5 ms·

> My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist

> My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are. > There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong I don't think this is referring to curbing any specific opinion or view, but rather her co-workers' interactions with her. Its entirely appropriate to speak out against, say, the pervasive denial of climate change among evangelicals. That said if you have an evangelical coworker that doesn't believe in climate change, you will still be met with repercussions if you go around calling said co-worker a backwards dumbass and repeatedly post ax emojis next to their name in slack.

slg 6y ago
Calling your climate change denying coworker a backwards dumb-ass is not illegal. You can of course be fired for that inappropriate behavior, but it isn't illegal. Weiss specifically called out this behavior as unlawful discrimination. Also it is worth pointing out that Weiss's job was to voice opinions. It is entirely different for someone in that role to face backlash for their bad opinions than it is for someone in the role of let's say a mid-level software developer.
- smsm42 6y ago
  > Calling your climate change denying coworker a backwards dumb-ass is not illegal Illegal is when you call the police. There's lots of behaviors that the employer is better to prevent before you have to call the police. If it rose to the level of illegal, there's a lot of things that already went wrong. > Weiss specifically called out this behavior as unlawful discrimination. If she was uniquely subjected to harassing and hostile behavior then it's discrimination, by definition. If that treatment is routine for anyone that dares to voice an unorthodox though in NYT, then it's not discrimination - it's just deeply sick and broken culture.
  - slg 6y ago
    Discrimination is a legal word. She used the phrase "unlawful discrimination" which means she is using it in a legal context. Discrimination is not defined by being "subjected to harassing and hostile behavior" unless the reason for that behavior focuses on a protected class. There is nothing unlawful about treating her poorly based on her "unorthodox thoughts".
    - smsm42 6y ago
      > There is nothing unlawful about treating her poorly based on her "unorthodox thoughts". It could be that she is, not being a lawyer, wrong on the "unlawful" part (it's impossible to know without knowing the details and the NY anti-discrimination statutes and caselaw). So what? It's not an argument in a lawsuit, exact precision of all legal terms is not the most important thing here.
      - slg 6y ago
        When your job is to communicate with the written word, I don't think it is unreasonable for you to be held to the literal interpretation of your words. As I said elsewhere in this thread, if she can't clearly communicate her actual beliefs and opinions through her writing, she is bad at her job.
        smsm42 6y ago
        In my opinion, it is unreasonable. If somebody comes out and says "I am being constantly harassed by my colleagues, this makes my life hell and I think it's also illegal" and you respond with "well, according to the legal precedent from 1925, Snowflake et al. vs Ontinence, Inc., making your life hell is not illegal unless they put a live rat into your drawer and it bit you, and since no evidence of rat bite has been presented, clearly the whole complaint is invalid" - that's not a reasonable way to treat this complaint. If you're a judge considering a motion to dismiss, sure, that's exactly what you'd do. But if you're a reasonable person reacting to a complaint that somebody's life is made hell, then no, the legal precedent of the Snowflake case is not the main thing you should reasonably discuss. You may be more worried about the "hell" part.
- manfredo 6y ago
  > Calling your climate change denying coworker a backwards dumb-ass is not illegal. You can of course be fired for that inappropriate behavior, but it isn't illegal. A correct statement, but one that skirts around the issue at hand: in this situation the people berating their evangelical coworker are creating a hostile workplace environment and the company is obligated to take actions to remidiate this situation. If the climate denier points out this hostile workplace behavior, they're not censoring any particular view. Only the hostile actions of their co-worker. While Weiss' high profile position makes it much more likely to receive public scrutiny, she is indeed entitled to the same workplace protections as a mid level software developer. Working as a columnist doesn't absolve a company of their legal responsibility to curb workplace harassment. Your workplace is a captive audience. What is legal for some random person to say to you is not at all the same standard that is applied to co-workers. Weiss calling this behavior out as discrimination is not calling any particular belief illegal, only the treatment towards her by her coworkers.
  - slg 6y ago
    A hostile work environment requires discrimination. She is not being discriminated against. Having smart and well supported opinions is part of the requirements of her job. Therefore her opinions are subject to extra scrutiny compared to the opinions of someone who is asked to do an entirely different job.
    - manfredo 6y ago
      No, a hostile work environment does not require discrimination. A workplace that is entirely non-discriminatory but does nothing when one co-worker relentlessly bullies and harasses another co-worker is still a hostile workplace. You seem to be misled by the fact that anti-discrimination laws prohibit hostile workplaces, and that hostile workplaces are considered a form of discrimination, but there's no requirement that the hostility be discriminatory in nature. A co-worker harassing another co-worker without any particular discrimination is still harassment. I can call a co-worker an idiot and a worthless human being relentlessly, all day long. That's not discriminatory in nature. I'm not referring to a protected class like gender, race, or religion. Does it follow that it isn't creating a hostile workplace? https://www.eeoc.gov/harassment https://www.eeoc.gov/harassment

slg 6y ago

Calling your climate change denying coworker a backwards dumb-ass is not illegal. You can of course be fired for that inappropriate behavior, but it isn't illegal. Weiss specifically called out this behavior as unlawful discrimination. Also it is worth pointing out that Weiss's job was to voice opinions. It is entirely different for someone in that role to face backlash for their bad opinions than it is for someone in the role of let's say a mid-level software developer.

smsm42 6y ago
> Calling your climate change denying coworker a backwards dumb-ass is not illegal Illegal is when you call the police. There's lots of behaviors that the employer is better to prevent before you have to call the police. If it rose to the level of illegal, there's a lot of things that already went wrong. > Weiss specifically called out this behavior as unlawful discrimination. If she was uniquely subjected to harassing and hostile behavior then it's discrimination, by definition. If that treatment is routine for anyone that dares to voice an unorthodox though in NYT, then it's not discrimination - it's just deeply sick and broken culture.
- slg 6y ago
  Discrimination is a legal word. She used the phrase "unlawful discrimination" which means she is using it in a legal context. Discrimination is not defined by being "subjected to harassing and hostile behavior" unless the reason for that behavior focuses on a protected class. There is nothing unlawful about treating her poorly based on her "unorthodox thoughts".
  - smsm42 6y ago
    > There is nothing unlawful about treating her poorly based on her "unorthodox thoughts". It could be that she is, not being a lawyer, wrong on the "unlawful" part (it's impossible to know without knowing the details and the NY anti-discrimination statutes and caselaw). So what? It's not an argument in a lawsuit, exact precision of all legal terms is not the most important thing here.
    - slg 6y ago
      When your job is to communicate with the written word, I don't think it is unreasonable for you to be held to the literal interpretation of your words. As I said elsewhere in this thread, if she can't clearly communicate her actual beliefs and opinions through her writing, she is bad at her job.
      - smsm42 6y ago
        In my opinion, it is unreasonable. If somebody comes out and says "I am being constantly harassed by my colleagues, this makes my life hell and I think it's also illegal" and you respond with "well, according to the legal precedent from 1925, Snowflake et al. vs Ontinence, Inc., making your life hell is not illegal unless they put a live rat into your drawer and it bit you, and since no evidence of rat bite has been presented, clearly the whole complaint is invalid" - that's not a reasonable way to treat this complaint. If you're a judge considering a motion to dismiss, sure, that's exactly what you'd do. But if you're a reasonable person reacting to a complaint that somebody's life is made hell, then no, the legal precedent of the Snowflake case is not the main thing you should reasonably discuss. You may be more worried about the "hell" part.
manfredo 6y ago
> Calling your climate change denying coworker a backwards dumb-ass is not illegal. You can of course be fired for that inappropriate behavior, but it isn't illegal. A correct statement, but one that skirts around the issue at hand: in this situation the people berating their evangelical coworker are creating a hostile workplace environment and the company is obligated to take actions to remidiate this situation. If the climate denier points out this hostile workplace behavior, they're not censoring any particular view. Only the hostile actions of their co-worker. While Weiss' high profile position makes it much more likely to receive public scrutiny, she is indeed entitled to the same workplace protections as a mid level software developer. Working as a columnist doesn't absolve a company of their legal responsibility to curb workplace harassment. Your workplace is a captive audience. What is legal for some random person to say to you is not at all the same standard that is applied to co-workers. Weiss calling this behavior out as discrimination is not calling any particular belief illegal, only the treatment towards her by her coworkers.
- slg 6y ago
  A hostile work environment requires discrimination. She is not being discriminated against. Having smart and well supported opinions is part of the requirements of her job. Therefore her opinions are subject to extra scrutiny compared to the opinions of someone who is asked to do an entirely different job.
  - manfredo 6y ago
    No, a hostile work environment does not require discrimination. A workplace that is entirely non-discriminatory but does nothing when one co-worker relentlessly bullies and harasses another co-worker is still a hostile workplace. You seem to be misled by the fact that anti-discrimination laws prohibit hostile workplaces, and that hostile workplaces are considered a form of discrimination, but there's no requirement that the hostility be discriminatory in nature. A co-worker harassing another co-worker without any particular discrimination is still harassment. I can call a co-worker an idiot and a worthless human being relentlessly, all day long. That's not discriminatory in nature. I'm not referring to a protected class like gender, race, or religion. Does it follow that it isn't creating a hostile workplace? https://www.eeoc.gov/harassment https://www.eeoc.gov/harassment