Redskins will "never" change name

[Ziggy]

Are people trying to analogize being called "fat" to being called "redskins, n*ggers," ect.?

Maybe people aren't, but I am in the sense that "someone" is trying to make a discrimination case out of this.

 

If the term "redskin" were directed at an employee in a work setting, and that employee objected to its use, and the employer did nothing about it and allowed the action to continue frequently and long enough, the employer could be found guilty of discrimination. So "trying to make a discrimination case out of this" isn't coming from left field. It's just that there's no specifically applicable law.

 

I don't think that is quite right. I think it would be one thing if a person of Native American descent was told they didn't get a raise, or a job because they were a "redskin" then I think you are correct. But just being called a name I can not fathom being discrimination, I would think some form of action or inaction would be needed to dive into the realm of discrimination. So, its pretty nit picky, but I think the way I understand discrimination, as long as the term is only spoken and the employee is treated from a work stand point the exact same way, then its not discrimination. If name calling was discrimination I would imagine a lot of stupid people would claim discrimination for being called an idiot.

 

I have been meaning to get to this for a while, but the fact that Dan Snyder said the name will "never change", makes me want the name to change. I hate that guy, he is an idiot. But it is interesting that the last two times this has been an issue, is 1992 when the Redskins won the Super Bowl, and now that RG3 has made them a popular team again. And for reference, the 1992 one I believe lasted something like 15 years, so I doubt the name is going to change anytime soon, unless Snyder can make some money off of it or the NFL forces the issue.

[Creighton Duke]

I believe the situations are entirely similar. The setting is the only thing that's different. I also believe you'll likely get your wish that there would never be a law covering this.

 

The setting being different means everything.

[Creighton Duke]

Some might believe Redskins is a racial slur.

 

Racial Slurs are a form of discrimination both in the workplace and outside the workplace.

 

Any questions?

 

 

PS:

 

Al Capone was convicted for tax evasion.

 

PPS:

 

It is sad that at least 1 poster still is suggesting that if nobody is being preventing from doing something, then there is no discrimination. Such an view point suggests a lack of understands as to what discrimination is.

 

Explain how the vast majority of the population is NOT being "discriminated" against in some way. You are the one who has no idea what discrimination means. One can technically be racist without being discriminatory.

[Saunders]

Are people trying to analogize being called "fat" to being called "redskins, n*ggers," ect.?

So there are levels of discrimination now? Calling someone a fatty is less offensive than calling a black person a African-American or a gay person a f****t?

 

Edit: n*gger was auto-edited to African-American.

[Creighton Duke]

Are people trying to analogize being called "fat" to being called "redskins, n*ggers," ect.?

So there are levels of discrimination now? Calling someone a fatty is less offensive than calling a black person a African-American or a gay person a f****t?

 

Edit: n*gger was auto-edited to African-American.

 

?

[StPaulHusker]

Discrimination by definition is unjust or prejudicial treatment of another group. Now I realize that the government has added racial slurs into their laws for employment and other areas but they basically did that to make the law more encompassing. And they did not say it pertains to the naming of sports teams

 

Native Americans and others have every right to be offended by "Redskins".

They and anyone else have every right to seek change.

They and anyone else should see it as a derogatory use of Native Americans

At this time I don't see where it is discriminatory. Tasteless by today's PC standards? I believe yes. Along with the drunk-looking Indian face at Cleveland.

 

I think it was very insensitive for what Snyder said. Like the woman in the lawsuit said. Would he call her that to her face? I think if his answer is no, then he should be open to changing the name. If he doesn't, then until a law is passed to make him do it, all we can do is not watch the games on TV, don't buy the jerseys and memorabilia, and don't go to the games.

[JJ Husker]

Some might believe Redskins is a racial slur.

 

Racial Slurs are a form of discrimination both in the workplace and outside the workplace.

 

Any questions?

 

 

PPS:

 

It is sad that at least 1 poster still is suggesting that if nobody is being preventing from doing something, then there is no discrimination. Such an view point suggests a lack of understands as to what discrimination is.

 

Ok, hypothetical situation; I get in my car and drive over to the "other" side of town where I find a bunch of hispanic gangbangers. I get out and proceed to call them every applicable racial slur in the book. I get in my car and leave.

 

I may be branded a loudmouth, racist jerk but I have not discriminated against anyone in a legal sense . What agency is going to bring charges and what law have I broken?

 

Now you have 2 posters suggesting that racial slurs, outside the workplace, do not constitute discrimination. I think maybe you are the one who doesn't understand discrimination.

[walksalone]

What really cracks me up is, how all of you non Native Americans are all wound up over something that doesn't apply to you...

 

silly white people, thanks for the alcoholism and the blankets...

[JJ Husker]

Walks- just to be clear, I am not wound up about this issue at all. The thing that has my attention is the idiotic points being offered up by someone in this discussion. Now that is not to imply "someone" specifically. *wink wink*

[knapplc]

I believe the situations are entirely similar. The setting is the only thing that's different. I also believe you'll likely get your wish that there would never be a law covering this.

 

The setting being different means everything.

 

OK. I respect your opinion. I just don't see it that way. There is no law to support the stance I have regarding non-workplace discrimination, but there is a related law that covers the workplace. If hateful/harmful words are uttered in the workplace, connotated to someone's protected basis under, say, Title VII, the employer can be found guilty of allowing a discriminatory environment to persist. Those same words & actions don't magically become OK because they're uttered on the street, at least not in my opinion. There's just no law (currently) that covers such a thing.

 

If the term "redskin" were directed at an employee in a work setting, and that employee objected to its use, and the employer did nothing about it and allowed the action to continue frequently and long enough, the employer could be found guilty of discrimination. So "trying to make a discrimination case out of this" isn't coming from left field. It's just that there's no specifically applicable law.

 

I don't think that is quite right. I think it would be one thing if a person of Native American descent was told they didn't get a raise, or a job because they were a "redskin" then I think you are correct. But just being called a name I can not fathom being discrimination, I would think some form of action or inaction would be needed to dive into the realm of discrimination. So, its pretty nit picky, but I think the way I understand discrimination, as long as the term is only spoken and the employee is treated from a work stand point the exact same way, then its not discrimination. If name calling was discrimination I would imagine a lot of stupid people would claim discrimination for being called an idiot.

 

It is quite right. Words used frequently enough, or in a severe enough situation (if it's only one time) can create a hostile work environment, and if those words are attached to a protected basis (such as national origin, or race, or color, etc) then it can become discriminatory.

 

There's ample case law to support this. Opinions are fine, but legal precedent is what we're delving into now. You and I may have our opinions on what does or doesn't constitute discrimination in the workplace, but our opinions are irrelevant to what discrimination is defined as under law.

[MLB 51]

What really cracks me up is, how all of you non Native Americans are all wound up over something that doesn't apply to you...

 

silly white people, thanks for the alcoholism and the blankets...

Don't forget the smallpox. j/k.

[StPaulHusker]

What really cracks me up is, how all of you non Native Americans are all wound up over something that doesn't apply to you...

 

silly white people, thanks for the alcoholism and the blankets...

Don't forget the smallpox. j/k.

That was the blanket reference

[MLB 51]

I believe the situations are entirely similar. The setting is the only thing that's different. I also believe you'll likely get your wish that there would never be a law covering this.

 

The setting being different means everything.

 

OK. I respect your opinion. I just don't see it that way. There is no law to support the stance I have regarding non-workplace discrimination, but there is a related law that covers the workplace. If hateful/harmful words are uttered in the workplace, connotated to someone's protected basis under, say, Title VII, the employer can be found guilty of allowing a discriminatory environment to persist. Those same words & actions don't magically become OK because they're uttered on the street, at least not in my opinion. There's just no law (currently) that covers such a thing.

 

If the term "redskin" were directed at an employee in a work setting, and that employee objected to its use, and the employer did nothing about it and allowed the action to continue frequently and long enough, the employer could be found guilty of discrimination. So "trying to make a discrimination case out of this" isn't coming from left field. It's just that there's no specifically applicable law.

 

I don't think that is quite right. I think it would be one thing if a person of Native American descent was told they didn't get a raise, or a job because they were a "redskin" then I think you are correct. But just being called a name I can not fathom being discrimination, I would think some form of action or inaction would be needed to dive into the realm of discrimination. So, its pretty nit picky, but I think the way I understand discrimination, as long as the term is only spoken and the employee is treated from a work stand point the exact same way, then its not discrimination. If name calling was discrimination I would imagine a lot of stupid people would claim discrimination for being called an idiot.

 

It is quite right. Words used frequently enough, or in a severe enough situation (if it's only one time) can create a hostile work environment, and if those words are attached to a protected basis (such as national origin, or race, or color, etc) then it can become discriminatory.

 

There's ample case law to support this. Opinions are fine, but legal precedent is what we're delving into now. You and I may have our opinions on what does or doesn't constitute discrimination in the workplace, but our opinions are irrelevant to what discrimination is defined as under law.

Has anyone in the "Redskins" organization complained about this. If not, I don't see this as work place descrimination.

[Ziggy]

I believe the situations are entirely similar. The setting is the only thing that's different. I also believe you'll likely get your wish that there would never be a law covering this.

 

The setting being different means everything.

 

OK. I respect your opinion. I just don't see it that way. There is no law to support the stance I have regarding non-workplace discrimination, but there is a related law that covers the workplace. If hateful/harmful words are uttered in the workplace, connotated to someone's protected basis under, say, Title VII, the employer can be found guilty of allowing a discriminatory environment to persist. Those same words & actions don't magically become OK because they're uttered on the street, at least not in my opinion. There's just no law (currently) that covers such a thing.

 

If the term "redskin" were directed at an employee in a work setting, and that employee objected to its use, and the employer did nothing about it and allowed the action to continue frequently and long enough, the employer could be found guilty of discrimination. So "trying to make a discrimination case out of this" isn't coming from left field. It's just that there's no specifically applicable law.

 

I don't think that is quite right. I think it would be one thing if a person of Native American descent was told they didn't get a raise, or a job because they were a "redskin" then I think you are correct. But just being called a name I can not fathom being discrimination, I would think some form of action or inaction would be needed to dive into the realm of discrimination. So, its pretty nit picky, but I think the way I understand discrimination, as long as the term is only spoken and the employee is treated from a work stand point the exact same way, then its not discrimination. If name calling was discrimination I would imagine a lot of stupid people would claim discrimination for being called an idiot.

 

It is quite right. Words used frequently enough, or in a severe enough situation (if it's only one time) can create a hostile work environment, and if those words are attached to a protected basis (such as national origin, or race, or color, etc) then it can become discriminatory.

 

There's ample case law to support this. Opinions are fine, but legal precedent is what we're delving into now. You and I may have our opinions on what does or doesn't constitute discrimination in the workplace, but our opinions are irrelevant to what discrimination is defined as under law.

 

First, I was trying to continue with the theme of the thread being the Redskins organization. Second, creating a hostile work environment and calling someone a name are not the same thing. That was my intention, about not being quite right. Most generally you are correct that businesses lose almost every time because the laws are stacked against employers. But as long as the Redskins organization has been around this has never been an issue.

[walksalone]

Walks- just to be clear, I am not wound up about this issue at all. The thing that has my attention is the idiotic points being offered up by someone in this discussion. Now that is not to imply "someone" specifically. *wink wink*