As Slate's "Explainer" Daniel Engber notes:
Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen will have to undergo league-mandated "sensitivity training," after calling a Chicago Sun-Times columnist a "fag" last week. Guillen told a reporter on Friday that he wasn't sure if he'd make it to the session, while legendary baseball loudmouth John Rocker described his own sensitivity training as a "farce."
Yes, sounds like it's gonna make the guy real sensitive about gays. But this kind of mandatory session is really about placating those offended (and I count myself among them).
Businesses have a right to force this kind of training on their employees, and doing so allows them to claim they're making good faith efforts to eliminate discrimination should they find themselves being sued. But requiring offenders to endure a bit of multi-culti psychoblather isn't likely to get at the root of anyone's prejudice (though it may provide them with an incentive to keep their bigotries out of public view).
11 Comments for “Mandated Sensitivity.”
posted by Bobby on
O’reilly covered the story, said it was wrong for Guillen to use such word. I agree.
Sensitivity-training is not needed, if the media criticizes him the way they criticize Coulter, it would be enough.
posted by Lori Heine on
I’m not worried about eradicating every last spot and smidgen of bigotry against gays and lesbians. The important thing is to make it socially unacceptable for them to mouth off about it in public.
“Sensitivity training” sounds, to me, like a huge joke. It will have about as much of an effect on those forced to go through it as the Widow Douglas’s pious admonitions had against Huck and Tom.
Jerks will always be jerks. But when they get browbeaten by high-minded moralists, it only gives them a reason to feel justifiably aggrieved. Usually, it seems to further “justify” their bigotry.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“Sensitivity training” is a fig leaf.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I\\’ve never had a problem with robust, direct, language.
As far as I\\’m concerned, Pat Robertson should be called out as a religious huckster, James Dobson as a smooth-talking bigot, the President as a pandering ignoranmus, Rick Santorum as a low-life hypocrite, and gays and lesbians who are apologists for them as syncopant fools.
But there is a limit to robust speech, and that limit floats around the margins of gratuitously tossing around words like \\”faggot\\” and \\”nigger\\” and \\”kyke\\” and \\”cunt\\” in public — words that are so offensive that they cross the line into \\”fighting words\\”.
I suppose that there are people who are basically good hearted but honestly don\\’t know that calling someone a \\”faggot\\” or a \\”nigger\\” or a \\”kyke\\” or a \\”cunt\\” in public is offensive, and I guess that these people would benefit from sensitivity training.
But on the whole, I don\\’t think that sensitivity training accomplishes much of anything, because assholes think out of their, uh, assholes, and appealing to what brains they might have is generally a waste of time.
I think that a more direct approach — \\”This is what is acceptable language/action in our school/workplace, and this is what is not. Pay attention, because you will be expelled/fired if you cross the line.\\” — is the better approach.
Outside the workplace, I agree with Lori and the others — the important thing is to make it socially unacceptable to toss off highly offensive slurs in public.
It is not up to the press alone, though. We all play a part in that process.
I was in a thrift store in Chicago a year or so back, waiting in line at the checkout counter, when an African-American called me a \\”faggot\\”. I confronted her with the fact that \\”faggot\\” and \\”nigger\\” were the same word, different only in that the slurs were applied to different groups. I did it loudly enough that half the store got a quick education.
I believe in confronting assholes. I\\’ve believed in it since the day that my older brother, who went off on a local hardware store owner when we were teenagers for complaining that my brother was \\”Jewing him down.\\” I was in high school at the time. I learned that I didn\\’t have to be quiet and listen to that kind of crap. I\\’ve never looked back.
posted by Randy R. on
Agree with the whole of your post, Tom.
Perhaps these idiot sports people should spend a week in an ex-gay camp, so that they can learn what real homophobia is like. A bet after week of learning the ‘manly’ way to cross your legs, he’ll be screaming to get out of there, and not wish it on anybody!
posted by Hershel on
” Pat Robertson should be called out as a religious huckster,”
—So you’re justifying bad behavior with more bad behavior.
Well, it’s your freedom. But I don’t agree.
posted by Miki on
“Pat Robertson should be called out as a religious huckster, James Dobson as a smooth-talking bigot, the President as a pandering ignoranmus, Rick Santorum as a low-life hypocrite, and gays and lesbians who are apologists for them as syncopant [sic]fools.
Gee, I don’t know a single GL – or even BTQ, for that matter – person who ‘apologizes’ for any of these folks, let alone all of them. Respecting your nation’s leader while disagreeing with much of what he says or does is differing, and reasonably so, not ‘apologizing.’
However, I do know that there are enough lawyers on this board to know that “sensitivity training” is a valuable tool for law$uit target$ defending against hostile workplace and employment di$crimination claim$. So what if such programs drive up the cost of doing business, they’re making us a better society, right?
Aren’t they?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I don’t know a single GL – or even BTQ, for that matter – person who ‘apologizes’ for any of these folks, let alone all of them
You must not know very many GL(BTQ) people then.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Miki: \\\\\\”However, I do know that there are enough lawyers on this board to know that \\\\\\”sensitivity training\\\\\\” is a valuable tool for law$uit target$ defending against hostile workplace and employment di$crimination claim$. So what if such programs drive up the cost of doing business, they\\\\\\’re making us a better society, right? Aren\\\\\\’t they?\\\\\\”
\\\\\\”Sensitivity training\\\\\\” and \\\\\\”workplace harassment programs\\\\\\” both reduce the potential for corporate liability.
The two, however, are quite different.
Sensitivity training attempts to change both attitudes and behavior. Workplace harassment programs focus on behavior, period.
The difference in is critical.
(1) Effectiveness. It is almost impossible for sensitivity training to undo a lifetime of enculturation — undoing the years of exposure to cocksucker and fudge-packer and so on — with a few hours training. It just doesn\\\\\\’t happen. It is, however, possible for workplace harassment programs to get employees to change their behavior — stop calling gays cocksuckers and fudge-packers, regardless of what they think — while on the job. It works, and works reasonably well.
(2) Legitimacy. Except in rare instances, where attitude is a job-related requirement, employers have no legitimate reason to try to change an employee\\\\\\’s attitudes. Employers do, however, have a legitimate reason to eliminate harassment in the workplace, because skilled and valuable employees will quit if harassed. Sensitivity training doesn\\\\\\’t directly relate to the bottom line, workplace harassment programs do.
(3) Cost. Sensititivty training, which requires one-on-one or small-group work in order to have a chance at being successful, is expensive. Workplace harassment programs, on the other hand, take less time, can use intranet and other \\\\\\”as you have time\\\\\\” tecnologies, and can be relatively inexpensive.
The difference is critical. I think that workplace harassment programs are legitimate, properly focuses and valuable, while sensitivity training is a midguided, inappropriate, waste of time.
posted by raj on
It appears that Miller does not really understand what is going on with MLB (Major League Baseball) sentencing Guillen to this so-called “sensitivity training.” It has nothing to do with whether the “sensitivity training” will actually result in any change in attitude or behavior. It has everything to do with marketing: they obviously believe that Guillen’s behavior might turn off some portion of their marketing base–their “fans”–and MLB believes that this sentence will suggest to that portion of their marketing base that they are doing something to amelliorate the offense. It won’t have any affect on Guillen’s attitude or behavior, of course, so the whole exercise is a charade.
Also, of course, if Guillen had referred to someone as being a “jigaboo” or a “jungle bunny,” he’d have been fired, but that’s another issue.
posted by Lou on
Im not a big fan of psycho-babble though I reallize its value in documentation for lawsuits. There is a difference between being critical, opinionated versus being prejudiced and hostile.
Ive had many a boss smile and be nice while setting up employees to fail or setting up trouble makes with their own accusers of harassment. You know the type….a coworker becomes your best friend finds out your flaws, your opinions and details of your personal life…and then one by one sabotages your job, career, projects, maligns your character, gossips, etc. These are much worse than the archie bunker types that are politically incorrect but just want to get the job done.
So if someone like John Rocker doesnt like his gay fans thats ok with me. The question is whether he would play with a gay team mate.
To often I think we punish the enemies that are visable via political correctness only to be blindsided by the cloaked sabotage that replaces it