Associated Press – August 26, 2006:
Robert Henderson was not fired as a state trooper because he belonged to the Ku Klux Klan and another white supremacist group, authorities said. Instead, he was ousted because he could not uphold public trust while participating in such groups, they said.
An arbitrator disagreed, ordering the State Patrol to reinstate Henderson within 60 days and pay him back wages. The state went to court Friday to keep him off the force.
“The integrity of Nebraska’s law enforcement is at risk,” Attorney General Jon Bruning said at news conference in Lincoln. “The Constitution does not require law enforcement to employ anyone tied to the KKK.”
How is this any different then firing a gay policeman that joins an S&M club or communist organization? What people do outside their jobs should be private.
There are two ways to look at this. First, you (allegedly) have a right to privacy. Second, you have no right to be a police officer, thus, the police department has a right not to hire you.
Who wins? I think the police department wins because there is a relationship between his private life and his on the job performance. He’s supposed to be unbiased on the job but he’s admitting he is biased. Essentially, he does not meet the qualifications to be a cop.
Now if they were firing him for some reason unrelated to his job, e.g., he’s black or his favorite color is pink, I think the police department should lose.
Basically put, employers should have the right to fire unqualified employees.
Many times the justifications for dismissal are written poorly and causes these legal issues. There is an accepted legal premise of a, “higher standard”, for professionals and individuals that hold a public trust. It is difficult to fire anyone for non-performance issues unless it’s contractual.
To answer the headline of this topic: no
Next question…
Should Elementary School Teachers be allowed to join the North American Man-Boy Love Association [ NAMBLA ]?
Little League coaches? Scout Leaders?
I didn’t think so… 🙂
Let me play devils advocate. Who get to decide what beliefs that a police officer can have? Can you be a muslim and a police officer? What about a black panther? Any time you have a group making a decision about what is ok to believe in there is a significant potential for abuse. Also remember that it was a jewish ACLU lawyer that represented the KKK and won the case that allowed the KKK to march in Skokie, IL, a heavily Jewish suburb of Chicago.
#1How is this any different then firing a gay policeman that joins an S&M club or communist organization? What people do outside their jobs should be private.
Comment by sirfelix — 8/26/2006 @ 10:22 am
Holy Mary, Mother of God… Is this actually a question?
First… only a small group of gays and lesbians are also into S&M and the S&M lifestyle is enjoyed by a small slice of people from all sexual orientations. But more to the point, S&M is about sexual gratifications and the KKK is about pure, blind, raging, irrational, and ultimately moronic hatred of blacks and jews solely on the basis of them being blacks or jews.
Second… I doubt you will find too many communist cops, but the Communist Party is an organization devoted to a political ideology that is largely about economics, that is expousing shared wealth for all the people and the KKK is about pure, blind, raging, irrational, and ultimately moronic hatred of blacks and jews solely on the basis of them being blacks or jews.
Finally, our lives should be private to a point, but the role of cop is a position of public trust and a cop needs to work fairly and justly with all people, including blacks and jews and the KKK is about pure, blind, raging, irrational, and ultimately moronic hatred of blacks and jews solely on the basis of them being blacks or jews.
If I were to add anything to that, it might be that the KKK is about pure, blind, raging, irrational, and ultimately moronic hatred of blacks and jews solely on the basis of them being blacks or jews.
why does this story make me think so much of Joeseph McCarthy? How often do we have to relearn these lessons?
5: I disagree.
Most of you seem to be looking for ways to rationalize discriminating against a group whom, however reasonable or empirically justifiable you might be in thinking as much, is clearly undesirable to you. Not that I should really separate myself too much; I’m no more fond of the Klan than I am Nation of Islam or Westboro Baptist.
That said, though, I think it’s by far worse to try and dictate how someone should think or feel. In this instance, they’ve already reviewed the guy’s record and determined that there’s nothing in it indicating racial bias; so the guy found a web site and vented about his divorce — so long as he wasn’t in his basement building pipe bombs, more power to him. So long as I don’t have to listen to it, since I think that kind of thing is retarded in the first place.
Still, it’s ironic to note that this is still an incident of police discrimination resulting in an abuse of authority; total non-starter most other days, but in this instance, the minority was a fellow cop and a Klansman.
10. You’re acting as if discrimination is wrong. It’s not. We discriminate every day of our lives. We discriminate about who our friends are. About what family members we enjoy being around. About which students get the better grades. About which employees get higher wages. There is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with discrimination.
Think about what our society would be like if we could not discriminate. How would we, heck, how COULD we decide who to marry, who to hire, where and what to eat, etc?! Our society would collapse.
That being said, our country has decided that it is wrong to discriminate against people for arbitrary reasons when they are members of identifiable groups who have been historically discriminated against. These include race, religion, gender, and age.
But even those are not absolute. The NFL doesn’t hire too many 60 year old quarterbacks. And if a Hollywood producer wants a white blonde chick in a role, it’s his absolute right to do so.
So where exactly is the arbitrary discrimination here? A cop should be unbiased. But yet the fired cop openly admits to being biased. And the second step is not met, either, as there has been no court in the US (as of yet) to find that KKK members are a protected group.
8 …but the role of cop is a position of public trust and a cop needs to work fairly and justly with all people,…
Agreed.
Appearances matter in a position of public trust, but they are critical in a position of public power.
The old adage: Don’t stop to tie your shoe in a watermelon patch!
In the military, it is something which would be considered “prejudicial to good order and discipline”.
Mark Furman’s professional reputation following OJ’s criminal trial, anyone?
11. You’re acting like ‘discrimination’ has a single definition. 😉
Ironically, I’ve quite often heard the same argument used in an attempt to equivocate between discrimination as the application of personal judgement and discrimination applied categorically, rather than individually.
Certainly casting is entitled to hire all the blond football players and sixty year old actresses they wish. Where the actual line is drawn has much more to do with trying to convince people that movies would be greatly improved should all the non-blonds and so on be made into lampshades or merely run off a tall cliff — that sort of thing.
And again, I’m taking the article at face value, here; according to that, he didn’t have anything on his record to indicate his personal bias had any effect on his work. I’m certain there are a fair number of cops who can’t even SPELL “Ku Klux” who can’t claim as much.
Beyond that, you have someone who had been posting to a web site. I’m still not completely on-board with the idea of firing employees who blog about their companies in an unflattering light.
So indeed, unless someone can provide a causal relationship between the guy’s affiliation and some particular misconduct, I don’t see that there’s much of a case, here. He resigned his membership and offered an apology; and so far, the department can’t even turn up a beef filed against him to justify the claim that the incident “seriously compromised” his abilities to perform his job.
And when they came for the Klansman, I said…
“What the fuck I should find myself sticking up for those yutzes? Was I nominated as Chair of the ACLU while I was sleeping, or does it mean I’m such a scumbag they’re going to make a special outing of breaking my door down at two ayem? Christ on toast!”
“You’re acting like ‘discrimination’ has a single definition.”
Well, actually, it does. When you discriminate you make a choice. When you choose to eat a hot dog for lunch, you discriminate against hamburgs. When you hire a lawyer as your attorney, you discriminate against all people who are not lawyers. When you buy your car, you discriminate against other modes of transportation. It’s really that simple. Discriminating is simply making a choice and nothing more.
However, people want to give discrimination a bad name, even though we all do it constantly throughout the day, merely because some people discriminate illegally. But just because you can use a hammer to kill someone does not make a hammer inherently evil… anymore than choosing to eat hot dogs, drive a car, or fire an unqualified employee.
The courts will side with public opinion on this. As they should.
When you choose to eat a hot dog for lunch, you discriminate against hamburgs.
No, that isn’t discrimination, that is a choice between two similar items, each having its own attributes. There is nothing to suggest that you would or would not have a hamburg tomorrow. If you will only eat a hot dog with Grey Poupon and never stoop to something like French’s mustard, then that would be discrimination.
There are some types of discrimination that we would find acceptable. That includes the performing arts such as acting and modeling. Then there are types of discrimination we find unacceptable, including race, nationality, gender, age, and political affiliation. The KKK is a political organization and thus should be immune as a basis of disqualification.
A few years ago the Indiana State Police assigned an officer to duty monitoring a gambling casino. Due to religious differences, he refused the assignment and after several courts and arbitrators, lost every appearance. A Police Officer does not get to choose which side he will represent in a dispute. He only gets to enforce the law. And if he refuses or doesn’t enforce the law, then fire his sorry ass.
We may not, however, assume that he will refuse to enforce the law any more then we can throw someone in jail because they fit a computer model of a criminal. Just because he went through a nasty divorce should not prevent him from investigating domestic disputes.
It would be funny if the judge turned out to be black. Your Honor, my client is a being discriminated against which could cost him his job.
As I posted here , the arbitrator’s ruling points out some things that should be noted, such as that he has only one complaint against him in 18 years, which turned out to be nothing. His postings on the KKK website merely sought out like minded individuals in Nebraska and lamented the “loss of white rights.” The First Amendment is designed to protect people like Henderson, regardless of how offensive personal beliefs may be. Now, if his beliefs ever are put into practice on the job he should, and will be terminated. The full ruling is posted here (PDF).
Why does this even come onto the agenda here? The answer is of course No.
Why does this even become a question? The answer is of course No.
He has a good record, he quit the KKK, he apologised for what he did, he posted to a private web site on his own time.
By the last line in the source article he can’t be fired. It said….that being a member of such an orginsation means he can’t be a cop….but he’s no longer a member, nor was he upon his hiring. He will win the appeal.
Sorry SN, your argument is just a flurry of words designed to cover your self in an unpleasent situation. It’s a habit that people have(myself included) when something they believe in dearly suddenly has an unpleasent tinge to it that we normally don’t have to deal with.
After all the publicity, I seriously doubt he can be effective anymore. No matter if he does his job as he has done for 18 years and only enforced the law, not his own feelings.
And Jim Dermit….if that judge is black or Jewish or a black Jew, he MUST also put aside HIS/HER personal feelings and rule on the merits of the case. He/she must uphold the LAW….just as this officer must.
I agree that now anyone who is pulled over will recognize him and it leaves the potential for a lot of bad things… But prior to the complaint by the Kansas Bureau of Investigations who was monitoring the KKK website (most likely unnecessarily), his membership was private and all remarks were made on a password protected website. The arbitrator’s ruling notes that he had a black friend and that he was engaging in all activities from the privacy of his home. The arbitrator also says that all the publicity was generated by the state and that had they simply watched him they could possibly have found misconduct, or better yet, maybe nothing would have happened.
Mark
The police have a monopoly upon the day-to-day use of force. Thus, they should not be allowed to belong to a terrorist organization like the KKK.
Anyone else see the parallel with the Iraqi military and police being infiltrated with death-squad members? Do we really need that at home?
I live in Nebraska, and I can’t figure out where I stand on this one… On the one hand, I don’t agree with people being fired for their political views. On the other hand, the nature of his position and political views leads to a high risk for an abuse of power. Ultimately, I think he will get his job back, and then be reassigned (with a considerable cut in pay to pursade him to resign) to an area that won’t have contact with civilians.
jccalhoun…..your reference means diddly…..he has an 18 year record to show how he does his job….and it’s not only a clean one, but a good one.
As I said to SN…..it becomes very inconvient for liberals and others who fight discrimination to find they must apply there beloved standards to protect someone who is of a different persausion(kkk) from discrimination.
While not a fan of the ACLU…..they will stand up for anyone who is being wronged, even those they abhor.
…..it becomes very inconvient for liberals and others who fight discrimination to find they must apply there beloved standards to protect someone who is of a different persausion(kkk) from discrimination.
Sorry joshua, but I have little difficulty supporting this officer. Unlike many conservatives, I am not judging him by his beliefs, be they religious or political. I don’t care what color, nationality, or sex he is. Or even his sexual orientation. The only thing that does matter is his ability to do the job for the purpose of this discussion.
It is not illegal to be an idiot or an a**hole. If it were, Dennis Haskert would be President. Henderson did something that is quite legal, even if it is abhorrent.
Mike Voice, the North American Man-Boy Love Association is advocating an illegal activity. The KKK is a political organization and lately their activities do not include promotion of illegal activities.
And Mark Furman’s reputation was ruined because he perjured himself on the witness stand, not because of what he said. Perjury is illegal and grounds to be fired from any police force.
Where to start? It could be with the nimcompoop who says a terrorist group with thousands of murders to its credit is just a “political organization,” and should be allowed to continue along its merry way.
But, I think Max Bell’s sophistry is the most slippery, so I am going to address it instead.
“So indeed, unless someone can provide a causal relationship between the guy’s affiliation and some particular misconduct, I don’t see that there’s much of a case, here. He resigned his membership and offered an apology; and so far, the department can’t even turn up a beef filed against him to justify the claim that the incident “seriously compromised” his abilities to perform his job.”
Consider a comparable case. Timothy McVeigh’s racist and anti-government views were well-known to the U.S. military, but it did not discipline him or consider ejecting him from the the army. We know the outcome. The state patrol has been given notice it has a problem employee and has responded rationally.
Waiting for this cop to go off would be the essence of foolishness. Indeed, the point of having qualification examinations is to bar people who are incapable of carrying out the duties involved in a job from the beginning. Obviously, this man lacks the ability to perform his duties in a fair and objective manner. The fact that his problem did not emerge until after he was hired should have no effect. There are definitely adequate grounds to fire him. Not to do so would be make the state patrol liable under several legal theories, including, creating a hostile work environment and violating Reconstruction era civil rights statutes that targeted exactly this kind of behavior.
I took Mark up on his request that people look at his defense of Henderson on his blog. This is what I found:
“”In this incident, his only in 18 years of service, Henderson pulled over a black man who he claimed had been “trying to get friendly” with his wife and warned him about his license plate violation.”
My response:
In other words, Henderson targeted a person because of his race. If the fellow allegedly ‘trying to get friendly,” had been white, the stop likely would not have occurred.
The facts completely undermine the claim you are trying to make that Henderson has never acted on his racial bias. He has.
The arbitrator’s opinion is hardly worth the paper it is written on considering prima facie evidence of discrimination is being ignored.
I do not believe that he should continue as an officer of the law mainly because he cannot do his job unbiasedly. God knows there are many cops who are racist but don’t openly admit to it, but for one to blantaly state that he hates minorities because his wife left him for one is one that shouldn’t have his badge. His wife left for a reason, he needs a scapegoat…he has an apparent problem with anger displacement.
Since when do arbiters make such important policy decisions on issues as serious as this? This is a public trust issue. This guy is in a government job not private security. Who in the hell gives a single individual, not even in a court, to say this guy is allowed to remain a cop? What is the arbiter is a fellow clan member? What if he’s paid off? They are private companies or fellow workers that arbitrate. What a kangaroo court. I pay a lot in taxes and to think this racist jerk could stop me, kill me and accuse me of resisting arrest, just because I am black, is a travesty. It is very, very difficult to NOT hate white people after hearing one thing after the other, of this nature, throughout American history. This is a no brain-er. It is very difficult indeed to not generalize, as does the KKK themselves, and extrapolate this mentality to all whites. They always try to rationalize their irreverent privilege. Not all but enough to have to stave off the hatred.
i luv the kkk!!!