Hospital Grants Father's Request For "No Black Nurses"

A Michigan hospital consented to a father's request that "no black nurses" care for his newborn child. After the father saw Tonya Battle, a Black nurse, holding his child in the neonatal intensive care unit, the "concerned" father rolled up his sleeve, showed the staff his Swastika tattoo, and told the supervisor that he "did not want any African Americans taking care of his child."

When Tonya Battle returned to work the next day, the child had been assigned to a new nurse and she found a note on the assignment clipboard: Please No African American Nurses To Care For Baby Per Dad's Request. Thank You.  No African American nurses were assigned to care for this child for the next month, until the hospital's lawyer informed management that the father's discriminatory request could no longer be granted.

Although your gut may tell you that this is a clear case of discrimination, the law is murky in this area where health law meets employment discrimination law. To put it simply, patients have the right to choose their type of health care including a choice of hospital or doctor. A patient can typically request a change in health care provider based on gender or religion. However, when Hurley Medical Center enforced the Swastika-wearing father's request and posted the sign about "no black nurses" it most likely violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race.

Not that we are in Michigan to participate in one of our Two Person Boycotts but really, Hurley Medical Center? Giving in to the wishes of a white supremacist? We will have none of it. 

Read more here.

Race-baiting Their Way to November

It seems that slavery metaphors are still relevant in 2012. The presidential campaign trail is hot with rhetoric evoking sentiments of the Civil Rights Movement and the pre-Civil War era.

First Lady Michelle Obama spoke at the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) gala on Saturday, September 22, 2012. Just as a Southern Baptist preacher is certain to reference fire and brimstone on a Sunday morning, Michelle Obama addressed race at the CBC Gala. Well, she did more than mention race. Some might call it race-baiting. Some might call it pandering. Others might simply call it tailoring her message to her audience.

During the speech, she likened challenges to Voter ID laws as modern day marches:

“This is the march of our time — marching door to door, registering people to vote. Marching everyone you know to the polls every single election...”--Michelle Obama

Not that there is anything to disagree with about registering people to vote, but given the forum of the remarks and other references to the Underground Railroad, the explicit message is that this election is about race.

The Chicago Sun-Times printed a transcript of her speech.

This is not the first time a Democrat used race-baiting on the campaign trail.

Back in August, at a campaign stop in Danville, Virginia, Vice President Joe Biden told the crowd that, "He [Romney] is going to put y'all back in chains."  The Obama campaign clarified that Biden's remark was about how repealing financial institution regulations would affect consumers.

"He is going to let the big banks once again write their own rules, unchain Wall Street. He is going to put y'all back in chains."--Joe Biden

Maybe this was just another instance of "Crazy Joe" inserting his foot into his mouth.  Remember when he described then Senator Obama as articulate and clean back in 2007?

Democrats are not alone with the evocations of race while on the campaign trail.

Governor Romney could not let Donald Trump's birther herring fly away, when he proclaimed, "No one's every asked to see my birth certificate[!]" Certainly his mention of a birth certificate is a racial code word. He claimed he was making a joke.

Don't forget, the Romney-Ryan team was sure to float Ryan's dating history right after he was announced as the vice presidential pick. Ryan dated a Black woman in college. We're still not sure how this is relevant to the ticket. Perhaps, it's the old standard, 'well I dated a Black person, so I can't be racist' sentiment. Check out "The Root's" take on "Does Paul Ryan's black ex-girlfriend really matter?"

Many of the issues facing America have racial implications, but the concern is that politicians are interjecting racial code words into partisan politics to instigate fear and distrust.

More Racist Receipts: "McStinky N-word" Is No Customer's Name

The happy times of having a local bar like "Cheers" are gone.

California businessman, Mark McHenry, thought he found a place where everybody knows his name. Except, he was wrong.

It seems that at least one employee at Landmark Steakhouse in California replaced his name on credit card receipts with racial slurs.  Apparently,  "Mc Stinky N-word" or "Mc Nig S-word" and "McCottonwood" are appropriate euphemisms in the land of restaurant lingo.
See copies of the receipts here. Or here.

Landmark Steakhouse and McHenry reached a settlement in this case, but no other customers should experience this type of disrespect.  Come on people, it's 2012.

Restaurant owners: this trend needs to stop.  

Dear reader, you might be saying to yourself, what "trend"?

Well, our friends at the Angry Asian Man Blog, posted a similar story where a Papa John's employee wrote "lady chinky eyes" on a customer's receipt. Then there were those incidents at Chick-Fil-A where an employee wrote ""Ching" and "Chong" on multiple customers' receipts. Back in 2010, Dominos issued a racist receipt by suggesting "N-word Don't Tip." And don't forget how Starbucks recently labeled drinks with "chink" eyes instead of writing the customers' names on the cups.

Just Google "racist receipt" and a plethora of stories will appear on your screen. This isn't funny, and this isn't acceptable.

Dear restaurant employees: I just ask you to say my name, and not some derivation of a racist slur.  That is all. 

Read more about the steakhouse settlement here.

Schoolyard Fun in 2012? 'Slave Catchers' v. 'Slaves' game of tag

 

Imagine this:

You come home after a long day at work to have dinner with your children. Your daughter begins telling you about her day at school. When she gets to the subject of recess, she describes a 'game' that she played with her fellow students.

"It was kind of like tag, but we were slaves and slave catchers," she reports.

If only this were a fictional dinner table conversation.

Parents of students at Camp Creek Elementary have forced the school district to launch an investigation as to why this 'slave catcher' game was played at their children's elementary school.  [I wonder if those involved were inspired by this math teacher?]

According to school spokesman Jorge Quintana, the game was organized by the students and no teacher involvement took place. "The district determined that the activity was student-initiated and that the allegations regarding the teacher's involvement were unfounded," said Quintana. 

However, according to some students, a teacher took an active role in organizing the 'game', serving as 'safehouse' and telling the designated 'slaves' and 'slave catchers' when to run. One student said that the teacher proposed the game in order to complement what the students had been learning in their Social Studies class. [Who wants to bet money that the students were were designated as 'slaves' were Black and the 'slave catchers' were not?]

Despite the findings of the district, the school board is nonetheless planning a 'diversity training' for the area teachers.

Is diversity training the solution to this problem? As someone who has participated in several required diversity trainings, the results are always what is expected: those who lack bigoted tendencies find the experience somewhat enjoyable while their not-so-tolerant counterparts moan and complain. I really wonder whether an educated person, such as a teacher, should already know that a 'game' like this in NOT a game.  

Not to mention - what do people like this teach students when they are not under the watchful eye of administrators?