What Elizabeth Warren's Critics Get Wrong About Discrimination (1 Viewer)

[LEBassett]

What Elizabeth Warren's Critics Get Wrong About Discrimination

America has a history of naysayers attacking people who speak out about sexist and racist discrimination.

www.gq.com

 

[Dragon]

Yes, welcome! We could always use another feminine perspective. Sharon and I get lonely sometimes!

 

[Dragon]

What Elizabeth Warren's Critics Get Wrong About Discrimination

America has a history of naysayers attacking people who speak out about sexist and racist discrimination.

www.gq.com

Some of those issues disappear when the law is changed to accomodate not only womens but also mens rights in connection with childbirths.

Here we have a one year maternity leave - 6 months are dedicated to the mother - 3 months to the father and 3 months to be decided by the parents.

We have play date groups for both genders and mixed too. I have a lot of male colleagues who would never do without those 6 months with their newborns!

 

[LA - L.A.]

Some of those issues disappear when the law is changed to accomodate not only womens but also mens rights in connection with childbirths.

Here we have a one year maternity leave - 6 months are dedicated to the mother - 3 months to the father and 3 months to be decided by the parents.

We have play date groups for both genders and mixed too. I have a lot of male colleagues who would never do without those 6 months with their newborns!

The baby doesn't get any say. That's messed up, man.

 

[Dragon]

The baby doesn't get any say. That's messed up, man.

and its ()

 

[LA - L.A.]

and its ()

Got it. In my defense, I was using "man" in the Tommy Chong general whining sense, not the referring specifically to you sense. But I have made a mental note for future reference.

 

[Beach Friends]

The article address that. Is there a reason you're not taking that into consideration?

I didn't find the article to be persuasive on the issue and I think the author overplayed her point by saying it is "ludicrous" to think that an employer would specify in their records that discrimination was the real reason Warren's employment with the system did not continue.

Nobody that I know of said has taken the position that the surely the school system would have documented such discrimination.

I think the author misses the point that the records indicate that at the end of April, at a time when Warren says she was visibly pregnant, the board minutes reflect that her contract would be renewed.

That is significant, as public board's act through their minutes and that entry is saying the exact opposite of what she claims and it has legal effect. If you were planning on terminating her employment, this would be a bad way to go about it because now you have actually added an obligation that has to be undone and that is risky.

Furthermore, the records are consistent with the version Warren gave in her 2007 interview during which she said that her decision to stay home was made after she has started some graduate classes and after consultation with her husband.

I am not saying for absolute certainty that Warren is not now telling the truth, but what I am saying is that the author of that article merely floated a theory as to why we should discount the records and given all of the circumstances I don't think her theory is persuasive in the least.

In the end, all the author has said in effect is, "well sometimes people lie." Yeah, we know but I think you need more than a general statement like that if you want people to accept the premise that these particular records have no probative value.

 

[Sharon]

>>>go about it because now you have actually added an obligation that has to be undone and that is risky.

You are assuming a young, pregnant woman has some sort of power in this situation, in this time period, and was in a position to take some legal action otherwise.

There was no risk to that district by including her name at that time. All the power rests with the board, who could fire at will, or make assignment changes to send the same message - don't come back. So, in theory, you could be right, but in reality, it just wasn't happening. So much is/was unwritten.

 

[V Chip]

Warren has shown a willingness to throw other people under the bus in order to allow her to check a victim box.

That's completely untrue.

Touting debunked claims against her certainly doesn't help, but I guess it's to be expected.

 

[V Chip]

In general, I'll say this.

Sexism clearly still exists in the work place, but overall, it's a lot better. I also have found, in my field, that the women who can hack it are often far better than the guys. Basically, they have to be better in order to get equal treatment. But I have seen a good push towards promoting women and giving opportunities.

Don't you see the problem with the two highlighted phrases? "It's a lot better" -- so? Is it where it should be right now? If not, saying "it's better" is a cop-out and diminishes what still needs to be done.

"They have to be better in order to get equal treatment"

How forked up is *that* sentiment? I mean, it says without any pretense that there is significant inequality right now, so that women have to be better to even get a chance. That kind of statement should make *everyone* mad.

 

[wardorican]

I didn't find the article to be persuasive on the issue and I think the author overplayed her point by saying it is "ludicrous" to think that an employer would specify in their records that discrimination was the real reason Warren's employment with the system did not continue.

Nobody that I know of said has taken the position that the surely the school system would have documented such discrimination.

I think the author misses the point that the records indicate that at the end of April, at a time when Warren says she was visibly pregnant, the board minutes reflect that her contract would be renewed.

That is significant, as public board's act through their minutes and that entry is saying the exact opposite of what she claims and it has legal effect. If you were planning on terminating her employment, this would be a bad way to go about it because now you have actually added an obligation that has to be undone and that is risky.

Furthermore, the records are consistent with the version Warren gave in her 2007 interview during which she said that her decision to stay home was made after she has started some graduate classes and after consultation with her husband.

I am not saying for absolute certainty that Warren is not now telling the truth, but what I am saying is that the author of that article merely floated a theory as to why we should discount the records and given all of the circumstances I don't think her theory is persuasive in the least.

In the end, all the author has said in effect is, "well sometimes people lie." Yeah, we know but I think you need more than a general statement like that if you want people to accept the premise that these particular records have no probative value.

Two points.

1. An employer would absolutely not record that the termination reason was due to pregnancy. They would just tell her to resign, or be fired. Much easier to get a new job with a resignation rather than being fired. I know a teacher at my old HS who was point blank told to resign or be fired. In his case, it was for being weird and not a good fit. So, I find that concept to be more the norm than you think. You're taking too much stock into a record that is more to cover the behinds of the school than to be a complete story and factually accurate. Why on Earth would the principal rat themselves out like that?

2. Was she in front of the board for her renewal? I've never seen a teacher show up to a school board meeting to see if they will continue working there. What usually happens is that the principal and/or superintendent will make a recommendation on the number of retained teachers, or at best, a list of who to keep, let go, or new positions to add, and then the board will vote on that, along with the FY budget. They don't usually act that granular to have votes on individual teachers, unless they got in trouble.

 

[Beach Friends]

Two points.

1. An employer would absolutely not record that the termination reason was due to pregnancy. They would just tell her to resign, or be fired. Much easier to get a new job with a resignation rather than being fired. I know a teacher at my old HS who was point blank told to resign or be fired. In his case, it was for being weird and not a good fit. So, I find that concept to be more the norm than you think. You're taking too much stock into a record that is more to cover the behinds of the school than to be a complete story and factually accurate. Why on Earth would the principal rat themselves out like that?

2. Was she in front of the board for her renewal? I've never seen a teacher show up to a school board meeting to see if they will continue working there. What usually happens is that the principal and/or superintendent will make a recommendation on the number of retained teachers, or at best, a list of who to keep, let go, or new positions to add, and then the board will vote on that, along with the FY budget. They don't usually act that granular to have votes on individual teachers, unless they got in trouble.

No, I wouldn't expect a teacher to be in attendance at the school board meeting and even if they were personnel matters may very well be in a private session (may vary by state I suppose).

But, like I said earlier - public boards act through their minutes and that is no secret.

Again, state law is going to vary, but it's not simply a matter of submitting lists. The non renewal process is detailed, and failure to follow it precisely will result in an extension. Also, in many states it is much easier to non renew a teacher with only one year of experience in the district. Once you get to the second year, the teacher has more rights and the school has to be able to articulate reasons for the non renewal.

In this case, the board offered her a contract in April. It had done all it needed to do in order to extend the contract.

It couldn't simply go back later and say, "there is the door." That would have been a breach of contract.

If the school wanted to get rid of her, it would make sense to have done so while she was on her first contract and before it committed itself to a contract for the following year.

We are both reading tea leaves here, but I think my reading makes more sense. Plus it is consistent with her earlier version.

 

[Sharon]

No, I wouldn't expect a teacher to be in attendance at the school board meeting and even if they were personnel matters may very well be in a private session (may vary by state I suppose).

But, like I said earlier - public boards act through their minutes and that is no secret.

Again, state law is going to vary, but it's not simply a matter of submitting lists. The non renewal process is detailed, and failure to follow it precisely will result in an extension. Also, in many states it is much easier to non renew a teacher with only one year of experience in the district. Once you get to the second year, the teacher has more rights and the school has to be able to articulate reasons for the non renewal.

In this case, the board offered her a contract in April. It had done all it needed to do in order to extend the contract.

It couldn't simply go back later and say, "there is the door." That would have been a breach of contract.

If the school wanted to get rid of her, it would make sense to have done so while she was on her first contract and before it committed itself to a contract for the following year.

We are both reading tea leaves here, but I think my reading makes more sense. Plus it is consistent with her earlier version.

That's not quite how it works. Your interpretation is making Warren's case for her, actually. You're right in that any teacher in which the district had just cause to dismiss would have not been included on that list. So, she was deemed competent and worthy.

The "rights" you allude to are an illusion. It is not an equal balance of power, as some may assume, and taking action against a district can leave you unemployable.

We have no idea what was said or done "off the record" in this particular case, but we do have a good number of people, women, who have witnessed this phenomena first hand.

 

[Beach Friends]

That's not quite how it works. Your interpretation is making Warren's case for her, actually. You're right in that any teacher in which the district had just cause to dismiss would have not been included on that list. So, she was deemed competent and worthy.

The "rights" you allude to are an illusion. It is not an equal balance of power, as some may assume, and taking action against a district can leave you unemployable.

We have no idea what was said or done "off the record" in this particular case, but we do have a good number of people, women, who have witnessed this phenomena first hand.

She had more rights after the April board meeting than she did before. It makes no sense to extend a first year teacher into the second year and then make your move to get rid of her. The district would have needlessly put themselves at risk by doing so.

I am not at all certain what you meant by the conclusory statement that I am making her case for her. You're going to have fill in the gaps if I am going to respond to that.

 

[Sharon]

She had more rights after the April board meeting than she did before. It makes no sense to extend a first year teacher into the second year and then make your move to get rid of her. The district would have needlessly put themselves at risk by doing so.

I am not at all certain what you meant by the conclusory statement that I am making her case for her. You're going to have fill in the gaps if I am going to respond to that.

First year teachers are not given tenure. Any "rights" you think she gained by having her name on that list were illusionary, I don't know how else to say it. This is not a new concept. She "knew" her place. Young teachers fighting the district for anything don't win. Dreaming about it won't make it true.

 

[Beach Friends]

First year teachers are not given tenure. Any "rights" you think she gained by having her name on that list were illusionary, I don't know how else to say it. This is not a new concept. She "knew" her place. Young teachers fighting the district for anything don't win. Dreaming about it won't make it true.

That's exactly my point.

She was a first year teacher without rights. If they wanted to get rid of her, why not do it then?

Why would they extend her contract into the second year and then terminate her employment?

I will admit I am making some assumptions about New Jersey law in the 1970's - but I can tell from your post that your state is similar to what I have seen in others so it's an educated guess.

 

[Sharon]

LOL. Do you need someone to explain how pregnancy works? If that meeting was in April, the list was probably put together in March for approval. They probably didn't even know she was pregnant at that point. This was ALL about her pregnancy, and not her competency. If they were, as you assume, like every other employer under the sun, they would have waited it out a while hoping she'd decide not to come back on her own. They held all the cards. They would have waited until the last possible time so's not to disrupt the end of the school year, the students, parents, etc. They'd want her to finish up all that end-of-year paperwork. This is just how it worked. Not a great mystery.

 

[Beach Friends]

LOL. Do you need someone to explain how pregnancy works? If that meeting was in April, the list was probably put together in March for approval. They probably didn't even know she was pregnant at that point. This was ALL about her pregnancy, and not her competency. If they were, as you assume, like every other employer under the sun, they would have waited it out a while hoping she'd decide not to come back on her own. They held all the cards. They would have waited until the last possible time so's not to disrupt the end of the school year, the students, parents, etc. They'd want her to finish up all that end-of-year paperwork. This is just how it worked. Not a great mystery.

I know you are familiar with taking someone's argument and repeating it back to them in the least defensible light possible.

I am going to give you a demonstration of just the opposite, when you take someone's position and try to make it even better than they did. In other words, I am going to "steelman" your position.

Earlier I mentioned that the the procedures for non renewal are precise. If a school district misses certain deadlines for providing notice of non renewal it can end up in an extension.

I don't know that this is what happened or if that is the way NJ law read at the time, but if I wanted to back up the date the way you obviously do that's the argument I would make.

 

[TheRealTruth]

It's more than just discrimination, it's inherent sexism and misogyny that exists in our culture. You only need look at Trump being elected to see how sexist and misogynistic culture permeates within those bastions of right wing voters, who I might add make up a large part of companies and leadership councils that make rules which impact women on a daily basis.