Politics City of Seattle: White people are cannibals

[Metaphor]

Seattle city employee sues over anti-White discrimination, ‘racially hostile work environment’

A White former Seattle employee has filed a federal lawsuit against the city claiming it discriminated against him due to the color of his skin.

www.foxnews.com

A former Seattle city employee has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging he was a victim of anti-White discrimination due to a "racially hostile work environment."

Joshua Diemert, who worked as a program intake representative in Seattle’s Department of Human Services from 2013 to 2021, filed suit Nov. 16 against the city and its mayor, Bruce Harrell, claiming he was constantly belittled and harassed at work for being White and that he was denied advancement opportunities and retaliated against due to the color of his skin.

Diemert’s lawsuit blames the alleged anti-White culture he experienced on the city’s Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI), which seeks to "end institutionalized racism and race-based disparities in City government," according to the city government’s website.

The lawsuit alleges that Diemert's race was an "albatross around his neck" throughout his career, and that the discrimination became "increasingly pervasive and hostile" as his career developed

....

As part of his RSJI training, the lawsuit alleges, Diemert was required to attend a two-day workshop in 2019 called "Undoing Institutional Racism," during which facilitators declared, "white people are like the devil," "racism is in white people’s DNA," and "white people are cannibals."

...

"In June 2020, the Office of Civil Rights emailed Mr. Diemert stating that it was hosting a training on ‘Internalized Racial Superiority,’ and that this was ‘specifically targeted for White employees,’" the lawsuit claims. "The training focused on examining white employees’ ‘complicity in the system of white
supremacy,’ and how white employees ‘internalize and reinforce’ racism."

"The goal of the training was to turn these employees into white ‘accomplices’ who would interrupt the ‘whiteness’ that they saw in their colleagues," it added.
...

 

[Arctish]

This allegation is shocking:

As part of his RSJI training, the lawsuit alleges, Diemert was required to attend a two-day workshop in 2019 called "Undoing Institutional Racism," during which facilitators declared, "white people are like the devil," "racism is in white people’s DNA," and "white people are cannibals."

Please let us know if Mr. Diemert provides evidence that substantiates his claims.

 

[Metaphor]

This allegation is shocking:

As part of his RSJI training, the lawsuit alleges, Diemert was required to attend a two-day workshop in 2019 called "Undoing Institutional Racism," during which facilitators declared, "white people are like the devil," "racism is in white people’s DNA," and "white people are cannibals."

Please let us know if Mr. Diemert provides evidence that substantiates his claims.

I will follow the case with interest.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I will follow the case with interest.

Not if they eat the guy suing them before the case gets to court, you won't.

 

[Copernicus]

So far, all we have is Diemert's side of the story, which contains some pretty sensational claims. Being required to attend a two-day workshop on racial discrimination in the workplace sounds pretty tame. I really doubt that phrases like "white people are like the devil," "racism is in white people’s DNA," and "white people are cannibals" were actually promoted by the workshop organizers, although the workshop could have discussed examples of hateful language that would be inappropriate for the workplace. That kind of thing would come up in sensitivity training classes, but institutional racism is about the way in which a social system operates in ways that disadvantage racial minorities. Diemert may have had a very negative reaction to be told that that kind of thing really happens, since it doesn't relate to his experiences.

Here is a link to the program that Mr. Diemert's lawsuit feels discriminated against him:

Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI)​

See also: 4 Types of Racism

I imagine that Diemert would have been very distressed to be exposed to material of that type, which does not mention discrimination by racial minorities against the majority white race. To him, the material would seem to be attacking whites for being inherently racist.

 

[Metaphor]

So far, all we have is Diemert's side of the story, which contains some pretty sensational claims. Being required to attend a two-day workshop on racial discrimination in the workplace sounds pretty tame.

The lawsuit alleges discriminatory behaviour over years, not just a single two day workshop.

 

[Copernicus]

So far, all we have is Diemert's side of the story, which contains some pretty sensational claims. Being required to attend a two-day workshop on racial discrimination in the workplace sounds pretty tame.

The lawsuit alleges discriminatory behaviour over years, not just a single two day workshop.

The workshop was mentioned as an example of the type of discrimination that Diemert perceived. I didn't say that it was the only thing mentioned. I'm sure that he has felt himself part of a hostile workplace environment, since it made him uncomfortable to see any materials that suggested white people discriminate against racial minorities.

 

[Metaphor]

I imagine that Diemert would have been very distressed to be exposed to material of that type, which does not mention discrimination by racial minorities against the majority white race.

It mentions, obliquely, the possibility of such discrimination, but the material that you linked to states that only white people can be racist.

 

[laughing dog]

The allegation are shocking if true. Whether the allegations have any real merit remain to be seen.

 

[Copernicus]

I imagine that Diemert would have been very distressed to be exposed to material of that type, which does not mention discrimination by racial minorities against the majority white race.

It mentions, obliquely, the possibility of such discrimination, but the material that you linked to states that only white people can be racist.

I agree that the material in that "4 Types of Racism" page are poorly written and could be interpreted as defining racism solely as a process of whites discriminating against minority racial and ethnic groups. The language could be stated more generally, but the practical reality is that most instances of actual racial discrimination in the US are by whites against so-called "people of color". The author of the material made the mistake of substituting race labels in the definitions of racism and types of racial categories. A more neutral description would have generalized to more neutral labels like "majority" and "minority" ethnic or racial groups. In practice, the dominant racial/ethnic group in the United States is almost always white/eurocentric, so those would make up the bulk of the training examples in a sensitivity training. That's not to say that there is no discrimination against white people on the basis of their racial identity, but there are far more examples of real oppression flowing in the opposite direction. I don't think that Diemert is going to win his case, but I do think that some of the definitions they put out for racism need to use more neutral language. I also think that, if Diemert had his way, there would be no effort at all by the government or any organization to address the problem of racism, because he belongs to the racial group that suffers least from it.

 

[Metaphor]

I agree that the material in that "4 Types of Racism" page are poorly written and could be interpreted as defining racism solely as a process of whites discriminating against minority racial and ethnic groups.

I don't know what you mean by written poorly. It is made quite clear. Racism is solely whites discriminating against minority racial groups. (Not minority ethnic groups; there are many white ethnicities). Any discrimination against the majority cannot be racism.

 

[Copernicus]

I agree that the material in that "4 Types of Racism" page are poorly written and could be interpreted as defining racism solely as a process of whites discriminating against minority racial and ethnic groups.

I don't know what you mean by written poorly. It is made quite clear. Racism is solely whites discriminating against minority racial groups. (Not minority ethnic groups; there are many white ethnicities). Any discrimination against the majority cannot be racism.

Nonsense. I was very clear about where I considered it poorly written and how I would have fixed it by making the definitions of racism more general than specific to racial groups such as whites. I am unaware of any dictionary definition of the term that attributes racism to just specific racial groups. For example, Merriam Webster provides these definitions:

1. a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2. a: a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
   b: a political or social system founded on racism and designed to execute its principles

I would have the material on that page revised to reflect a more general definition, and I can understand why some people would be upset by the specific references to whites discriminating against others as a reasonable way to define the concept. In my mind, that doesn't mean that Diemert's lawsuit is justified or that he should personally be awarded damages. That would depend on whether there actually was any discrimination against him personally, which is something that he will need to prove to the satisfaction of a court.

 

[Metaphor]

Nonsense. I was very clear about where I considered it poorly written and how I would have fixed it by making the definitions of racism more general than specific to racial groups such as whites. I am unaware of any dictionary definition of the term that attributes racism to just specific racial groups.

You appear to be unaware that the pamphlet's definition of racism is the exact definition critical theories use.

Your suggested "fix"--aligning their definition of racism to the dictionary definition-- would be regarded either as white fragility (if you are white) or internalized racism.

 

[Copernicus]

Nonsense. I was very clear about where I considered it poorly written and how I would have fixed it by making the definitions of racism more general than specific to racial groups such as whites. I am unaware of any dictionary definition of the term that attributes racism to just specific racial groups.

You appear to be unaware that the pamphlet's definition of racism is the exact definition critical theories use.

That would surprise me, if it were true. I can't find any source to corroborate your claim, and you don't bother to give one. Can you give me one? CRT itself is an academic subject that had its origin in legal theory, so I wouldn't be surprised if they have glossary definitions rather than dictionary definitions. Glossaries tend to define specialized jargon used in a technical domain, whereas dictionaries are more about general English usage. It's possible that the Seattle program tries to promote some distorted version of CRT, because it seems to have infiltrated partisan politics. Personally, I had never heard of CRT before Republican talking heads started having major panic attacks over its ability to zombify school children.

Your suggested "fix"--aligning their definition of racism to the dictionary definition-- would be regarded either as white fragility (if you are white) or internalized racism.

Gosh, I didn't realize that my using a dictionary definition would bother you so much. Should I be worried about who would regard it as "white fragility" or "internalized racism"? Would it be somebody I really care about?

 

[Metaphor]

Nonsense. I was very clear about where I considered it poorly written and how I would have fixed it by making the definitions of racism more general than specific to racial groups such as whites. I am unaware of any dictionary definition of the term that attributes racism to just specific racial groups.

You appear to be unaware that the pamphlet's definition of racism is the exact definition critical theories use.

That would surprise me, if it were true. I can't find any source to corroborate your claim, and you don't bother to give one. Can you give me one?

I did not give a source because your own source says exactly that. Are you suggesting that the source you linked to does not believe what they plainly said?

But, if you want a discussion on the divergence between ordinary views of what 'racism' means and the political views of critical theories,
see for example:

Does racism equal prejudice plus power?

Abstract. An increasingly common view is that ‘racism’ can be defined as prejudice plus power. However, this view is ambiguous between two interpretations.

academic.oup.com

CRT itself is an academic subject that had its origin in legal theory, so I wouldn't be surprised if they have glossary definitions rather than dictionary definitions. Glossaries tend to define specialized jargon used in a technical domain, whereas dictionaries are more about general English usage. It's possible that the Seattle program tries to promote some distorted version of CRT, because it seems to have infiltrated partisan politics. Personally, I had never heard of CRT before Republican talking heads started having major panic attacks over its ability to zombify school children.

I find it difficult to believe that you were ignorant of the political theories of racism which dominate academia and, from academic circles, pervade these kind of training programmes.

Your suggested "fix"--aligning their definition of racism to the dictionary definition-- would be regarded either as white fragility (if you are white) or internalized racism.

Gosh, I didn't realize that my using a dictionary definition would bother you so much.

Your use of the dictionary definition bothers me because you are either pretending these training programmes use the dictionary definition (despite the evidence you actually linked), or you are ignorant of the fact that they do not.

Should I be worried about who would regard it as "white fragility" or "internalized racism"? Would it be somebody I really care about?

Let me put it this way: the things that Diemert alleges happened to him could happen to you. Diemert pushed back on some of the ideas in his compulsory training, and this got him, if the allegations are true, socially ostracised at work, and he had to work under supervisors who racially demeaned him. But even if he had not pushed back, some of the most shocking allegations had nothing to do with Diemert's actions. In the lawsuit, he alleges a city employee did not inform white people of welfare programs they would be eligible for, because the employee believed those people had 'white privilege'.

 

[ZiprHead]

Personally, I had never heard of CRT before Republican talking heads started having major panic attacks over its ability to zombify school children.

How a Conservative Activist Invented the Conflict Over Critical Race Theory

To Christopher Rufo, a term for a school of legal scholarship looked like the perfect weapon.

www.newyorker.com

 

[Oleg]

Personally, I had never heard of CRT before Republican talking heads started having major panic attacks over its ability to zombify school children.

How a Conservative Activist Invented the Conflict Over Critical Race Theory

To Christopher Rufo, a term for a school of legal scholarship looked like the perfect weapon.

www.newyorker.com

 

[Copernicus]

Nonsense. I was very clear about where I considered it poorly written and how I would have fixed it by making the definitions of racism more general than specific to racial groups such as whites. I am unaware of any dictionary definition of the term that attributes racism to just specific racial groups.

You appear to be unaware that the pamphlet's definition of racism is the exact definition critical theories use.

That would surprise me, if it were true. I can't find any source to corroborate your claim, and you don't bother to give one. Can you give me one?

I did not give a source because your own source says exactly that. Are you suggesting that the source you linked to does not believe what they plainly said?

My source does not mention Critical Race Theory at all. You did. You said that the source contained "the exact definition critical race theories use". To cite a source that corroborates your claim, you need to cite one from the CRT literature. You did not do that. It is obvious that you simply made that claim up.

But, if you want a discussion on the divergence between ordinary views of what 'racism' means and the political views of critical theories,
see for example:

Does racism equal prejudice plus power?

Abstract. An increasingly common view is that ‘racism’ can be defined as prejudice plus power. However, this view is ambiguous between two interpretations.

academic.oup.com

This source has nothing whatsoever to do with the definitions under discussion. You are just using it for a smokescreen.

CRT itself is an academic subject that had its origin in legal theory, so I wouldn't be surprised if they have glossary definitions rather than dictionary definitions. Glossaries tend to define specialized jargon used in a technical domain, whereas dictionaries are more about general English usage. It's possible that the Seattle program tries to promote some distorted version of CRT, because it seems to have infiltrated partisan politics. Personally, I had never heard of CRT before Republican talking heads started having major panic attacks over its ability to zombify school children.

I find it difficult to believe that you were ignorant of the political theories of racism which dominate academia and, from academic circles, pervade these kind of training programmes.

That's strange. I don't find it difficult to believe that you are ignorant of them. Neither of us is an academic expert in the subject. You still have not backed up your claim, and it is obvious that you cannot.

Your suggested "fix"--aligning their definition of racism to the dictionary definition-- would be regarded either as white fragility (if you are white) or internalized racism.

Gosh, I didn't realize that my using a dictionary definition would bother you so much.

Your use of the dictionary definition bothers me because you are either pretending these training programmes use the dictionary definition (despite the evidence you actually linked), or you are ignorant of the fact that they do not.

We are discussing only one specific training program, not a bunch of them. And I asked you to back up your claim that the definition is commonly used in the CRT literature.

Should I be worried about who would regard it as "white fragility" or "internalized racism"? Would it be somebody I really care about?

Let me put it this way: the things that Diemert alleges happened to him could happen to you. Diemert pushed back on some of the ideas in his compulsory training, and this got him, if the allegations are true, socially ostracised at work, and he had to work under supervisors who racially demeaned him. But even if he had not pushed back, some of the most shocking allegations had nothing to do with Diemert's actions. In the lawsuit, he alleges a city employee did not inform white people of welfare programs they would be eligible for, because the employee believed those people had 'white privilege'.

We don't know anything about Diemert's behavior in those programs, which might have been unnecessarily hostile. Right now, he is the plaintiff in a lawsuit claiming that he was harassed and discriminated against. We are both interested in how well he can prove his claims. So you can put it any way you want, but the facts aren't there to back you up yet. I actually went and looked up the program in question and attempted to agree with you that the material looked unusually skewed and biased. That seems to upset you enough to start going on about Critical Race Theory, even though it isn't mentioned in the material I cited.

 

[Metaphor]

Nonsense. I was very clear about where I considered it poorly written and how I would have fixed it by making the definitions of racism more general than specific to racial groups such as whites. I am unaware of any dictionary definition of the term that attributes racism to just specific racial groups.

You appear to be unaware that the pamphlet's definition of racism is the exact definition critical theories use.

That would surprise me, if it were true. I can't find any source to corroborate your claim, and you don't bother to give one. Can you give me one?

I did not give a source because your own source says exactly that. Are you suggesting that the source you linked to does not believe what they plainly said?

My source does not mention Critical Race Theory at all. You did.

Well, no. I said critical theories.

You said that the source contained "the exact definition critical race theories use".

Well, no, I didn't.

To cite a source that corroborates your claim, you need to cite one from the CRT literature. You did not do that. It is obvious that you simply made that claim up.

Well, no. I didn't

But, if you want a discussion on the divergence between ordinary views of what 'racism' means and the political views of critical theories,
see for example:

Does racism equal prejudice plus power?

Abstract. An increasingly common view is that ‘racism’ can be defined as prejudice plus power. However, this view is ambiguous between two interpretations.

academic.oup.com

This source has nothing whatsoever to do with the definitions under discussion. You are just using it for a smokescreen.

CRT itself is an academic subject that had its origin in legal theory, so I wouldn't be surprised if they have glossary definitions rather than dictionary definitions. Glossaries tend to define specialized jargon used in a technical domain, whereas dictionaries are more about general English usage. It's possible that the Seattle program tries to promote some distorted version of CRT, because it seems to have infiltrated partisan politics. Personally, I had never heard of CRT before Republican talking heads started having major panic attacks over its ability to zombify school children.

I find it difficult to believe that you were ignorant of the political theories of racism which dominate academia and, from academic circles, pervade these kind of training programmes.

That's strange. I don't find it difficult to believe that you are ignorant of them. Neither of us is an academic expert in the subject. You still have not backed up your claim, and it is obvious that you cannot.

Well, no. I did not mention CRT.

Your suggested "fix"--aligning their definition of racism to the dictionary definition-- would be regarded either as white fragility (if you are white) or internalized racism.

Gosh, I didn't realize that my using a dictionary definition would bother you so much.

Your use of the dictionary definition bothers me because you are either pretending these training programmes use the dictionary definition (despite the evidence you actually linked), or you are ignorant of the fact that they do not.

We are discussing only one specific training program, not a bunch of them. And I asked you to back up your claim that the definition is commonly used in the CRT literature.

Well, no. I did not mention CRT.

Should I be worried about who would regard it as "white fragility" or "internalized racism"? Would it be somebody I really care about?

Let me put it this way: the things that Diemert alleges happened to him could happen to you. Diemert pushed back on some of the ideas in his compulsory training, and this got him, if the allegations are true, socially ostracised at work, and he had to work under supervisors who racially demeaned him. But even if he had not pushed back, some of the most shocking allegations had nothing to do with Diemert's actions. In the lawsuit, he alleges a city employee did not inform white people of welfare programs they would be eligible for, because the employee believed those people had 'white privilege'.

We don't know anything about Diemert's behavior in those programs, which might have been unnecessarily hostile. Right now, he is the plaintiff in a lawsuit claiming that he was harassed and discriminated against. We are both interested in how well he can prove his claims. So you can put it any way you want, but the facts aren't there to back you up yet. I actually went and looked up the program in question and attempted to agree with you that the material looked unusually skewed and biased. That seems to upset you enough to start going on about Critical Race Theory, even though it isn't mentioned in the material I cited.

I did not mention critical race theory, but even if I had, a programme would not need to mention its theoretical framework for it to be a product of that framework.

However, I could not care less whether this program was CRT-based or not. It is clearly and obviously using the racism=prejudice+power, political theory of racism.

That you are ignorant of this is quite shocking, but I suspect you were not and are not ignorant of it.

 

[Metaphor]

Just in case any reader has the same ignorance about what Seattle's definition of 'racism' is, I reproduce some definitions from the RSJI website link Copernicus so helpfully provided

https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/RSJI/Resources/Racial-Equity-Toolkit-Fillable-RSJI-August-2012.pdf

Individual racism: Pre-judgment, bias, stereotypes about an individual or group based on race. The impacts of
racism on individuals including white people internalizing privilege and people of color internalizing oppression.
Institutional racism: Organizational programs, policies or procedures that work to the benefit of white people and
to the detriment of people of color, usually unintentionally or inadvertently.
Structural racism: The interplay of policies, practices and programs of multiple institutions which leads to adverse
outcomes and conditions for communities of color compared to white communities that occurs within the context of
racialized historical and cultural conditions.