The controversial arrest of Henry Louis Gates has reached far beyond Cambridge, MA, and Washington, D-C. On Monday, a young aide to a New York City politician resigned after posting comments on her Facebook page about the controversy.
Lee Landor, who had been the deputy press secretary to Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer since May, posted comments on her Facebook page criticizing Mr. Gates and the president, whom she referred to at one point as "O-dumb-a." It appears she made the postings on government time (suggesting it was done from a government computer).
Once word of her online comments spread in city government circles the reaction was swift. The borough office said in a statement:
"Ms. Landor's comments were totally inappropriate and in direct contradiction to the views of the borough president and his office. The borough president has accepted Ms. Landor's resignation, effective immediately."
Landor, who had no comment for the media, deactivated her Facebook page by Monday night. The NY Daily News posted images of the Facebook posts before that happened --they showed that Landor engaged in a spirited discussion of the Gates case with other users of the social-networking site with one of her comments reading, "O-dumb-a, the situation got 'out of hand' because Gates is a racist, not because the officer was DOING HIS JOB!"
In response to one Facebook user who voiced disagreement, Ms. Landor referred to Professor Gates using a vulgarity and added, "And racial profiling does exist, but for good reason. Take a look at this country's jails: who makes up the majority of inmates? Exactly."
In another Facebook post, she wrote, "You know what, I am really getting SICK of hearing about how white people are evil racists. I get it — white men have dominated for hundreds of years and there's a lot of anger there. But HOW MUCH MORE can the white people do to correct past injustices of their ancestors?"
I think most of us are in agreement that the private opinions of an employee are of no business to the employer no matter where or when said, provided those opinions do not affect job performance.
I think most of us are in agreement that racism is an ugly thing and in an ideal world, it wouldn't exist. In this country, where we believe in the widest possible grants of free expression, one is free to be a racist provided you don't act on it in violation of the law.
That said, if the woman is a racist, let's be clear: Being racist in a public service position is unprofessional and should not be allowed --a press secretary position, no less. However, is it clear this woman is a racist, or are we just assuming that because she's voicing an opinion that makes people uncomfortable?
Let's ask that indelicate question: Are white politicians publicly afraid to state the sad fact that African Americans commit crimes, especially murders, in proportions that far outweigh their demographic as a percentage of the entire U-S population? Is this the elephant in the room? We seem to have a smokescreen out there that will NOT allow this discussion take place, and it involves painting any mention of it as racial in nature, including those occasions when police engage African Americans in the line of duty.
We talk about free speech a lot when a case like this comes up, but we forget that free speech is never free. It always comes with a price, sometimes in the form of someone of an opposite view exercising their right to speak, and sometimes in the form of a boss exercising his rights in responding to your speech. He'll exercise both his free speech and his authority as your supervisor. Is he right? If, in fact, she is racist, or so resentful that in her job duties she may act adversely towards people of color, then he is, indeed, correct to fire her. But without all the facts, we don't know for sure.
A second thought here: One wonders whether Mr. Stringer saw this as a so-called "teachable moment." Instead of lashing out and firing the woman --amazing how fast that got done while political solutions for other problems move at a snail's pace-- it'd be nice to know whether Stringer ever talked with the woman to get a complete picture of what's going on, and perhaps, in the course of that conversation, the woman realized her comments were ill-advised and perhaps even unacceptable. Perhaps a reprimand, a public apology and a heart-to-heart talk over a couple of beers would've sufficed?
We don't know if that happened, either.
This is a sticky matter. Landor was insensitive, and it doesn't appear she wants to be part of the solution. And whether she has a right to her opinion, she certainly showed poor judgment to post those comments in a place that would cause a ruckus, and apparently posting them on government time and on a government computer. It's likely she wasn't even thinking about it at the time --online, we think we have the utmost privacy when in fact the opposite is true: Nothing you write online in an e-mail, a social networking site or a blog is guaranteed to be private. if she didn't know her comments could cause her trouble in her job working for a public figure, she should have, and she surely knows now.
That aside, we DO need to be forthright about the subject of race, and there shouldn't be any knee jerk reaction when we discuss a candid reality: African-Americans commit crimes disproportionately to their percentage of the population, and that reality influences feelings about race in this country, perhaps equally disproportionately. That may not be proper or fair, but that's what happens, and we should have the spine to talk about that honestly and in context.
Decades of virulent racism began a cycle of degradation. Inner cities and urban schools have decayed, perhaps due to a combination of white indifference or black ineffectiveness --I really don't know. I do know --as do you-- that young African-Americans are still prone to become victims of the self-fulfilling prophecy of failure that is the legacy of racism, a legacy that has manifested itself --rightly or wrongly-- in whatever it is that occurs in the black community that results in disproportionately higher rates of fatherless children, poorer education scores, higher crime rates, higher prison populations, higher death rates.
Let’s remember that the Constitution gave blacks the right to vote in the 1860s, but not until the 1960s did Congress pass laws to make sure they could freely and safely exercise that right. Is it going to take another hundred years for all of us to work together to fix the rest of these problems?
Of course, these are the issues everyone instinctively reacts to, but when I read this story, my first thought was, "Does the Manhattan Borough President really need a deputy press secretary?" Frankly, I'm not even sure what a borough president does (and I'm a native New Yorker).
Comments
During his first two years in office, Scott helped breathe new life into Manhattan’s Community Boards, ensuring that every neighborhood has a voice in decisions that impact local residents' lives. He revamped the Borough President’s Land Use Division and effectively weighed in on development projects that will shape Manhattan’s future.
In 2007, Scott launched Go Green East Harlem, a multi-faceted campaign to improve residents’ health, and to serve as a model for other environmentally neglected neighborhoods. Last year, the greening effort was expanded to the Lower East Side and Washington Heights.
Over the past year, Scott has taken the lead on exposing the dangerous neglect of elevator safety in New York City Housing Authority buildings, called for the MTA to repeal its proposed fare hike for disabled commuters who depend on Access-A-Ride, advocated for more aggressive construction of classroom space for Manhattan schools and demanded strengthened oversight of state-owned buildi
Sarah... I was kidding about the borough president's job.
Are you the new assistant deputy secretary?
;)
Ms. Landor's has as much of a right to voice her opinion during work hours as Obama has to voice his prejeduce opinion during work hours. He revealed his soul to the American population and some people still don't get it!
CG says: Ms. Landor's has as much of a right to voice her opinion during work hours as Obama has to voice his prejeduce opinion during work hours. He revealed his soul to the American population and some people still don't get it!
I'm certainly not calling Ms Landor a racist. We have no solid evidence of that. Obama misspoke. That's not a prejudice; it's a mistake. I don't think youre being either accurate or fair to suggest he has a racial bias.
Missing from this article and most of the discussion about Gates:
The fact that the professor was arrested for exercising free speech.
I notice the author does not defend him. There's a reason the prosecutor dropped the charges the very next day and the Cambridge Dept. called the arrest "unfortunate" and "regrettable."
Gates' speech offended white people not black people, so I guess that makes it OK to arrest him, while firing the deputy press secretary was a no-no.
Myron says: "Missing from this article and most of the discussion about Gates..."
Please read the other articles I've posted on the Gates arrest and to learn otherwise.
That said, let's be clear: Free speech is never free. It always comes with a price, sometimes in the form of someone of an opposite view exercising their right to speak, and sometimes in the form of a police officer who will exercise his rights in responding to your speech. He'll exercise both his free speech and his legal authority.
Was the officer right to do so? We'll never be able to ascertain that in a court of law where all the evidence can be heard. However, the advice is simple: Don't mouth off to police officers. In the end you may be proven right but you'll go through hell getting there. It's much better to say yes sir, no sir and file the complaint after the incident, but not everyone agrees with that.
Bruce: I agree that Gates should have been respectful, and he would not have been arrested.
But that does not get to the issue of whether the officer had the legal right to arrest him for mouthing off in his own home. I doubt the Constitution is behind him on this one, if Gates wanted to make a case of it. Officers use the broad charge of "disorderly conduct" quite a bit to arrest people -- black and white -- for mouthing off.
I think all three parties -- Gates, the officer and the president -- would have been wiser to "dial it down." And personally, I think they're all ready to move past this.
But none of that gets to the issue of speech.
The officer's rights, like Gates' rights, are given to him by the law. But did he follow the law in this case? I'm not sure.
What we do know is that the local prosecutor was clearly convinced he had nothing to charge Gates with. This fact has been lost amid the rhetoric.
And I will check out your prior commentary on this incident.
Myron, police have such powers and will exercise them. Whether they are exercised judiciously I leave in the hands of those who follow, be it the D-A or the courtroom. It would be interesting, in an alternative universe, were Gates just your average fine upstanding citizen instead of a person of a higher station in life. The president made a rash mistake and it's quite possible the other two gentlemen engaged in a testosterone joust. These are not unusual or unforgivable errors in judgment. It's good that you're not sure, Myron. None of us can be though my initial reaction was based on that of the police report in which, 1) I maintain that cooperation with police is far easier than confrontation, and 2) We may never know the true story unless someone somewhere had been able to offer a "YouTube" type account of what happened --then there would be dispute. If only life were so simple, but then, if human beings were more honest, life just might be.
"But HOW MUCH MORE can the white people do to correct past injustices of their ancestors?""
If they stop giving high paying jobs to incompetent white morons such as Dan Mudd who ran Sallie Mae to the ground and became CEO of Forrester, I would have a good a laugh when minorities complain about racism. Until then the joke is on racist folks like Landor.
Let's ask that indelicate question: Are minority politicians and liberals such as Rachel Maddow publicly afraid to state the sad fact that incompetent whites such as Dan Mudd wh destroyed an organization, get hired in proportions that far outweigh their demographic as a percentage of the entire U-S population? Is this the elephant in the room? We seem to have a smokescreen out there that will NOT allow this discussion take place, and it involves painting any mention of it as racial in nature. Why did not a liberal like Rachel Maddow tell Buchanan bluntly that white men ran this country to the ground? Is she afraid to say that out loud? It would seem so!
George: I would suggest that greed, corruption and incompetence knows neither race nor party.
It doesn't matter she said, she should've been able to say it without being fired.
Believing that a "thought police" is a good thing, now that should be crime.
CG, well said.
Lesson learned, don’t criticize the president. It was ok to make fun of Bush, but not Obama. Don't write letters to the editor. Don't express your opinion where someone can over hear you. Don't even post on websites like this one or you could be fired or even jailed. This is not about racism; it is about criticizing the president.
"It always comes with a price, sometimes in the form of someone of an opposite view exercising their right to speak, and sometimes in the form of a boss exercising his rights in responding to your speech. He'll exercise both his free speech and his authority as your supervisor. Is he right?"
Since when do we have to give up our constitutional rights in order to get a job? Should I be fired because I don't vote the way my boss does?
Obama's soul was shown when his idiot preacher talked. Obama just hides it better. another thing: look at affirmative action in health care. I would rather have a black doctor that has earned the position if I am ill and need fixing rather than an affirmative action doctor that didn't earn it but got there because of color. Our county allows children to pick which school they go to. Not our school. We are white and have to stay in this school because we live near it. But the black kids can go to another school if they want to. There are injustices to both races, but all I hear about are fake wrongs to the blacks . . . Did you hear that Gates? And George . . . bet you can find a black guy at the top that also gets more money than he is worth in other corporations. jerk . . people are greedy no matter what their color. pfffft
Southern Hossier says: Since when do we have to give up our constitutional rights in order to get a job? Should I be fired because I don't vote the way my boss does? ...Lesson learned, don’t criticize the president. It was ok to make fun of Bush, but not Obama.
A couple of things:
Why do you choose to parrot the political argument? Isn't it possible that what caused the problem was the employees' remarks about race, not the president.
If she was using a government computer on government time to engage in frivolous personal crap like online chatting, that's already a problem. You should be working. If you represent a public figure and you make careless remarks that might be deemed racially insensitive, you've made an even bigger blunder because now you're reflecting badly on your boss.
Did you think it wrong when radio stations banned the Dixie Chicks?
The problem here is a lack of facts. Was she doing the posting on her own time or at work? Was she fire with no prior warning or other disciplinary action taken against her? Being fired for a first offense like this is kind of excessive. Was she singled out or was she the only one playing on the computer?
You are the one that suggested she was "fired for anti-Obama...." comments.
Radio stations not playing an artist is not the same as firing someone. The Dixie Chicks sales dropped off because their fans did not support their political views. Did people stop coming Manhattan Borough office because of her postings?
Exactly which of her comments do you find racist?
Southern Hoosier says: "The problem here is a lack of facts..."
The facts are there. She posted while at work and (as was reported) she also posted to her boss's official government blog that same day. It's an errant use of taxpayer dollars. A supervisor can handle that according to employee policy but when it comes to publicly elected officials, the added burden of any racial overtones, perceived or otherwise, can compel an elected official to act in what he thinks are the best interests of his office, first offense or not. That, too, is free speech.
I also stated she resigned after posting comments about the controversy, not Obama. Don't conflate what I wrote with what the right wing wants you to believe.
"Radio stations not playing an artist is not the same as firing someone. The Dixie Chicks sales dropped off because their fans did not support their political views."
You obviously know nothing about the radio business.
You are right I know nothing about the radio business. I thought the Dixie Chicks were going on tours and their records were still being sold in stores and online. I didn't realize that a few radio stations had to power to send the Dixie Chicks to the unemployment line. How many radio stations did it take to stop their pay check?
Yes I agree that she an unauthorized use of her office. Too bad we can't hold Obama and other officials to the same standard.
What exactly was racist that was said? This is a non-story.
Southern Hoosier says: "You are right I know nothing about the radio business... I didn't realize that a few radio stations had to power to send the Dixie Chicks to the unemployment line. How many radio stations did it take to stop their pay check?"
I'm IN the radio business. I know exactly what happened, and the parallel between that and this incident have some striking similarities.
"Yes I agree that she an unauthorized use of her office. Too bad we can't hold Obama and other officials to the same standard."
We can. It's called an election.
Sean O'Donnell, Baltimore Republican Examiner says: "What exactly was racist that was said? This is a non-story."
You can arrive at that conclusion if you like but you'll have to ask the Manhattan Borough President why he finds it unacceptable. It's his public image as an elected official that's on the line, not yours, or even hers --at least in his view. The woman certainly used the facilities incorrectly, and she was thoughtless in her online remarks which, though on her private page, are NEVER private, especially if the remarks are questionable (which you KNOW are for some). And she was insensitive to the timing. You don't make those kinds of remarks when the national dialogue is simmering over this issue, particularly when you work for a public figure. Rule #1 at work: Don't make your boss' job more difficult. You're hired to help make his life easier, not harder.
Bruce says: It's his public image as an elected official that's on the line.....
If he is concerned about his public image, then he may have made a mistake in firing her. His firing of her is making a bigger story than what she wrote.
There a are lot of people out there that are like Sean O'Donnell, of the Baltimore Republican Examiner who want to know. "What exactly was racist that was said?" They don't see anything racist about her comments.
My God, look at what we have sitting in the White House ... the most divisive, deceptive racist who GETS AWAY WITH IT, over and over again ... a man mentored by some of the worst offenders ... goodbye American liberties, and God help you if you disagree with O's gang of little despots.
C Tabb says: "look at what we have sitting in the White House ... the most divisive, deceptive racist who GETS AWAY WITH IT, over and over again ... a man mentored by some of the worst offenders ... goodbye American liberties, and God help you if you disagree with O's gang of little despots.
Are you praying to God right now? Have you been locked up by the thought police yet? Your comments (like Glenn Beck's) are just plain idiotic. But it certainly isn't rooted in any fact, other than your own hatred and the tired tactic of pasting Reverend Wright into the conversation as a placeholder for black racism and a convenient guilt-by-association proxy. However, if you can provide demonstrable evidence of actionable racism on the part of the president, perhaps even in a policy or program implemented by his administration, I'd love for you to present it.
"This is a sticky matter. Landor was insensitive, and it doesn't appear she wants to be part of the solution."
A little bias opinion. Try to stay objective and stick to the facts... no room for personal views here.
Mike says: A little bias opinion. Try to stay objective and stick to the facts... no room for personal views here.
There is if you write commentaries. I write commentaries based on the facts.
OK, I'll buy that. Remeber this though. It is one thing to have an opinion on the topic as a whole (which you have done well in the article). The opinion that she is insensitive is too far of a reach.
Being insensitive is like saying a TV show is too violent. What one persons finds violent may not be to another person... within the extrema of course. Same goes for being insensitive.
Secondly, since when is voicing your opinion on a topic (hot or not) insensitive? Remeber the quote, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.".
Finally, I didn't know you write commentaries. I heard about this on morning radio and Googled my way to your article. But when you do present seemingly factual information then chime in with your opinion it errodes the credibility of the facts. That's Journalisim 101. Good article all-in-all.
Mike says: "The opinion that she is insensitive is too far of a reach."
If I was writing for... the Chicago Tribune, you'd be absolutely right, and I wouldn't write the same way. But if I wanted what you are describing (which is perfectly legit), I would simply go to the Chicago Tribune. It's not my intent to mislead, and it should be apparent to the reader that I'm injecting my own observations (as it was to you). I do this to invite comment, stimulate dialogue and perhaps give people something to think about. That's my goal as a talk radio host (I'm not a partisan table-pounder). Before uploading these articles, we have to put them in categories (such as "Lists"). I always label pieces like these as commentaries. I try to be honest with the facts and fair with my opinions, but I don't expect to bat a thousand, and certainly people are invited to disagree.
I deeply appreciate your input, the time you took to write it, AND the fact you listen to radio!
Thanks.
This is scary that a person can not express their opinions on their own personal page. Facebook can be access via cell phones so the argument that it was govt property is not reason to fire her. Democracy is endangered if we cannot express disproval of a president. Opposing to Obama or making a silly references to him does not equal racism. How many people called Bush dumb or made crude references about Bill Clinton? People need to chill out and Stringer needs to apologize or resign. His actions are unacceptable.
Now this is realy getting scary.
The top person sworn to protect our freedoms is President Obama. He should step up and protect her right to free speach.
Donn and Brenz:
Quit making this about Obama. The anti-Obama talk show hosts who are framing this as someone getting fired for criticizing the president are not telling you that the Manhattan Borough President made clear he thought the woman's comments were racially insensitive. It reflects badly on him as a large part of his constituency as African American. He's her boss. He is free to fire her. Do you want to deny his free speech rights to satisfy the view of people who don't like Obama? What's scary is that neither of you understand that free speech is a two-way street. Free speech is NOT free; it has consequences. And it's worth noting that the woman has not contested her firing even though she has avenues to do that. Why hasn't she? Is it perhaps because she's accepted the fact she was wrong?
The firing coould have been construed as a violation of the 1st amendment of the US constitution had the facebook exchange not been initiated on company time -- especially violative working for a government official. However warped one's perspective might be -- this is still the USA and even stupid racists are free to express themselves.
carrisima says: The firing could have been construed as a violation of the 1st amendment of the US constitution had the facebook exchange not been initiated on company time..."
Or it could have been construed as a boss exercising his right to fire an employee deemed unfit for the job at hand.
"...However warped one's perspective might be -- this is still the USA and even stupid racists are free to express themselves."
But they are not free to work where they're not wanted. The boss also has a right to be wrong, if, in fact, he was wrong to fire her.
I would like to add something but since I am a white, hetero. American born, it doesn't matter what I say, so, to keep everyone happy and content, I won't say anything....
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!