BYU-I Teach let go

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Certainly. But these are extreme examples. The problems happen in the practicalities, however, where non-liberal viewpoints are silenced by those advocating tolerance and diversity. This happens frequently, especially on college campuses.

Let's say for a moment that you're right - that non-liberal viewpoints are silenced (they aren't, but just for the sake of argument). That might be a problem, but it's not ironic. Diversity has nothing to do with tolerance for any ideology. It's about categories like race, gender, sexual orientation, religious background, veteran status, etc.

 

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

You keep using extreme examples. Instead, let's get back to the practicalities of non-extreme examples that actually occur in people's lives. It's not very often that a KKK march/rally occurs. I've never seen one nor seen one advertised. I have, however, seen people protest against allowing a conservative speaker on my college campus because his views were considered intolerant. He was no Richard Spencer or David Duke.

 

 

Okay, that's a great example. So a conservative speaker is invited, and some people don't like the speaker's views and they protest. Both sides are exercising their free speech. Isn't that an example of the system working for everyone?

Some people protest movies that have content they don't like. That's their right. Some people protested Obama when he was president. They had a right to do that too.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

The problem is: who gets to define what is intolerant? Sure, there are clear cut examples, like you listed (racism, sexism, etc), but within those clear cut examples there are gray areas. For example, is it sexist that Catholics are pro-life? Would Catholics be welcome at a pro-diversity rally because of this? Even more, would a pro-diversity rally argue that I should have the right to have a pro-life view?

In my experience, pro-life views are generally well tolerated (which does not mean universally agreed with), even on campus. If you want to show up to a civil rights rally with a pro-life sign, no one can stop you, but some argue with you about it.

 

Quote

Should my voice be silenced?

Depends on context. If you want to start shouting in the middle of geography class about the rights of the unborn, you might be asked to leave. If you want to hold a pro-life sign in the quad, you certainly can.

 

 

Quote

Like I said, I generally have a liberal viewpoint and liberal politics and most of my friends are liberal, some exceedingly so. I have seen this first hand and was/am probably guilty of it, too. Intolerance is commonly defined as not-liberal.

 

 

I don't think that's true. Yes, it's true that explicit support for racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia etc usually comes from the right wing, but not exclusively, and not all conservatives feel this way (in fact there are some prominent left-wingers who are highly Islamophobic). In fact I think conservatism is very slowly moving away from intolerance, although there has been a resurgence of it in the right wing lately.

One hallmark of conservative ideals is small government. This has nothing to do at all with the issue of tolerance.

 

Quote

 

For many pro-diversity people and groups, anyone who is truly conservative/republican would be considered intolerant because they consider the foundation of conservatism to be at its core intolerant. Again, I speak from personal experience here. The words diversity and tolerance are taking on a new meaning. As I said, perhaps this is ok because language is fluid, but it needs to recognized and acknowledged by those who are using the new meaning.

Yes, some people are like this - they treat the opposite side as the enemy. This happens on both sides.

 

 

Quote

The ACLU has an interesting track record of being consistently for civil liberties and free speech, even if that speech is odious. I consider them truly pro-diversity in the original sense of the word. Remember the incident where they defended neo-nazis in Chicago?

 

I don't think free speech and diversity are the same issue at all. They're actually very different.

The ACLU is right to defend neo-Nazis who want to demonstrate. That's freedom of speech. But that doesn't mean neo-Nazis have the right to keep their job if they want to show up to work and start harassing black coworkers. Two very different issues.

 

 

Edited July 27, 2017 by Gray

[MiserereNobis]

26 minutes ago, Gray said:

So a conservative speaker is invited, and some people don't like the speaker's views and they protest. Both sides are exercising their free speech. Isn't that an example of the system working for everyone?

Yes, but that was not the point of the example. The point of the example was people being intolerant of what they claimed was intolerance, when it was just in fact traditional conservatism. The group protesting decided that the speaker's viewpoints were intolerant, but his viewpoints weren't extreme. They used the idea of intolerance to try to silence him.

30 minutes ago, Gray said:

Diversity has nothing to do with tolerance for any ideology. It's about categories like race, gender, sexual orientation, religious background, veteran status, etc.

See, this is my point exactly. You have changed the meaning of diversity. Like I said, though, language is fluid and context creates meaning. Can you acknowledge, however, that your definition of diversity is not the original word's meaning? Yet the word still carries the original word's connotations which then creates a sense of irony and even hypocrisy.

16 minutes ago, Gray said:

The ACLU is right to defend neo-Nazis who want to demonstrate. That's freedom of speech. But that doesn't mean neo-Nazis have the right to keep their job if they want to show up to work and start harassing black protestors. Two very different issues.

True, and the topic of this thread has to do with the workplace, so I think my slight derail has run its course.

By the way, you should really check out that article I linked if you are involved in activism. It's quite insightful.

[MiserereNobis]

37 minutes ago, Gray said:

Diversity has nothing to do with tolerance for any ideology.

One last comment on this. This definition means a person can truthfully say, using your definition: I am 100% for diversity but I refuse to interact with any Republicans and I will not read any political books that I don't already agree with.

Kinda weird, wouldn't you say?

[Gray]

Just now, MiserereNobis said:

Yes, but that was not the point of the example. The point of the example was people being intolerant of what they claimed was intolerance, when it was just in fact traditional conservatism. The group protesting decided that the speaker's viewpoints were intolerant, but his viewpoints weren't extreme. They used the idea of intolerance to try to silence him.

Okay, they were claiming he was intolerant, but he was actually just conservative, as you interpreted it. Is that right?

So what do you think about protesting? Can people protest things they don't like? Is that an attempt to take away someone's free speech?

 

Just now, MiserereNobis said:

See, this is my point exactly. You have changed the meaning of diversity. Like I said, though, language is fluid and context creates meaning. Can you acknowledge, however, that your definition of diversity is not the original word's meaning? Yet the word still carries the original word's connotations which then creates a sense of irony and even hypocrisy.

I have to go again with my pro-life example. Pro-life has a specific meaning. It doesn't mean that someone is pro-AIDs or pro-mosquito. In context it actually means anti-abortion. We understand what it means.

By the same measure, diversity is usually referring to the ideal that we don't discriminate based on race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc. It doesn't have anything to do with a diversity of opinions, anymore than "Life" in pro-life refers to any living thing. It's really not ironic or hypocritical.

 

 

Just now, MiserereNobis said:

True, and the topic of this thread has to do with the workplace, so I think my slight derail has run its course.

By the way, you should really check out that article I linked if you are involved in activism. It's quite insightful.

I'm not involved in activism. But I am aware of the ACLU, they defend the rights of all kinds of folks, even people who belong to hate groups.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

If you define traditional conservative viewpoints as sexism, racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, etc, then you're right, traditional conservative viewpoints will not be welcome there. I know a lot of conservatives who would disagree that these things represent their views, though. But conservatives will be welcome, regardless of race, gender, religion, etc.

This whole notion that tolerance should include tolerance for intolerance is silly, IMO. As silly as my example of saying pro-life people should be pro-Ebola because it's technically living.

Exactly the point I've been trying to communicate.  Thank you.

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

One last comment on this. This definition means a person can truthfully say, using your definition: I am 100% for diversity but I refuse to interact with any Republicans and I will not read any political books that I don't already agree with.

Kinda weird, wouldn't you say?

I would feel sorry for such a person, but belonging to a particular political group doesn't really go down to the core of one's being.

The person in your example is intolerant of different viewpoints. I think it's important to be tolerant (to a degree) of different political views and to expose oneself to viewpoints that will challenge one's assumptions. But political viewpoints are fluid, right? People change their minds on political issues all the time.

It's a much nastier business to discriminate against someone because of things that are beyond their immediate control, like ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How about if that same person were to argue for LGBT access to Mormon chapels and even temples and Mormon rites for gay "marriage"?

 

"How about..."?  What are you asking?

Do I think LGBT persons should be able to argue for access to Mormon chapels/temples for gay marriage?  They can ask.  The Church, as a private institution, should be able to say "no, that isn't consistent with our beliefs".  And the Church has said that.

[MiserereNobis]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

Okay, they were claiming he was intolerant, but he was actually just conservative, as you interpreted it. Is that right?

Yes.

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

So what do you think about protesting? Can people protest things they don't like? Is that an attempt to take away someone's free speech?

Absolutely people can protest. Again, that's not the point of my example. The point is the hypocrisy of being intolerant by claiming someone shouldn't speak because they are intolerant. The protesters were being hypocritical and using the ideas of tolerance and diversity to try to silence ideas they disagreed with. In the name of tolerance, they were being intolerant. In the name of championing diversity, they were actually championing uniformity.

 

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

By the same measure, diversity is usually referring to the ideal that we don't discriminate based on race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc. It doesn't have anything to do with a diversity of opinions, anymore than "Life" in pro-life refers to any living thing. It's really not ironic or hypocritical.

This change of meaning is quite recent, recent enough that it is not yet in the dictionary, which means that the word's dominant meaning is still its original meaning of: a range of different things. When the average person hears the word diversity they don't think of the definition you give. So yes, it is ironic and hypocritical to say that someone champions diversity if that person is completely intolerant of any ideas except their own.

[MiserereNobis]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

I would feel sorry for such a person, but belonging to a particular political group doesn't really go down to the core of one's being.

The person in your example is intolerant of different viewpoints. I think it's important to be tolerant (to a degree) of different political views and to expose oneself to viewpoints that will challenge one's assumptions. But political viewpoints are fluid, right? People change their minds on political issues all the time.

It's a much nastier business to discriminate against someone because of things that are beyond their immediate control, like ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

I agree with you on all of this, but you didn't address the point of my example.

Can a person say "I'm 100% for diversity but I hate republicans and will not interact with them." ? Can you be 100% for diversity and yet hate people based on their political ideologies?

By your definition, the answer must be yes, yet that statement is absolutely ridiculous, so there must be something wrong with the definition of diversity.

Ideas and ideologies must be included if we are going to be truly diverse. They don't go to the core of someone's being, as you point out (neither does religion, because people change religion all the time), but they are a part of someone's identity -- intersectionality. We cannot claim to be diverse and reject all ideologies except our own.

[Gray]

Just now, MiserereNobis said:

Yes.

Absolutely people can protest. Again, that's not the point of my example. The point is the hypocrisy of being intolerant by claiming someone shouldn't speak because they are intolerant. The protesters were being hypocritical and using the ideas of tolerance and diversity to try to silence ideas they disagreed with. In the name of tolerance, they were being intolerant. In the name of championing diversity, they were actually championing uniformity.

 

Is it hypocrisy? Intolerance of different viewpoints, after all, is quite a different matter from intolerance of different people. Right or wrong, they seem to have thought that this speaker intolerant of different people. In response, they were intolerant of his views.

 

 

Just now, MiserereNobis said:

This change of meaning is quite recent, recent enough that it is not yet in the dictionary, which means that the word's dominant meaning is still its original meaning of: a range of different things. When the average person hears the word diversity they don't think of the definition you give. So yes, it is ironic and hypocritical to say that someone champions diversity if that person is completely intolerant of any ideas except their own.

Is it really so new? I suppose it depends on your life experience. I encountered the concept in college in the 90s, and I've been exposed to it continuously in my professional career. But it might depend on what kind of place you work at. Any employer of substance and reputation is going to value diversity. When I was first starting out, taking part time jobs at mom and pop companies or in manual labor, no one was really talking about diversity. But in my professional career it's just been a fact of life.

 

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I agree with you on all of this, but you didn't address the point of my example.

Can a person say "I'm 100% for diversity but I hate republicans and will not interact with them." ? Can you be 100% for diversity and yet hate people based on their political ideologies?

Yes, I think you can say that. Diversity doesn't mean Republicans or Democrats or Boy Scouts or the Bass Club. If you say you really hate Bass Club members and won't talk to them, that doesn't mean you're not for diversity.

 

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

By your definition, the answer must be yes, yet that statement is absolutely ridiculous, so there must be something wrong with the definition of diversity.

Ideas and ideologies must be included if we are going to be truly diverse. They don't go to the core of someone's being, as you point out (neither does religion, because people change religion all the time), but they are a part of someone's identity -- intersectionality. We cannot claim to be diverse and reject all ideologies except our own.

They're really two different things. Tolerance for people vs tolerance for ideas. Both are important, but they're really not the same issue.

I think religion does go more to the core of someone's being. Religion is almost like ethnicity. Yes, it can change, but it usually doesn't. Gender can change too - but usually it doesn't.

I think anyone can say they support diversity while rejecting other ideologies. That's not what diversity means.

It's very different to say, "I disagree with your opinions, so I'll have nothing to do with you" than it is to say, "I don't like the color of your skin, so I'll have nothing to do with you."

Ideally we would have tolerance for different opinions (within reason) and tolerance for different people, but the latter is far more serious than the former.

 

[MiserereNobis]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

But it might depend on what kind of place you work at. Any employer of substance and reputation is going to value diversity

Diversity is championed at both my places of employment. But since I'm a teacher, it includes diversity of ideas, too

 

[Jane_Doe]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Second, I'm tired of answering your questions when you dodge mine. 

You have yet to answer my question and admit you are advocating PRO-discrmination. 

 

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Third, to answer your questions, please tell me why it was okay to terminate Robertson for promoting gay marriage but  it's not okay the tech company to terminate and employee for opposing gay marriage?  (And you don't get to do it by using your own interpretation of the company values - the company gets to determine their own values.)

BYUI openly proclaims that their goal is to promote LDS ideals, and hence it was fine when someone who violates that mission was let go.  Open, honest, and ethical behavior.

This tech company you so prize says it's mission statement is to protect ALL employees.  But that mission statement is a lie: it only really wants to protect the rights of pro-SSM folks and discriminates against anti-SSM folks.  Their behavior is hypocritical and deceitful.

Now is a third company openly says it's mission statement is to promote LGBT rights, and they let a anti-SSM employ go, that's open and ethical behavior on their part.  

 

Edited July 27, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[MiserereNobis]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

Ideally we would have tolerance for different opinions (within reason) and tolerance for different people, but the latter is far more serious than the former.

We do agree on this. Thanks for the good discussion!

[Gray]

19 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Diversity is championed at both my places of employment. But since I'm a teacher, it includes diversity of ideas, too

 

An important concept in education, certainly!

[Gray]

21 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

This tech company you so prize says it's mission statement is to protect ALL employees.  But that mission statement is a lie: it only really wants to protect the rights of pro-SSM folks and discriminates against anti-SSM folks.  Their behavior is hypocritical and deceitful.

 

The police department says it wants to protect our neighborhood, but that's a lie. They just arrested someone for assaulting his neighbor. They're obviously not concerned with protecting people who want to beat up their neighbors. How hypocritical and deceitful can you get?

[Gray]

18 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

We do agree on this. Thanks for the good discussion!

Thanks to you as well!

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

You have yet to answer my question and admit you are advocating PRO-discrmination. 

That does not describe rockpond's views at all and it's an unfair assessment from what I've seen of his views.  IMO, he's one of the last members on here that I'd label "PRO-discrimination".

You on the other hand.... (JK)

But, do you support SSM or are you opposed to it?

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

You have yet to answer my question and admit you are advocating PRO-discrmination. 

No, I'm not.  Not at all.

 

24 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

BYUI openly proclaims that their goal is to promote LDS ideals, and hence it was fine when someone who violates that mission was let go.  Open, honest, and ethical behavior.

Fairly loaded statement there as I am not in full agreement that Robertson was let go for failing to promote LDS ideals.  But I agree that they saw it that way and I believe it was their right to terminate her contract.

 

25 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

This tech company you so prize says it's mission statement is to protect ALL employees.  But that mission statement is a lie: it only really wants to protect the rights of pro-SSM folks and discriminates against anti-SSM folks.  Their behavior is hypocritical and deceitful.

Now is a third company openly says it's mission statement is to promote LGBT rights, and they let a anti-SSM employ go, that's open and ethical behavior on their part.  

 

You have misinterpreted the tech company's mission and values.  I've tried to clarify but you don't seem willing to accept it.  I worked there.  I understand what their values were - discrimination was not acceptable.  Given that, can you agree that it would be okay to terminate an LDS employee who advocated for discriminating against and LGBT employee through denial of marriage rights?  If so, great -- you and I are on the same page.  If not, I find it to be a hypocritical position that it is okay for BYUI to terminate someone for violating their values but it is not okay for the tech company to terminate someone for violating their values.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

57 minutes ago, rockpond said:

"How about..."?  What are you asking?

Do I think LGBT persons should be able to argue for access to Mormon chapels/temples for gay marriage?  They can ask.  The Church, as a private institution, should be able to say "no, that isn't consistent with our beliefs".  And the Church has said that.

I'm not talking about merely asking. I'm talking about agitating, pressuring, campaigning, generally trying to bully the Church into complying. 

Hasn't happened yet, but I believe it's on the horizon. 

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You have misinterpreted the tech company's mission and values.  I've tried to clarify but you don't seem willing to accept it.  I worked there.  I understand what their values were - discrimination was not acceptable.  

Would "Bob" be given a podium to say how he is against SSM?

If the answer is "no" then Bob is being discriminated against by company policy.  The claim "there's no description here" is a hypocritical farce. 

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Given that, can you agree that it would be okay to terminate an LDS employee who advocated for discriminating against and LGBT employee through denial of marriage rights?

*** IF *** The company flat out said it was pro-SSM.  I've said this many times.  "Gay rights of America" can fire as many anti-SSM employees they want.

Now if a company says they protect the rights of all employees but is lying about it (like your tech company), then no I'm not ok with lying or hypocrisy. 

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If not, I find it to be a hypocritical position that it is okay for BYUI to terminate someone for violating their values but it is not okay for the tech company to terminate someone for violating their values.

BYU is not dishonest about their mission.  "Gay Rights of America" is not dishonest about their mission.  Your tech company is.  That's the difference.

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

Diversity of thought is fine.  We're talking about promoting a view that gay couples should not be equal to straight couples... a view that disrespects other employees and promotes discrimination.  Why can't a company terminate an employee if that is in violation of their values?

If their stated values are 'we support diversity', then there is no way for them to terminate someone for not holding the correct political view without being hypocrites.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not talking about merely asking. I'm talking about agitating, pressuring, campaigning, generally trying to bully the Church into complying. 

Hasn't happened yet, but I believe it's on the horizon. 

Agitating, pressuring, campaigning, and bullying... all things the Church and members did in California to repeal marriage equality there.

So, yes, I agree with you that it might happen in the future.  Fortunately, the church has the constitution on its side to prevent such an outcome.