Nazi sympathizer profiled in New York Times loses job

[whichphilosophy]

Would you trust a Nazi to teach children about WW2, to treat and grade minorities fairly, and to be a good role model for impressionable children? Should private schools be banned from firing such Nazis?

He taught hockey and track sports, so it's likely he was not a history teacher.

He was a coach of field hockey and a substitute teacher, which normally means he could teach any subject. You didnt really answer the questions though.

My understanding is based on the UK where teachers will only teach what they qualified at college. If this

The comments about Nazis are generally right. We shouldn't ban schools from firing people for good reason. There should be fair process for this. A person with a criminal record, especially if he harmed others especially minors should not be hired.

Firing based just on views and opinion is a slippery slope. Likewise sacking a Nazi for a past or current crime or poor performance should not be a problem.

The McCarthy era purge on ' reds under bed' was a witch hunt even against non-communists. It produced nothing.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

He was a coach of field hockey and a substitute teacher, which normally means he could teach any subject. You didnt really answer the questions though.

My understanding is based on the UK where teachers will only teach what they qualified at college. If this

The comments about Nazis are generally right. We shouldn't ban schools from firing people for good reason. There should be fair process for this. A person with a criminal record, especially if he harmed others especially minors should not be hired.

Firing based just on views and opinion is a slippery slope. Likewise sacking a Nazi for a past or current crime or poor performance should not be a problem.

The McCarthy era purge on ' reds under bed' was a witch hunt even against non-communists. It produced nothing.

That is simply not the same thing. Educational institutions require workers to treat all races/ethnicities equally. A nazi might discriminate against minority students and i realize that's a might-a risk. But this guy specifically should not teach biology or history since he advances counterfactual ideas. To be a substitute teacher in most states in the US, you just need a degree, too, not a degree in the subject with a teaching certificate. His counterfactual ideas make him unqualified as a general sub in addition to the risk.

 

[whichphilosophy]

He was a coach of field hockey and a substitute teacher, which normally means he could teach any subject. You didnt really answer the questions though.

My understanding is based on the UK where teachers will only teach what they qualified at college. If this

The comments about Nazis are generally right. We shouldn't ban schools from firing people for good reason. There should be fair process for this. A person with a criminal record, especially if he harmed others especially minors should not be hired.

Firing based just on views and opinion is a slippery slope. Likewise sacking a Nazi for a past or current crime or poor performance should not be a problem.

The McCarthy era purge on ' reds under bed' was a witch hunt even against non-communists. It produced nothing.

That is simply not the same thing. Educational institutions require workers to treat all races/ethnicities equally. A nazi might discriminate against minority students and i realize that's a might-a risk. But this guy specifically should not teach biology or history since he advances counterfactual ideas. To be a substitute teacher in most states in the US, you just need a degree, too, not a degree in the subject with a teaching certificate. His counterfactual ideas make him unqualified as a general sub in addition to the risk.

I think it is a mistake to allow teachers to teach subjects they are not educated and qualified in. Being a Nazi does suggest what you say but it would be better to fire him for what he does. Better not hire a Nazi in the first place.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

This guy would pose little risk to kids if he were a sports coach in an all-white community.

?

A nazi can do a TON of damage to kids in an all white community - regardless of station.

aa

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I think it is a mistake to allow teachers to teach subjects they are not educated and qualified in. Being a Nazi does suggest what you say but it would be better to fire him for what he does. Better not hire a Nazi in the first place.

Is there no recourse in finding out that he was a nazi after the fact?

aa

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think it is a mistake to allow teachers to teach subjects they are not educated and qualified in. Being a Nazi does suggest what you say but it would be better to fire him for what he does. Better not hire a Nazi in the first place.

Is there no recourse in finding out that he was a nazi after the fact?

aa

Most places these days want you to report other jobs you have. Not doing so is grounds for dismissal. Thats a technicality though.

I've made the point before about private property. Both wp and Jason said they'd kick a Nazi off their property. So the thread should have ended. No one knows why Jason and wp are still hanging onto something.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This guy would pose little risk to kids if he were a sports coach in an all-white community.

?

A nazi can do a TON of damage to kids in an all white community - regardless of station.

aa

Hes doing damage right now. He was a community role model. His students and athletes looked up to him. Now some of these kids are impressionable and are hearing his counterfactual, immoral views. I just think that is small potatoes in comparison to him teaching history and teaching biology and grading a diverse student population.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I think it is a mistake to allow teachers to teach subjects they are not educated and qualified in. Being a Nazi does suggest what you say but it would be better to fire him for what he does. Better not hire a Nazi in the first place.

Is there no recourse in finding out that he was a nazi after the fact?

aa

Most places these days want you to report other jobs you have. Not doing so is grounds for dismissal. Thats a technicality though.

I've made the point before about private property. Both wp and Jason said they'd kick a Nazi off their property. So the thread should have ended. No one knows why Jason and wp are still hanging onto something.

You can choose who you hire but if being fair firing is less simple.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Most places these days want you to report other jobs you have. Not doing so is grounds for dismissal. Thats a technicality though.

I've made the point before about private property. Both wp and Jason said they'd kick a Nazi off their property. So the thread should have ended. No one knows why Jason and wp are still hanging onto something.

You can choose who you hire but if being fair firing is less simple.

In the United States, a typical restaurant chef in Ohio and a typical substitute teacher at a private school in Maryland would both be at-will employees. They worked for private companies and are not part of unions. So they are classified as at-will employees:

At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning.[1] When an employee is acknowledged as being hired "at will," courts deny the employee any claim for loss resulting from the dismissal. The rule is justified by its proponents on the basis that an employee may be similarly entitled to leave his or her job without reason or warning.[2] In contrast, the practice is seen as unjust by those who view the employment relationship as characterized by inequality of bargaining power.[3]

At-will employment gradually became the default rule under the common law of the employment contract in most states during the late 19th century, and was endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court during the Lochner era, when members of the U.S. judiciary consciously sought to prevent government regulation of labor markets.[4] Over the 20th century, many states modified the rule by adding an increasing number of exceptions, or by changing the default expectations in the employment contract altogether. In workplaces with a trade union recognized for purposes of collective bargaining, and in many public sector jobs, the normal standard for dismissal is that the employer must have a "just cause."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

It is probably simpler to fire an at-will employee than to hire one, considering paperwork etc.

 

[whichphilosophy]

In the United States, a typical restaurant chef in Ohio and a typical substitute teacher at a private school in Maryland would both be at-will employees. They worked for private companies and are not part of unions. So they are classified as at-will employees:

At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning.[1] When an employee is acknowledged as being hired "at will," courts deny the employee any claim for loss resulting from the dismissal. The rule is justified by its proponents on the basis that an employee may be similarly entitled to leave his or her job without reason or warning.[2] In contrast, the practice is seen as unjust by those who view the employment relationship as characterized by inequality of bargaining power.[3]

At-will employment gradually became the default rule under the common law of the employment contract in most states during the late 19th century, and was endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court during the Lochner era, when members of the U.S. judiciary consciously sought to prevent government regulation of labor markets.[4] Over the 20th century, many states modified the rule by adding an increasing number of exceptions, or by changing the default expectations in the employment contract altogether. In workplaces with a trade union recognized for purposes of collective bargaining, and in many public sector jobs, the normal standard for dismissal is that the employer must have a "just cause."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

It is probably simpler to fire an at-will employee than to hire one, considering paperwork etc.

The last point is a good one for that category. At will does reduce bargaining power of the worker.

 

[Hermit]

Karl Popper on this issue:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1, Chapter 7, note 4

 

[whichphilosophy]

Karl Popper on this issue:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1, Chapter 7, note 4

Of course we can't tolerate violent acts.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Karl Popper on this issue:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1, Chapter 7, note 4

Of course we can't tolerate violent acts.

Not just acts of violence, but open acts of manipulation that will bring out the dehumanization and death of others as a act of "mercy".

 

[whichphilosophy]

Of course we can't tolerate violent acts.

Not just acts of violence, but open acts of manipulation that will bring out the dehumanization and death of others as a act of "mercy".

Incitement as well as actual violence would not be tolerated as they infringe the rights of others. The courts should differentiate between free speech and what you put very well.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Guys, note that the whole free speech thing is off-topic since the context is private property. However, it's a worthwhile separate topic.

Incitement as well as actual violence would not be tolerated as they infringe the rights of others.

Along these lines, I want to ask you how you know this will always be true? Laws change. Culture changes. Right now American culture is changing. Sociologists have a word for this: otherization. The President and Right propaganda have a free bullhorn placed above Americans' heads saying racist things over and over. There is a bubble where the Right doesn't hear the Left, only propaganda. There are several others now: Muslims, Blacks, Hispanics...the Left...and even the Right is an other to the Left to an extent. There is an increase in individuals hate against groups and an increase in individual violence. Trump has condoned this violence at his campaign rallies.

[By the way this means technically you are already wrong WP. Trump engaged in "incitement" but got away with it.]

Eventually, hypothetically, the Right govt can have enough popularity to condone govt violence (detainment) against the least liked group. All Trump would have to do is invent more lies and the sheep would believe them. A conspiracy of Muslims funding terrorism or illegal brown children or Antifa burned down Congress. Or maybe the popularity of hate next could lead to the repeal of the 14th amendment due to hated otherized anchor babies or the repeal of 24th amendment to block black voters in the South.

I don't really know the scenarios for transformation into a racist tyranny, but there are things that can happen next worse than the last and they can happen because of all this hateful speech.

Don't misinterpret me. I am not necessarily saying I advocate hate speech laws. I am just saying you are technically wrong on one count (incitement without consequence has happened) and I am skeptical that you are right on another (otherized violence without consequence could be next).

 

[Hermit]

Karl Popper on this issue:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1, Chapter 7, note 4

Of course we can't tolerate violent acts.

In that note Popper advocates intolerance of violent acts, but he goes beyond that. He adds (note the use of "begin" and the conjunctive "and") the bits I bolded to things that are not to be tolerated.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Of course we can't tolerate violent acts.

In that note Popper advocates intolerance of violent acts, but he goes beyond that. He adds (note the use of "begin" and the conjunctive "and") the bits I bolded to things that are not to be tolerated.

I think Trump may already qualify though it's only at a beginning. He is teaching followers not to listen to real news but instead biased news and disinformation...much of it hate-filled. His condoning violence at campaign rallies also qualifies as "teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists.." Admittedly, it's a meager beginning on the violence side but with all the increased violence by individuals it certainly feels like something worse and more organized could be next.

 

[Underseer]

Guys, note that the whole free speech thing is off-topic since the context is private property. However, it's a worthwhile separate topic.

Incitement as well as actual violence would not be tolerated as they infringe the rights of others.

Along these lines, I want to ask you how you know this will always be true? Laws change. Culture changes. Right now American culture is changing. Sociologists have a word for this: otherization. The President and Right propaganda have a free bullhorn placed above Americans' heads saying racist things over and over. There is a bubble where the Right doesn't hear the Left, only propaganda. There are several others now: Muslims, Blacks, Hispanics...the Left...and even the Right is an other to the Left to an extent. There is an increase in individuals hate against groups and an increase in individual violence. Trump has condoned this violence at his campaign rallies.

[By the way this means technically you are already wrong WP. Trump engaged in "incitement" but got away with it.]

Eventually, hypothetically, the Right govt can have enough popularity to condone govt violence (detainment) against the least liked group. All Trump would have to do is invent more lies and the sheep would believe them. A conspiracy of Muslims funding terrorism or illegal brown children or Antifa burned down Congress. Or maybe the popularity of hate next could lead to the repeal of the 14th amendment due to hated otherized anchor babies or the repeal of 24th amendment to block black voters in the South.

I don't really know the scenarios for transformation into a racist tyranny, but there are things that can happen next worse than the last and they can happen because of all this hateful speech.

Don't misinterpret me. I am not necessarily saying I advocate hate speech laws. I am just saying you are technically wrong on one count (incitement without consequence has happened) and I am skeptical that you are right on another (otherized violence without consequence could be next).

Whoa, you can't call what they are doing "racist."

They are not "saying something racist," they are "protecting free speech," and you can't call them racists, you're supposed to call them "alt right free speech advocates"[ent]hellip[/ent] whoops. I forgot. "Alt-right free speech advocate" is no longer politically correct. We are now supposed to call them "identitarians" when they say something racist.

So just to reiterate:

White supremacist	politically incorrect
White nationalist	politically incorrect
Nazi	politically incorrect
Racist	politically incorrect
Fascist	politically incorrect
Alt right free speech advocate	politically incorrect
Identitarian	politically correct

Got that? We don't want to accidentally trigger any conservatives or libertarians (who are completely different, honest!). Please be careful with your language around here. We have quite a few identitarians around, and they are easily offended.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Guys, note that the whole free speech thing is off-topic since the context is private property. However, it's a worthwhile separate topic.

Incitement as well as actual violence would not be tolerated as they infringe the rights of others.

Along these lines, I want to ask you how you know this will always be true? Laws change. Culture changes. Right now American culture is changing. Sociologists have a word for this: otherization. The President and Right propaganda have a free bullhorn placed above Americans' heads saying racist things over and over. There is a bubble where the Right doesn't hear the Left, only propaganda. There are several others now: Muslims, Blacks, Hispanics...the Left...and even the Right is an other to the Left to an extent. There is an increase in individuals hate against groups and an increase in individual violence. Trump has condoned this violence at his campaign rallies.

[By the way this means technically you are already wrong WP. Trump engaged in "incitement" but got away with it.]

Eventually, hypothetically, the Right govt can have enough popularity to condone govt violence (detainment) against the least liked group. All Trump would have to do is invent more lies and the sheep would believe them. A conspiracy of Muslims funding terrorism or illegal brown children or Antifa burned down Congress. Or maybe the popularity of hate next could lead to the repeal of the 14th amendment due to hated otherized anchor babies or the repeal of 24th amendment to block black voters in the South.

I don't really know the scenarios for transformation into a racist tyranny, but there are things that can happen next worse than the last and they can happen because of all this hateful speech.

Don't misinterpret me. I am not necessarily saying I advocate hate speech laws. I am just saying you are technically wrong on one count (incitement without consequence has happened) and I am skeptical that you are right on another (otherized violence without consequence could be next).

Whoa, you can't call what they are doing "racist."

They are not "saying something racist," they are "protecting free speech," and you can't call them racists, you're supposed to call them "alt right free speech advocates"[ent]hellip[/ent] whoops. I forgot. "Alt-right free speech advocate" is no longer politically correct. We are now supposed to call them "identitarians" when they say something racist.

So just to reiterate:

White supremacist	politically incorrect
White nationalist	politically incorrect
Nazi	politically incorrect
Racist	politically incorrect
Fascist	politically incorrect
Alt right free speech advocate	politically incorrect
Identitarian	politically correct

Got that? We don't want to accidentally trigger any conservatives or libertarians (who are completely different, honest!). Please be careful with your language around here. We have quite a few identitarians around, and they are easily offended.

What could trigger a reaction are the following black only groups


https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPrivileges/comments/1q9t76/list_of_black_only_groups/

Better Chance, Inc. (ABC)
A. Philip Randolph Institute & A. Philip Education Fund
African American Museum Association (AAMA)
African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME)
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church (AMEZ)
Africare, Inc
Afro-American Historical and Genealogical Society
Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. (AKA)
Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc
Alpha Pi Chi National Sorority, Inc.
American Association for Affirmative Action (AAAA)
American Association of Black in Energy (AABE)
American Bridge Association (ABA)
American Council on Education, Office of Minorities in Higher Education
American Health and Beauty Aids Institute (AHBAI)
American League of Financial Institutions (ALFI)
Amistad Research Center
Ancient Egyptian Arabic Order Nobles Mystic Shrine, Inc. (AEAONMS)
Associated Black Charities
Associated for Multi-Cultural Counseling and Development
Association of Black Admission and Financial Aid Officers of the Ivy League and Sister Schools
Association of Black American Ambassadors (ABAA)
Association of Black Foundation Executives (ABFE)
Association of Black Psychologists
Association of Black Sociologist (ABS)
Association of Black Women in Higher Education (ABWHE)
Association of Minority Enterprises of New York (AMENY)
Audience Development Committee, Inc.
Black Agency Executives (BAE)
Black Awareness in Television (BAIT)
Black Caucus of the American Library Association (BCALA)
Black Filmmakers Foundation (BFF)
Black Psychiatrists of America (BPA)
Black Retail Action Group, Inc.
Black Unites Front (National Black United Front NBUF)
Black Women's Forum
Black Women in Church and Society (BWCS)
Black Women in Publishing (BWIP)
Black Women's Network (Los Angeles)
Blacks in Government
Booker T. Washington Foundation
Business Policy Review Council
Carats, Inc.
Caribbean American Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Inc.
Chi Eta Phi Sorority, Inc.
Chums, Inc.
Coalition of Black Trade Unionists
Conference of Minority Public Administrators
Conference of Prince Hall Grand Masters
Congress of Racial Equality (CORE)
Congressional Black Caucus
Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Inc.
Consortium for Graduate Studies in Management
Constituency for Africa (CFA)
Continental Societies, Inc.
Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc.
Drifters, Inc.
Eta Phi Beta
Executive Leadership Council
Federation of Southern Cooperatives Land Assistance Fund
Frontiers International, Inc.
Gospel Music Workshop of America
Groove Phi Groove Social Fellowship, Inc.
Improved Benevolent Protective Order of Elks of the World
International Association of Black Professional Fire Fighters
International Black Writers
Iota Phi Lambda Sorority, Inc.
Iota Phi Theta Fraternity, Inc.
Jack and Jill of America, Inc.
Jackie Robinson Foundation
Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies
Justice, Unity, Generosity, and Service, Inc. (JUGS)
Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc.
Lambda Kappa Mu Sorority, Inc.
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
Links, Inc.This organization promotes educational, civic, and cultural activities to enrich the
Low Income Housing Information Service (National Low Income Housing Coalition)
Minority Business Enterprise Legal Defense and Education Fund
Modern Free and Accepted Masons of the World, Inc.
Moorland-Spingarn Research Center (MSRC)
Most Worshipful National Grand Lodge and Accepted Ancient York Masons Prince Hall Origin, National
National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering (NACME)
National Alliance of Black School Educators (NABSE)
National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees (NAPFE)
National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
National Association of Bench and Bar Spouses, Inc.
National Association of Black Accountants, Inc.
National Association of Black Catholic Administrators
National Association of Black County Officials
National Association of Black Journalists
National Association of Black Social Workers, Inc.
National Association of Black-Owned Broadcasters
National Association of Blacks in Criminal Justice
National Association of Colored Women's Clubs (NACWC)
National Association of Health Service Executives
National Association of Investment Companies
National Association of Minority Contractors
National Association of Minority Media Executives
National Association of Negro Business and Professional Women's Clubs
National Association of Neighborhoods
National Association of University Women
National Association of Urban Bankers (Urban Financial Services Coalition)
National Bankers Association
National Baptist Convention of America, Inc.
National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc.
National Bar AssociationThis association contributes through diligent work, the constant
National Beauty Culturists League, Inc.
National Black Catholic Congress
National Black Caucus of Local Elected Officials
National Black Caucus of State Legislators
National Black Child Development Institute
National Black College Alumni Hall of Fame Foundation
National Black MBA Association, Inc.
National Black Media Coalition
National Black Nurses Association, Inc.
National Black Police Association, Inc.
National Black Programming Consortium
National Black Public Relations Society of America
National Black Republican Council
National Black United Fund
National Bowling Association, Inc.
National Brotherhood of Skiers
National Caucus and Center on Black Aged, Inc.
National Coalition of 100 Black Women
National Conference of Black Mayors, Inc.
National Conference of Black Political Scientists
National Dental Association
National Economic Association
National Forum for Black Public Administrator
National Funeral Directors and Morticians Association, Inc.
National Medical Association
National Minority Business Council, Inc.
National Suppliers Development Council, Inc.
National Naval Officers Association
www.nnoa.org
National Newspaper Publisher Association
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives
National Organization of Minority Architects
National Pan-Hellenic Council
National Pharmaceutical Association
National Congress of Black Women, Inc.
National Technical Association, Inc.
National United Church Ushers Association of America, Inc.
National Urban League, Inc.
New Concept Self Development Center, Inc.
New Professional Theatre
Omega Psi Phi Fraternity
One Hundred Black Men
Opera North
Operation PUSH (Rainbow PUSH Coalition)
Opportunities Industrialization Centers of America, Inc
Organization of Black Airline Pilots, Inc. (Organization of Black Aerospace Professionals)
Phelps Stokes Fun
Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, Inc.
Phi Delta Kappa, Inc.
Pinochle Bugs Social and Civic Club
Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc.
Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture
Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority, Inc.
Sigma Pi Phi Fraternity ("The Boule")
Southern Christian Leadership Conference
Southern Poverty Law Center
Southern Regional Council
Student National Medical Association, Inc
Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund
TransAfrica, Inc.
Tuskegee Airmen, Inc.
Twenty-First Century Foundation
United Negro College Fund
UNCF's National Alumni Council
Zeta Delta Phi Sorority, Inc.


The question is should all ethnic only groups be racist or not. The courts should decide on a case by case basis.

 

[Arctish]

I don't have time right now to go through the entire list whichphilosophy posted, but some of those groups aren't blacks only.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is a mixed race organization.

The United Negro College Fund gives money to historically black colleges. Nowadays the HBCs have white students, too.

The Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture is part of the New York Public Library system. The library staff and visitors are mixed race, and while most of its collection consists of the works of black scholars and artists, some of the material in its archives was produced by whites.

The Tuskegee Airmen, Inc. presents programs, scholarships, and awards to kids of all races who show an interest in pursuing careers in aviation.