We still don’t know why New Yorker writer Ryan Lizza was fired. We know the New Yorker publicly announced that he was “engaged in what we believe was improper sexual conduct,” but what that means is anybody’s guess. Lizza denied it. He’s fired anyway.
BuzzFeed News White House correspondent, Adrian Carrasquillo, has now been fired. It started with his name appearing on an anon list called “Shitty Media Men,” which certainly sounds like a valid basis to investigate a guy.
“In responding to a complaint filed last week by an employee, we learned that Adrian violated our Code of Conduct by sending an inappropriate message to a colleague. This followed a recent reminder about our prohibition against inappropriate communications.”
“We are saddened by these circumstances, but we take these issues extremely seriously. We’re committed to ensuring that BuzzFeed remains a place where everyone is treated respectfully by his or her peers.”
On the one hand, the “inappropriate message” wasn’t so inappropriate that the “colleague” complained about it when it happened. On the other, there is no way to assess what was so “inappropriate” about it since only this vague and meaningless condemnation is proffered in explanation.
The legal mandate for termination under Title VII requires that sexual harassment be objectively serious and pervasive, but that’s just law, and nobody cares about law when it comes to being “committed” to “respectful treatment.” If none of this seems the slightest bit informative to you, #metoo.
And now that the dam has burst, from having actual, descriptive offenses of impropriety, such as Harvey Weinstein, into empty words, there is no conceptual ledge to prevent the slide down the slippery slope.
His firing comes on the heels of similar situations in news media, politics and Hollywood.
At the end of November, three Vice employees were fired for conduct that “ranged from verbal and sexual harassment to other behavior that is inconsistent with our policies, our values, and the way in which we believe colleagues should work together.”
Vox Media editorial director Lockhart Steele was also fired for sexual harassment.
New York Times reporter Glenn Thrush, who was suspended for sexual misconduct, will be removed from the White House beat once he returns to work in January.
Some suggest that this is a condemnation of liberal media males, but perhaps that misses the point entirely. Perhaps the women hired are particularly sensitive, fragile or inclined to take umbrage and offense whenever possible. The more progressive the women, the more inclined to want to find things to be offended about, outraged over, hurt by.
Adrian Carrasquillo isn’t accused of having sexually touched a woman, no less molested or raped one. His offense is described as “an inappropriate message.” There may well be a single message so horrifyingly inappropriate that it’s termination worthy, perhaps involving sexualized cannibalism. Was that it?
Where will Carrasquillo go now that he’s been tainted in perpetuity as a sexual cannibal? Oh wait. That never happened. We have no clue what it’s alleged he did, so we’re left with taint and our most depraved imagination. Sounds totally fair, though, because a colleague found his comment “shitty.”
The New York Times took a survey of 615 men as to their engaging in the conduct about which women are complaining. The results present a problem, as few men admit to doing anything offensive while most women complain about being victims of offense. So either men are clueless as to their offensive conduct or women are too easily offended to be in the same workplace as men.
But the most telling aspect of their survey is what constitutes offensive behavior.
- Told sexual stories or jokes that some might consider offensive?
- Made remarks that some might consider sexist or offensive?
- Displayed, used or distributed materials (like videos or cartoons) that some might consider sexist or suggestive?
- Made attempts to draw someone into a discussion of sexual matters even though the person did not want to join in?
- Made gestures or used body language of a sexual nature, which embarrassed or offended someone?
- Continued to ask someone for dates, drinks or dinner even though he or she said no?
- Made attempts to establish a romantic sexual relationship with someone despite that person’s efforts to discourage it?
- Touched someone in a way that made him or her feel uncomfortable?
- Made uninvited attempts to stroke, fondle or kiss someone?
- Offered or implied rewards if someone engaged in sexual behavior? Or treated someone badly if he or she didn’t?
Some of these things are objectively offensive, such as offering a reward for sexual behavior. Others, such as “that some might consider sexist” are so trivial and meaningless as to be ridiculous. Some fall in between, based on circumstances and context.
Who will be the next Ryan Lizza, Adrian Carrasquillo, Andrea Ramsey, to fall prey to having their careers destroyed when the Inquisition comes a’knockin’? Perhaps they did something that is objectively worthy of termination, but since disputed vagaries are all that’s necessary to remove the commies from Hollywood and place them on the “Shitty” list, how would anybody know?
Ladies and gents, this isn’t sustainable. The working relationship between males and females can’t be a minefield where any inadvertent word uttered within earshot of the most angry woman will bring down a career. Companies don’t want to be tainted as harboring sexual offenders, so they bludgeon to death anyone who might harm their brand in this climate. But do females want to be defined by the most easily offended in the workplace? Do males want to work in fear that anything they say, even if misunderstood, might end their career?
And it may not even be your conduct, but the mere fact that you failed to be the white knight of the deeply offended and beat the miscreant into submission before defenestration, which is as much a cause of female pain as being the perpetrator of a remark.
Update: Buzzfeed Boss Ben, ironically son of aged-out New York Court of Appeals Judge Robert Smith, issued this statement to his staff:
Well, as long as Ben says it’s not “knee-jerk,” its almost like an actual true thing for realsies, affirmed by the highest court in BuzzLand. We can all sleep tonight, and if there’s anything that bugs you at all, you can always call anonymously.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Some of these things are objectively offensive, such as offering a reward for sexual behavior.”
Whoosh! A million years of natural selection down the drain.
Did I really need to go full Gertrude on this one to distinguish natural selection from “if you want the part, watch me shower”?
Recognized a million times here is there are no clear definitions for wrongful conduct. I think the problem is words. More words result in murky messages. What is needed is less words. Perhaps if the conduct described in the ten bullet points could be said in a single sentence. . . .
Over the years, I made a point of questioning the use of words as they became untethered from definitions. Eventually, it became clear that it was a pointless effort, as the avalanche of meaningless words became overwhelming. Now, it’s just a matter of randomly stringing meaningless words together to give the appearance of intellectual heft to vagaries that make the woke feel more intellectual about their feelz.
Perhaps the woke see themselves as Humpty Dumpty when it comes to words.
So, they had warned him about his inappropriate communications, but he persisted in something that someone might have found inappropriate. Though HR had chastised him, someone might have found that he did not heed their words, and accordingly, someone might have thought they had “no choice” but to put him out. At least they didn’t have the elders take him to the gates of the city to stone him with stones.
You assume a great deal that’s not said. Don’t put words into Buzzfeed Ben’s mouth.
Interesting how all this seems to be a particular problem among journalists. Today’s journalists must comport themselves like alley cats.
Or the alternative theory, that male journalists aren’t necessarily alley cats, but female journalists are particularly sensitive to offense.
I had posted on Twitter that if his communication was good enough to get him fired it should be good enough for BuzzFeed to post. After all how are the rest of us schlubs supposed to know where the line is that we shouldn’t cross.
Some items on the list are obvious. But language such as “that some might consider sexist or offensive or suggestive” is dangerously ambiguous and reminds me of many poorly written State cyber stalking laws that allow anyone to play victim by deciding what language annoys or alarms them.
[Ed. Note: Cool story, but waaaay off topic.]
If we’re going to put laws into effect to criminalize speech or make certain words a firing offense we need to be a whole lot more specific on how we define it.
Are any of these employers in right to work states? If so they REALLY don’t need a reason to fire,even a made up one. If under contract and fired than let’s go to court and see. Also it seems that employers made be digging a hole for themselves by putting out press releases saying these folks were let go for whatever reason. Wonder what a jury would say. All this (of course) from a non lawyer…
No need to explain you’re a non-lawyer. It was kinda clear.
Ok, I will poke the hornet’s nest. You know, it does not become you to blame the women for being overly sensitive. A lot of women put up with a lot before they complain, because they know it will often boomerang back to blame them.
At will employment gives unfettered power to the employer. Where are the unions to defend these guys? Or maybe, there is some real dirt there that isn’t being reported. Or maybe they violated their contracts, if they had them. Who knows, maybe the media are trying to get rid of their highest paid people. Our once great newspaper laid off most all the great reporters or offered them buyouts when the wall street profit-pushers took over from the journalists.
If these guys were not repeatedly acting like jerks, maybe they will sue to get their jobs back. Otherwise, you will probably see them writing the great American novel. Did we hear from many men getting worked up all those years when women got cut from employment when they got pregnant, or the affair with the boss ended, or they refused to sleep with the boss. Yeah, I too hope this thing doesn’t go too far, because it will be women who suffer. They don’t have the majority of the power. But I am not yet feeling hysterical about it, as I suppose would be the stereotype.
I would rather focus on the the extensive damage being done by the white house and the majority in congress. It is going to hurt a lot more people, many of them without the means to fight it.
My shower cap is pulsating, which usually means this won’t go so well.
TMI, Skink.
Glad you had an opportunity to get that out. Now, anything having to do with the post, or was this just a catharsis?
You realize you could just pull out the nail, right?
“Made remarks that some might consider sexist or offensive?”
And you say it doesn’t become Scott to blame women for being overly sensitive? You are that hysterical woman, but are so self-absorbed that you can’t see it. Get over your sad girl tears, sister. You’re making the rest of us look bad.
Stop it before I make a remark that some might consider sexist or offensive.
Before?
People love to argue equal rights by the unprovable claim that those with whom they disagree are on the wrong side of history. I suspect 100 years from now, this period will be called the time when women conceded they were not equal and they were incapable of dealing with males on equal footing and demanded special treatment for their fragility and sensitivity. This will be the period where women demanded intervention to compensate for their inequality.
I also suspect that this will be a low point, a monumental setback for equal rights, and will be overcome by strong women who reject the facile excuses and claim no special needs to compete and prevail. Women will overcome this low point in equality, but it will not be weak and whining women like you who do so. You are on the wrong side of history, arguing that women are too weak to attain equality.
With humblest apologies to Marshall McLuhan, Hugh Kenner, Thomas Kuhn and The Very Reverend Jonathan Swift.
The medium, message, massage:
Triune paradigm for the dressage
Of men into Houyhnhnm.
“Inappropriate”: venom,
To soften minds under barrage!
Dressage is the Romney of life
As we justify rhymes of class strife
Perhaps a tableau
For those on down low
Whose court date is right on the 9th
“And now that the damn has burst”
I can’t quite put into words why I feel that typo is appropriate here.
Odd. Somehow, everybody missed that one.
I’m sympathetic to most of these points but your reference to Title VII (specifically “legal mandate for termination”) comes across as a bit muddled and misleading. The “severe and pervasive” standard only applies to a prospective plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim. The Buzz can fire him for any reason at all that’s not discriminatory (assuming he didn’t have an employment agreement).
You’re conflating two different issues. There was no issue raised as to Buzzfeed’s legal right to terminate him as an at will employee. I would have thought that too obvious to mention, but apparently (based on yours and other comments) I overestimated some readers grasp and should have been more clear. The “severe and pervasive” refers to the caselaw defining sexual harassment in the workplace.
I guess I’m confused why raise “severe and pervasive” at all in the context of the issue you’re examining, which I understand to be: what are the appropriate considerations in making decisions (if any) regarding employee discipline/continuing employment based on complaint(s) of alleged misconduct?
The precise point I was trying to make was that your sentence (which I reference in my comment) seemed to conflate those exact two issues, but it seems that was unintentional or I misunderstood your language. My subordinate point was that the “severe and pervasive” standard doesn’t seem to be at-issue here, since no one has suggested that anyone experienced actionable sexual harassment. That is, unless the implication of your point was that it (may?) not be worth (or necessary?) to terminate someone unless they’ve committed actionable sexual harassment, which is not what I had previously understood your point to be.
I’m not being coy. Just trying to understand the specific argument you’re making.
Sexual harassment is a legal phrase that’s morphed, without meaningful definition, into public use. Non-lawyers fail to realize there is an actual definition of the phrase in the workplace setting, and almost every article referencing sexual harassment, which people still embrace as a legal wrong, does so without recognition of its definitions.
I would expect many non-lawyers to believe that the law requires termination of someone who makes a sexist comment, and believes that businesses that do so are merely doing what the law requires of them. People take comfort in believing their their vague feelz are, in fact, what the law mandates. My inclusion is to correct that error. They may still believe a sexist comment worthy of termination, but they cannot take cover for their feelings based on Title VII.
Ah, I see and now understood. Thanks for clarifying.
When I worked for the govt, I would occasionally get an internal email from a senior person in the organization who was sending risque jokes to a circle of friends. My email address was just slightly different from one of those friends. I ignored the first one, but I replied to the others, with the comment that the sender should be more careful about what they were sending on an official US govt mail system (internally), and the addresses to which they were sending them.
I never received a response, but after about the 4th email, they stopped. I wonder whether this sort of thing would qualify as an “inappropriate communication”. I was certainly not offended, but could easily see that some could be, given the subject matter. It is troubling that something like a typo in an email address could end a career, but I used to tell the people who worked for me that they should never write something down that they would be embarrassed to have their mother/wife read on the front page of the Washington Post. I know SHG doesn’t like that guidance, but I think it is a very good rule, as a first approximation.
I don’t like that advice, but not for the reason related in your comment. There are many things that one wouldn’t want their grandmother/mother/wife to see that don’t involve dirty jokes and pics, but still need to be done or said. It certain contexts, it may be good enough, even if unduly simplistic as a general rule.