Hey, there! Log in / Register

Gruff clothier was gruff, not racist, state rules

Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reports on a ruling by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination that the owner of a Downtown Crossing clothing store was irascible but not racist when he demanded to know why a black man from Kenya thought he sold watches.

The commission said Alan Swartz, formerly of Mr. Alan's Clothing, was just naturally cranky and that it did not believe Swartz threatened the man with a baseball bat or racial epithets when the man came into the store and asked if Swartz knew where he could get a phone fixed. The commission noted that not only was Swartz's clientele primarily minority and that he employed black workers, he was married to a black woman.

Neighborhoods: 
Free tagging: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Every person has racism and contributes to racism at times, and being married to a person of color doesn't exempt one from this.

It is appropriate to state that his patterns of past and current behavior make it unlikely that he made blatantly abusive statements based on race, sure. But not that he's somehow the only person on the planet who's not a part of racism.

up
Voting closed 0

To say that every person "has racism" is indicting alot of people. Where is the evidence that supports that generalization? Alternatively, what is the evidence (if there is any) that you would accept that would prove someone is not a racist.
To call someone a racist is a serious accusation; it seems you have no acquaintance with the gentleman involved here, but nonetheless you accuse him of being a racist.

up
Voting closed 0

"Reading comprehension is hard".

She didn't call him a racist. She said everyone has racism. Different concepts.

up
Voting closed 0

So then we're ALL going to jail? If 'everybody' has racism, how do you criminalize it?

up
Voting closed 0

Racism isn't illegal. Provable discrimination is. They're not the same thing.

up
Voting closed 0

in order to claim discrimination.

up
Voting closed 0

I don't think I stated otherwise.

up
Voting closed 0

I know someone who works for MCAD and he says about 50% of the complaints they get aren't legally "discrimination" because of several factors, some of them kind of interesting.

One of the wierd ones is that an employee can basically sexually harrass their boss (as long as the harrassment isn't criminal), but obviously a boss can't sexually harrass their employee.

up
Voting closed 0

As you said, unless things escalate to a criminal level, we only need protection from the people who have power over us. If I tell my boss she's hot, and she doesn't like this, she can write me up, make my life miserable until I quit, etc. She already has protections against any sort of behavior of mine that she doesn't like.

But if a boss is doing this shit to an employee, the employee doesn't have many protections, particularly if it's subtleish stuff.

up
Voting closed 0

Hmm. That's a little like saying that "she didn't call him a car owner, she just said that everybody has a car."

By that rationale, she IS calling him a racist, along with everybody else under the sun. Before anybody gets me wrong, let me make clear that I think that's more or less true.

up
Voting closed 0

THREAD

up
Voting closed 0

Good for them. If you want to outlaw cranky shopkeepers, then go ahead. But there is a bright line between blunt low tolerance for annoying clientele and racism. I would agree that close/marital contact with persons of color is a marker for generic racial acceptance. Excellent call for common sense and individuality.

up
Voting closed 0

Without exception, every person who plays the 'everyone is racist' card means 'except me.'

up
Voting closed 0

Against better judgment I'd weigh in here and say one problem we have in the racism discussion is that the word 'racism' has begun to mean different things to different people. I think some people see it as referring more to the specific social-political and economic system biases in western culture for the past few hundred years, which means it is very much describing discrimination against non-whites by whites, whereas others see it more generally as when you don't like someone or think less of someone solely on the basis of their race.

In the first definition you can say everyone is racist because we're all part of this system and benefit from it to varying degrees. Sort of like saying all Volkswagen employees are anti-Semites because of that company's history during the war (but I don't think people define Antisemitism in quite the same way). In the second more broad definition, people are considered racist based on their individual attitudes, actions and statements (won't get into thought crime here). That first definition goes against a lot of American attitudes about individual responsibility and such, so it's a hard sell. The whole Louis C.K. bit about "but slavery was 400 years ago..."

That's my understanding of it at this point time at least. Give me a little time....it'll morph some more.

up
Voting closed 0

That's a bit of a straw man. True, there are plenty of people who think that way, but there are plenty of other people who struggle with their own perceptions about race on a regular basis.

A lot of us have been there. Way back when I worked retail at a suburban mall, we caught a lot of shoplifters from the inner city, most of whom tended to be black. Now, I understand that our security people probably paid more attention to black shoppers (hence more black shoplifters being caught), but week after week, the impression crept up on the sales staff that if a black customer was in your area, you'd better keep an eye on him or there was a fairly good chance that loss prevention people would come down and ask why you weren't paying attention while items were stolen.

I hated that feeling--I'd find myself eyeballing people in my department until I was jolted by the realization of just how toxic my thinking had become. It takes work to stop, think, and separate the acts of indivuiduals from your idea of an entire race, to move beyond stereotype. I'd be pretty suspicious of anybody who says he's never wrestled with his own worldview.

up
Voting closed 0

(And this is where I'm just not even going to engage with the people who don't get that racism is systemic and usually isn't intentional.)

I consulted at program where all of the picture books and all of the images on the walls were of white children. I don't think the (white) person in charge is "a racist," and the way I see her acting with love and sensitivity toward all children really makes me believe she's a great human being. Yet, she put together this program without considering how it would look and feel to children of color. When pointed out, she acknowledged the mistake and took steps to correct it, but it's still an example of racISM, without someone necessarily being racIST.

up
Voting closed 0

racism is a worn out term. the new terms are violating someones civil rights. jesse and sharpton burned the term out years ago. what ever happened to thoes two. If I say something bad with a smile is it racism or if I say it with a mean look and harsh tone is it racism
but violating someone rights is more cut and dry than simple insults and name calling which mean nothing unless you beleve them

up
Voting closed 0

NEVER MIND . . .?

up
Voting closed 0

Swartz basically means 'black' doesn't it?

up
Voting closed 0

since i was a kid. He's exactly as described, grumpy. He is no racist.

up
Voting closed 0

He was lucky. The Swartz was definitely with him.

up
Voting closed 0