ACLU Fires Asian Lawyer For Using "Racially Harmful" Language to Complain About Black Boss. She Didn't Say Anything Racist; the ACLU Contends That Simply Criticizing a Black Boss Is Inherently "Harmful" Because It Caused "Hurt Feelings" Among Other Blacks

Nice to have it laid out like this.

You are now claiming it's racist to disagree with a black person or to dislike their management style.

No backtracking; you said what you said. "Racism" now means simply "failure to sufficiently praise a privileged minority."

The ACLU has fired an Asian employee, Kate Oh, for what it describes as creating "racial harm" through her critiques of Black supervisors, inciting a complex legal and ethical debate over workplace dynamics and free speech.

Key Details:

The ACLU claims that Kate Oh, a Korean American lawyer, used language in complaints that perpetuated racist stereotypes against her Black supervisors.

Oh's interactions, including describing a discussion as "chastising" and expressing fear of a Black male superior, were used as examples of alleged anti-Black animus.

She complained about him "chastising" -- criticizing -- an Asian woman. That's not racist. When she complained of the criticism, that was racist. Because he's higher on the Oppression Pyramid of Privilege.

The case has escalated to an unfair-labor-practice trial, with the National Labor Relations Board accusing the ACLU of retaliating against Oh for her complaints about workplace conditions.

Kate Oh, a former lawyer at the ACLU, finds herself at the center of a contentious legal battle after being terminated for allegedly using racially coded language in complaints against her Black supervisors. The ACLU argues that Oh's expressions, such as stating she was "afraid" to speak with a Black superior and calling another meeting "chastising," contributed to a pattern of "willful anti-Black animus." These claims have raised substantial questions about the boundaries of acceptable speech in the workplace, especially within an organization renowned for defending free speech.

The complexity of the case is underscored by the ACLU's own defense strategies, which hinge on a broad interpretation of what constitutes racially harmful speech. This stance seems at odds with the ACLU's historical advocacy for expansive free speech rights, sparking criticisms of hypocrisy and overreach.

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 02:36 PM

| Access Comments