Last week, software company Basecamp’s CEO Jason Fried anounced in a blog post that employees would no longer be allowed to openly share their “societal and political discussions” at work. “Every discussion remotely related to politics, advocacy or society at large quickly spins away from pleasant,” Fried wrote. “You shouldn’t have to wonder if staying out of it means you’re complicit, or wading into it means you’re a target.” Coinbase, a cryptocurrency company, issued a similar edict last year, but the internal reaction to Fried’s announcement was a rebellion. Basecamp employs around 60 people, and about a third of the them have accepted buyouts to leave in an apparent protest against the new policy.
There are few legal limits on employers regulating political speech in the workplace. First Amendment rights do not apply to private sector employers. Any speech ban has to clearly state that the policy will not apply to discussions relating to terms and conditions of employment protected under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. An employer must also consistently enforce the policy lest selective enforcement suggest discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or other protected classifications.
Bad, BAD week last week, and not just for me. It was a bad week in ethics, and because of my own shortcomings, I wasn’t able to properly provide a path through it. This week will be better, starting today. At least if I have anything to say about it…
1. From “the rest of the story” files: Remember when Jonathan Papelbon attacked Bryce Harper in the Washington Nationals dugout? It was 2015, and pretty much marked the end of relief ace Paplebon’s career. Harper went on to become a mega-million dollar free agent after the 2018 season, when he signed with the Phillies for a ridiculous 30 million dollars a year long-term contract. Papelbon finally resurfaced in Boston this season as an amusingly unrestrained analyst for NESN, which broadcasts the the Red Sox games. And I recently discovered how almost right he was to accost Harper, if admittedly a bit too enthusiastically. The prompt for Pap to go grab Harper by the neck was the latter loafing down the line as he barely ran out a ground ball. Harper’s periodic lack of hustle had been a source of annoyance for years (to be fair, he was “only” being paid 2.5 million bucks to play hard in 2015), but I just saw the stats for his last year in Washington. Having been a plus-defensive player in previous years, Harper stopped hustling entirely in 2018, both in the field and on the bases. Though he had once saved over 20 runs in a season in the field alone, in his free agent year Harper cost his team over 20 runs that year, making sure he stayed healthy for the big payday to come (to be fair, he was “only” being paid 21.6 million bucks to play hard in 2018). As soon as he had a guaranteed contract with Philadelphia, Harper started playing hard again, dashing around the bases and diving in the outfield.
Both Papelbon and Harper were jerks during their careers, but nobody could accuse “Pap” of not doing his best to win for the fans, his team, its city and his team mates every single time he stepped onto a baseball field.
2. Not Harvard this time: it’s back to Georgetown! Both of my schools’ diplomas are turned to the wall of my office in a symbolic protest against their continuing unethical policies and conduct—-I’m not sure what more I can do to signal my contempt and embarrassment. Now it’s Georgetown’s turn again—I worked for the University for five years after I graduated from the Law Center—to make me wish I had graduated from a school with some integrity. Though it has been notably un-covered by the mainstream news media, Georgetown Professor Michele Swers read the words of a Ku Klux Klan leader in her “U.S. Political Systems” class for the college, but because she “did not censor” the word “nigger,” a large contingent of her students sent a smoking gun letter letter to Swers and the college’s diversity office, demanding that she apologize profusely, review all future presentation and lecture material for potential bias; and demonstrate her “understanding of the history of the N-word and why it is inappropriate for a non-Black person to say it in any context, including an educational context.” [Pointer: Steve Witherspoon]
So far, I can find no record of a response from the university or the professor, but writing of the incident, Prof. Turley says in part,
Ethics observations on the unbelievably idiotic Kelly Donohue “Jeopardy” controversy….
If you, like, have a life or don’t live on the web, you may have missed this story, which means you might still live in a place dominated by sane people. I’m almost hesitant to spoil your delusion…
Last week, Kelly Donohue, a 35-year-old state bank examiner from Winthrop, Massachusetts, fulfilled the Nerd’s Dream of appearing appear on “Jeopardy!” Somehow, the silly, naive man still thought there were safe places in the media where one was not at risk of becoming a victim of the vicious, left-wing outrage machine, which nourishes itself on the metaphorical splattered blood of those they destroy, just to demonstrate it can.
Kelly decided to celebrate each of his three wins by making hand gestures to mark them. (Jeez, man…) The gestures after his his first and second wins—you know, one finger, then two fingers?—were deemed acceptible, but when he made the symbol above signifying his third victory, some people set out to destroy his life. A reasonable response, don’t you think? An online letter supposedly signed by more than 500 former “Jeopardy!” contestants—nobody’s checked if they all are— called the symbol “offensive” and a “racist dog whistle.”
“What I can say is that it’s pretty well known that that particular gesture has become associated with white power,” said Emily Kelly, a contestant in 2012 who signed the letter.
Emily is an asshole, but then, they all are, whether they were ever on “Jeopardy” or not.
Bar associations are trying to woke-up their ethics rules regarding sexual harassment and sexual discrimination, and it’s not going well. The states pretty much rejected the language of the ABA’s broad and vague proposed 8.4g, declaring it unethical for a lawyer to engage in harassment or discrimination “related to the practice of law,” whatever that means. Moreover, the rule implies that more than illegal “discrimination” is covered, and doesn’t bother to define sexual “harassment,” which has been a moving target since it was conceived. Tennessee adopted the ABA’s language, and the rule was quickly declared unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court. Now the ABA is back to the drawing board after causing this chaos, trying to tighten the language.
Maybe it was reading about the latest developments in this mess that sent my mind reeling back to 2018, when an attendee at a monthly ethics seminar I had given for more than a decade suddenly had a tantrum over my interpretation of another bar association’s ‘discrimination” rule, which prohibited a lawyer from engaging in discrimination in “employment.” Or maybe it was the shadow of doom, since I had recently set a personal record for the most unwelcome bodily sources of voluminous expurgations of blood in a 24 hour period.
Boy, if my life is going to pass before my eyes, I would urge the editor to skip this episode.
Only my recent travails have delayed my letter not only withdrawing from my Georgetown Law Center class reunion committee but announcing that I have no intention of attending any celebration of a degree that has embarrassed me repeatedly for several years, most notably in this revolting episode. But, to be fair, my undergraduate degree has been rendered equally nauseating, and over a much longer period. That Harvard—it has to be #1 in everything.
This Month’s Harvard Magazine continued the apparently irreversible trend. The Harvard Library announced that it is removing the “illegal alien” subject heading from its collection descriptions, citing the hoary progressive talking-point that “actions can be illegal, but people cannot.” This has always been sophistry and rhetorical sleight of hand to make it linguistically difficult to describe what it is that is objectionable about those who illegally cross our borders and remains here, receiving the benefits of this nation without having been granted them. When the elite and educated in a society start bolstering bad ideas and flawed logic by abusing their perceived authority and confusing the ignorant and gullible, propaganda gains overwhelming power.
The “no person is illegal” trick is intellectually dishonest, of course. Illegal aliens are people who are in this country illegally. Ergo, while remaining in this country, their existence here is illegal, and hence they are illegal. One could say with equal validity—that is, none—that no drug can be truly illegal, because objects themselves can’t do anything, legal or not. It’s what is done with the drugs that is illegal–make them, distribute them, sell them, use them. You can’t prosecute an object.
This is a record, I think, for the latest EA post ever. I had started two posts this morning, and then my run of bad luck in all respects over the past two weeks struck again. Yesterday, in the late afternoon, a wind storm knocked out just enough of our electricity—only ours, in this area of Northern Virginia—to render our appliances, my PC, our internet, TV, our air conditioning and our phones inoperable. A lucky encounter with a power company crew working on a street light (Grace, Spuds and I were aimlessly driving around the neighborhood so we could at least listen to the Red Sox game) resulted in three trucks arriving at our home in about ten minutes, and they brought us out of the Stone Age in about two hours. Then today, Comcast had “an outage in our area.” They fixed that problem a little after 7 pm.
Getting any posts up in this stretch has been a chore, mostly because I’ve been feeling terrible along with having some income-producing obligations that had to take priority. I want to thank all of the readers and regular commenters who have sent me kind emails, and others of you who I owe personal replies, acknowledgments and thanks and am tardy on those along with such essentials as calculating invoices, shopping, walking Spuds (I owe him about ten) and clearing fallen branches off off the lawn.
Naturally, traffic here, already unstable since the election, has really crashed, and the hell with it. I’ve decided that of all the things to worry about, that’s a waste of time. My mistake has been thinking that I have any control over traffic, other than to keep myself healthy enough to try to cover the ethics landscape and provide something for the traffic to come to. The commentariat here has, as usual, come through with flags flying while I was languishing.
1. CVS, our oasis of responsible health care...This really happened to me. At my local CVS this morning, waiting in line for the pharmacy, everything broke down when the trainee clerk couldn’t locate the prescription of the woman in front of me, who said she had received a call telling her to pick it up. The clerk and the supervisor insisted that they had no such prescription, and the supervisor even printed out a sheet showing her last five pick-ups. “Uh, that one on the top—the one with a red circle around it? That’s what I’m here to pick up,” she said, with less venom than I would have used. This completely confused the staffers, who caucused, and asked her to verify various dates. “Why don’t just look in the bin labeled “O” (her surname initial) and see if it’s there?” the woman suggested. They did, and sure enough, there were her pills. I started giggling, and she looked at me and said, soto voce, “Isn’t this scary?”
Then it was my turn. While waiting out this drama, I had noticed three printed signs reading that “The Coronavirus Vaccine is not currently available at any CVS locations. Check cvs.com for updates.” I asked to speak to the pharmacist, and told her that the signs were wrong: my sister and other people I know had been vaccinated at CVSs, and months ago. “Yes, but this CVS doesn’t have the vaccines,” she said. “But that’s not what the signs on your area say,” I pointed out. “They say that NO CVS locations have the vaccine. That is demonstrably untrue, and I would expect CVS staff to know that.”
“Oh,” she shrugged. “Well, it’s easy to change the signs…”
2. Yesterday I saw…
An 8 year-old boy, running in a field, completely alone, wearing a mask.
A man leaving his home maskless, then putting a mask on as he got into his car.
A teacher (we live next to an elementary school) outside with her class. She wore a mask, and so did half of the children.
A woman walking her dog on a windy day in Virginia. She had a mask. (The dog did not. Dogs are smart…)
Yesterday I got an email from someone who asked what I charge for “Guest Posts.” (This always means that the aspiring guest poster wants to write about nothing even vaguely related to ethics.) I told him there was no charge: just come on an Open Forum and write something that I deem worthy of guest post status.
Of course, as a virgin commenter, he’ll have to get through moderation first.
South Carolina Republican Senator Tim Scott delivered a rarity, an opposing party “replay” to a Presidential address that was eloquent, powerful, and relevant. However, Scott also fell into the ethics abyss by demanding that Twitter take down tweets that included the hashtag “Uncle Tim.” Scott called the trend “upsetting” and “so disappointing” this morning, saying that it shows the left “are literally attacking the color of my skin.”
Well yes, they are. That shouldn’t be surprise, since they have also been attacking the color of MY skin.
The conservatives, as the mainstream media likes to say when Republican point out hypocrisy, “pounced”:
Absolutism is a bitch, as people used to say about Emanuel Kant behind his back. Absolute means absolute, and by taking an absolute position, you have waived the right to retreat, as rational ethical beings must sometimes, to the shelter of the Ethics Incompleteness Principle. Thus I confess to being thrilled at the dilemma President Biden has found himself in as the Supreme Court considers whether Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving partner of the Chechnyan terrorist bother act that bombed the Boston Marathon in 2013, deserves the death penalty.
Oh, gee, let me thin–YES! Of course he should die. The position here on capitol punishment is that having the ultimate punishment as the penalty for ultimate evil is crucial in order to maintain society’s reverence for human life and the rule of law. I don’t care if we only haul out “Old Sparky” for true monsters, like the Cheshire home invaders, Jeffrey Dauhmer, and James Earl Ray. Heck, I don’t care if you decide to only execute Tsarnaev and monsters like him, meaning those who, like him and his big bro, plant deadly shrapnel bombs where they know a happy crowd and families will be gathering for an annual event, where they killed three people, injured 260, many of them badly, including seventeen people who lost limbs. The brothers also killed a law enforcement officer as they attempted to escape.
Opponents of the death penalty are a funny bunch, and by funny I mean “they love grandstanding until they learn the details.” In the aftermath of the D.C. Snipers case, pollsters found that a significant percentage of those who said that they were unalterably opposed to capital punishment also said “buuuut I wouldn’t fight making an exception with those snipers.”
Then you are not opposed to capital punishment. It’s that simple.
In March, SCOTUS heard arguments in an appeal of the ruling last year by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, That court upheld Tsarnaev’s convictions on 27 counts agaianst him, including First Degree Murder, but ruled that his death sentence should be overturned because the trial judge had not questioned jurors closely enough about their exposure to pretrial publicity and had excluded evidence concerning Tamerlan Tsarnaev, his older brother and accomplice.
