations :P

I vote for DanaC, even if she can't read a calendar.

I sort of took it as a given that we were working in the realm of 'legal' activities. Felonious conduct is obviously grounds for dismissal.

You can't be persecuted or fired for your beliefs.

You CAN be fired for neglecting your duties.

If you're in the KKK, there's a preeeeetty good chance you arent being fair and upholding the law like a good cop.

Its only a matter of finding the instances of discrimination.

If he hasnt done anything racist or discriminatory, ever, then he can't be fired. But if he has, which is most likely given his KKK membership, then he's out.

We have had some "interesting" Christmas'.

The article states that they could not find any instances of discrimination. The officer maintains that this was a poor choice on his part caused by the stress of a personal situation.

Legally speaking, the Klan has in the past been labelled a terrorist organization, but in the 1920's it was a huge almost mainstream organization that paraded in Washington.

Also, it seems to have become decentralized, where any local group can adopt the name. This means that there is not one large Klan that can be put on a list.

The two questions are can any employee be fired for legal off-work activities which embarass his or her company and are police any different? Military service members voluntarily accept a code of conduct which does to some degree cover private legal activities. Public figures accept morals clauses in contracts covering private behavior.

Should police be held to a higher standard considering the power they wield and the public trust they hold?

Yes.
Yes. Police are different. They should be held to an even higher standard.

When I ran a business I made hiring decisions. I would not have hired anyone involved with the Klan unless it was in their past and they had decided it was a mistake and maybe made amends.

I don't think it should be any different in hiring someone to be a police officer. As a citizen and taxpayer I want the best hiring decisions to be made on my behalf. Everything in a person's past is fair game.