October 31, 2002

5:00 AM

Reply To All button considered harmfulAn employee (called a manager in the headline but a millwright in the article) was fired from Eastman Kodak in Rochester, NY when he replied to an email announcing "National Coming Out Day" (hint: he wasn't in favor). But in addition to the sender, his message went to about 1000 other employees. Kodak says he was terminated when he refused to admit that sending it to all those people was wrong, not for it's content. Is this Political Correctness run amok or justifiable?
posted by tommasz (53 comments total)

He refused to create and sign documentation to this effect, despite repeated requests, knowing that his refusal would result in his dismissal

Good for him.

I couldn't give a f*ck what my co-workers 'orientation' is. Let's just get on with work and go home at 5.
posted by Frasermoo at 5:05 AM on October 31, 2002

Political issues aside, I get really, really irritated by people who don't know the difference between "reply" and "reply to all". I have seen it bring e-mail systems to their knees.
posted by JoanArkham at 5:11 AM on October 31, 2002

Clicking on "reply to all" instead of "reply" is not in itself a fireable offense, otherwise half the civil service would be unemployed by now. Clearly, the content of the message escalated the situation -- but the employee's refusal to apologize did so as well. Most people who accidentally reply to all apologize immediately for their mistake. This sounds like the employee wanted to martyr himself on principle.
posted by mcwetboy at 5:20 AM on October 31, 2002

Perhaps the company should have trained him more thoroughly in the use of their e-mail system?

What is the "reply to all" button for anyway? I have often wondered.
posted by dg at 5:22 AM on October 31, 2002

I find it hard to believe that anyone is surprised by this anymore. For a long time now, US law strictly prohibits expressing many opinions about women and minorities in the workplace. 20 years of jurisprudence on harrassment, creating hostile environments, and nondiscrimination mean that Kodak has no choice. The law says that either this guy publicly apologizes and accepts "attitude adjustment" retraining, or else they have to fire him.

I learned about this when the US Human Resources director of my company attended a party in the French office. He explained to me that he was completely disoriented because lots of people were saying things that would be illegal in the US. A lot of his job consisted of making sure that the consequences of these laws were properly communicated and enforced.
posted by fuzz at 5:22 AM on October 31, 2002

I couldn't give a f*ck what my co-workers 'orientation' is. Let's just get on with work and go home at 5.
exactly. last i knew, "coming out" wasn't an area of major stockholder concern for kodak, why isn't the HR asshole who sent the mail in the first place ALSO fired? he obviously sent it to thousands of kodak employees in the first place. actually, the fired manager missed a great opportunity to make his point in a more humorous manner. i'd have crafted an email announcing 'national i don't give a rip about your closet as long as you do your job' day. also, what JoanArkham said.
posted by quonsar at 5:23 AM on October 31, 2002

Reply to All is just a convenience feature so you don't have to add names, other than the sender, to your reply. The problem sounds like the original message had all the names in the To: field. You can prevent replies from going to everyone by putting all the names in the Bcc: field.
posted by tommasz at 5:27 AM on October 31, 2002

last i knew, "coming out" wasn't an area of major stockholder concern for kodak, why isn't the HR asshole who sent the mail in the first place ALSO fired? he obviously sent it to thousands of kodak employees in the first place.

If it was Kodak's corporate policy to support minorities and to 'recognise' a day of this kind, then the 'HR asshole' might well have simply been doing his/her job.

And I can't help thinking that anyone who feels the need to make his point so overtly and aggressively (the mere fact that someone told him about an event - in no way forcing him to take part or approve - was 'disgusting and offensive') did indeed set out to create an antagonistic atmosphere in the workplace. Which seems to me to be the reason he was fired: "and in the company’s view, this act created the potential for a hostile work environment".
posted by jonpollard at 5:47 AM on October 31, 2002

Aren't the free market types always saying that companies have the right to ask practically anything of their employees? And the employee has the right to resign. Isn't this the way things work on Planet WorldNet? What are they bitchin' about then?

And yeah, Mr. Szabo should've been ditched for sending a "reply to all" alone ....
posted by octobersurprise at 5:50 AM on October 31, 2002

Amen on the BCC field. The CC field should be off and invisible by default.
posted by Mo Nickels at 6:01 AM on October 31, 2002

1. Kodak tries to encourage their employees to be open about their sexuality and sends an email to that effect.
2. Guy, on Kodak's time, with Kodak's computers, who works for Kodak, says this is 'disgusting and offensive' to 1000 people.

Clearly this has undermined Kodak's attempt to make their gay employees feel comfortable.

Say the CEO of Kodak sends out an email saying "no more casual Fridays". Then somebody replies to everyone in the organization, saying "This is bullshit. Why the hell does he care if I wear jeans on Friday? This policy is bad and I'm not going to listen to it."

That guy would also be fired. Regardless of his ignorant opinions.
posted by Fabulon7 at 6:05 AM on October 31, 2002

---
The problem sounds like the original message had all the names in the To: field. You can prevent replies from going to everyone by putting all the names in the Bcc: field.
---

Not necessarily. The email system used at my University (Simeon) prompts with "Reply to all Recipients?" after you click "Reply" which, if selected, will send the email to all the original recipients (To:, Cc:, and Bcc:).

There were quite a few times I received replies to "all student" emails and the like. They were all boring, too. I'd like to assume some were just mistakes (i.e. from CS students), but I think most of these users just didn't have a clue what it really meant.

"Reply to all" should never be as immediate as a prompt on every reply to emails with multiple recipients. That's just asking for trouble.
posted by digiboy at 6:19 AM on October 31, 2002

---
the mere fact that someone told him about an event - in no way forcing him to take part or approve - was 'disgusting and offensive'
---

Well, I find spam offensive too and I'm sure lots of people find it disgusting. Then again, I don't fancy replying to all - or replying at all - to tell everyone on the lists this. Of course, you also need a modicum of tact when it's your employer spamming you through internal mail with stuff you don't want to hear about.
posted by digiboy at 6:32 AM on October 31, 2002

I find some parts of this news item quite confusing. If the original announcement simply announced the National Coming Out Day, how could the guy be so offended? As Kodak have a long reputation for equality promotion* in the workplace, have they noted this special day in previous years - and if so, where was Mr. Szabo's disgust then?

I suspect that the 'Reply to All' was deliberately intended to cause offence: otherwise, if it was an accident, and should have been simply sent to HR, why not apologise? Does he want to be poster boy for the Idiotic Tendency?

I say fair play to Kodak! It makes a change to hear of an employer willing to make a stand for equality, instead of discrimination.

*Equality of treatment means surely being able to talk about your domestic circumstances whether you have a same-sex partner, opposite sex partner, happily single or in a menage-a-trois [for example]. At work. If you so choose. Or not.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:35 AM on October 31, 2002

"Reply to all" should never be as immediate as a prompt on every reply to emails with multiple recipients. That's just asking for trouble.[digiboy]

This should at least this should be an option. I once saw virtually an entire IT department quit over one screwed up "RTA". However, I'm not sure that the "reply to all feature" was involved in this case:

That memo gave managers advice for assisting employees who decide to tell co-workers about their sexual orientations ... His response apparently went to about 1,000 employees, and Szabo was subsequently fired after refusing to apologize.

Were these 1000 employees all managers or did he broaden the list in order to make his point to the entire group?
posted by originalname37 at 6:38 AM on October 31, 2002

I couldn't give a f*ck what my co-workers 'orientation' is. Let's just get on with work and go home at 5.

The thing is that for a lot of people, their workplace is a very central part of their lives. After all, they spend a majority of their waking hours there. If you don't feel comfortable in your workplace, your life can be severely affected.
posted by mopoke at 6:41 AM on October 31, 2002

For a long time now, US law strictly prohibits expressing many opinions about women and minorities in the workplace.

This is just not true. What is prohibited is interfering with someone's employment because of their race, gender, or national origin. If "expressing opinions" rises to the level of actually interfering with the conditions of employment, then, yes, there is a problem under Title VII. But, as many many failed Title VII plaintiffs will tell you, a one-time "expression of opinion" is not nearly enough to actually trigger liability. Put another way, if someone brought a workplace discrimination charge on the basis of this e-mail, they would certainly lose.

Interestingly, there is no protection for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation under federal law. So, Title VII wouldn't reach comments about "Coming Out Day" anyway.

He explained to me that he was completely disoriented because lots of people were saying things that would be illegal in the US.

"Saying things" is pretty much never illegal in the United States (as opposed to, say, France or Germany). What you're talking about is civil liability for interfering with work conditions. While "saying things" might form the basis of the interference, it is not the speech per se that is prohibited.
posted by Mid at 6:42 AM on October 31, 2002

The same people who complain about pro-whatever policies being blasted out to the company are invariably the same people who send out company wide missives shilling for their kids, at least where I work. I don't really care, I just delete the stuff without saying anything. Somehow the hard core conservatives I work with find any missive that basically says "don't discriminate or harass anybody" as an offensive against "the right".

They're right on some points, I don't think there should be quotas on who you hire since that often means you'd be hiring people who otherwise wouldn't meet your criteria. This just means more work for other people to pick up the slack. I also think that if you're offended by somebody bringing up their sexual orientation then you should demand a clean workspace policy, not that people just shut up. No more pictures of your kids or your wife on your desk, it's not work related after all.
posted by substrate at 6:44 AM on October 31, 2002

HR Depts. are annoying to begin with. Some days I get 15 f*cking e-mails about fund drives, contests, and sh*t like this guy got. When I'm trying to do work, and I repeatedly receive dumb HR e-mail, (Outlook: ding! ding! ding!) it pisses me off. I don't blame this guy for not wanting to celebrate others' sexuality in the workplace. HR Depts are out of control in this country.

The "reply-to-all" button should not have been hit, however. It's "too public a shot" at the man. He should've known the man always wins.
posted by BirdD0g at 6:48 AM on October 31, 2002

I am with frasermoo and quonsar on this one. I go to work to work, not learn of my co-workers sexual orientations. Nor do I really care about to learn. That is part of their personal lives, not their professional lives.

I think Kodak made a mistake by addressing what are their employees personal lifestyle choices, in the professional work environment.
posted by a3matrix at 7:18 AM on October 31, 2002

octobersurprise: It may shock you to learn that World Net Daily has several writers, some of whom are very libertarian, and other writers who are decidely not. I wouldn't make the mistake of attributing a single voice to World Net Daily any more than I would MeFi or /.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 7:19 AM on October 31, 2002

Interestingly, there is no protection for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation under federal law. So, Title VII wouldn't reach comments about "Coming Out Day" anyway.

Mid, I was with you up until that point, but that's only half true. While Title VII does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, it does prohibit harassment on the basis of sex. Thus, same-sex sexual harassment was recognized as actionable in the Oncale case. Moreover, several courts have recognized a cause of action for harassment based on a person's "non-conformity to gender stereotypes." (Bibby v. Philadelphia Coca-Cola Bottling, Nichols v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises).
posted by pardonyou? at 7:34 AM on October 31, 2002

BirdDOg, it sounds like your HR dept is out of control, sending 15 non-work related e-mails a day. And this e-mail in question was definitely work related.

It is very common for straight people to be annoyed by such an issue and even wonder why it is such a big deal. Yes, you want to go to work, work, and go home. Who doesn't? But there are very few people who leave all of their home life at home. Family pictures on desks, the inevitable new-baby-parade when mom brings her kid through the office the week before she is supposed to return from maternity so everyone can ooh and ahh over the fact that her woman parts are in working order. These things are all subtle reinforcement of the dominant culture. I used to work in the marketing dept of a huge company, and they had in their marketing stylebook documentation that any time a man or woman's left hand was show in a photograph, that hand had to have a wedding ring on it. Now tell me what message that is sending? I've actually worked in places where men would run out of the bathroom when I came in because I surely must have been trying to look down their pants or trying to put the moves on them in the bathroom. Ha! The root of why this bothers gay people is in the offhand statements about our personal lifestyle choices. As soon as people stop looking at gayness as a lifestyle choice, then many of the problems disappear.

Unfortunately, if everyone just came to work to work and didn't care about what else was going on, then we wouldn't even need reminders from coporate to mind our manners. The memo was not about celebrating anything. It was a message from coporate to worker saying we accept diversity and expect out employees to do so too, or at the very least have the brains today to shut up about it.
posted by archimago at 7:43 AM on October 31, 2002

But a3matrix...every time someone talks about their "boyfriend" or "wife" you find out about their sexual orientation. It can't be helped.

Personally, I'm sick about hearing about my supervisor's kid's soccer schedule but sometimes when you're forced to spend time with people you have to make chit-chat.
posted by JoanArkham at 7:47 AM on October 31, 2002

archimago - i totally agree. It would be a pretty dull workplace where people didn't talk about their lives outside of work, and I'd expect to discuss my partner and what we do the same way as my straight colleagues do. That doesn't mean that they're coming to work to "learn of [their] co-workers sexual orientations", to quote a3matrix. It just means that as a by-product of everyday interaction they may pick up on it, just as I may pick up on the details of their partners, children, pets, likes, dislikes, and so on.

On preview: And what JoanArkham said.
posted by jonpollard at 7:57 AM on October 31, 2002

---
These things are all subtle reinforcement of the dominant culture.
---

Gay people can have families and babies too, no?
posted by digiboy at 8:01 AM on October 31, 2002

*Equality of treatment means surely being able to talk about your domestic circumstances whether you have a same-sex partner, opposite sex partner, happily single or in a menage-a-trois [for example]. At work. If you so choose. Or not.

Equality of treatment also means surely to be able to respond freely, no?
posted by semmi at 8:13 AM on October 31, 2002

One of my favorite Reply To All moments:

The CIO at my last job accidently hit the Reply To All button to an email that went to everyone and proceeded to nit pick at the sender. It made himself look like a huge ass. I cracked up when I read it. Here's the way it went down.(the names have been changed as to not offend anyone)

Everyone,

We are conducting and audit of Visio.

If you currently have Visio install on you Desktop or
Laptop please fill out the following information and
send it back to me ASAP.

What Version?

Do you need / use Visio?

Thanks,
(overworked desktop support tech)

-----Original Message-----
From: (CIO)
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 1:44 PM
To: (Complete Asshole); Everyone - San Francisco
Subject: RE:


(Complete Asshole),

A good example of how to make a bad impression.

This email:

has no subject.

does not instruct the reader how/where to find the
version number

has bad grammar/misspelling

doesn't tell the reader why it is important to respond
at all (e.g. are we looking for something special, are
we trying to save the company money, are we almost out
of compliance and need to buy more licenses, etc.)

I don't expect everyone in Tech to be Shakespeare, but
the impression that is created by messages like this
don't work in our favor (remember the comments that
(scandalous manager) made about (desktop technician) and (other desktop technician) - this email went to
(Scandalous CEO), (Scandalous COO), (Scandalous ex-CEO), etc..

(CIO)

(CIO) / Broke Ass Company, Inc.
posted by LouieLoco at 8:41 AM on October 31, 2002

if someone brought a workplace discrimination charge on the basis of this e-mail, they would certainly lose

If someone brought a workplace discrimination charge based on this e-mail, Kodak's liability insurance provider would insist that Kodak find a way to settle out of court, and that Kodak's HR department inform all employees that the sentiments expressed are private business that cannot be expressed in a public way in the workplace. The ambiguity and contradictions in the case law mean that the company has no choice but to err on the side of caution.
posted by fuzz at 8:43 AM on October 31, 2002

DevilsAdvocate: Sorry for the snark. Browne is different from most of the WorldNet columnists I've read. My only point was that among those who think will think this episode is an egregious example of "political correctness" many of them (much of WorldNet's core readership, I imagine) regard most restrictions of a corporation's authority as unlawful or unjust. Many of them too, regard an employee's "right to resign" as the solution to every workplace problem. Just yer daily irony, that's all.
posted by octobersurprise at 9:11 AM on October 31, 2002

This is a classic example of "Everyone should be free to express their opinion except for those who disagree with me." Legalities aside, if you address this as an issue of ethics the position of the employer is untenable. Though the man's email wasn't quoted, the article stated that he asked not to receive further email on the subject because he thought it was offensive. So, he's a narrow-minded jerkoff. But he wasn't trying to stop other people from getting the e-mails, and he certainly wasn't trying to get THEM fired; he just didn't want the e-mails. It seems to me he was well within his rights to not want them. Just because I (and apparently Kodak) disagree with his views doesn't make it any more just for them to fire him. And where, besides Sesame Street, is "not apologizing" a terminable offense? Last time I checked, it was still a free country.
posted by vraxoin at 10:44 AM on October 31, 2002

Fuzz -- not true. In my experience (as an attorney who has worked on discrimination matters) large employers will not settle weak Title VII cases for fear of encouraging more employees to bring silly claims. They fight them to at least summary judgement before making a settlement offer. They win the vast majority of cases at summary judgment.

Pardonyou? -- all you say is true, but so was my comment. If we're talking discrimination based on messages about "National Coming Out Day," it is going to be pretty tough to get the case out of the "sexual orientation discrimination" box and into the "because of sex" box.
posted by Mid at 10:52 AM on October 31, 2002

And where, besides Sesame Street, is "not apologizing" a terminable offense?

In 49 U.S. states (all except Montana) in which employment is at-will.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:06 AM on October 31, 2002

I just don't see why National Coming Out Day is work-related. I *really* don't want to know about my cow-orkers' sex lives, or lack thereof. Granted, I haven't seen the original Kodak email. The middle-manager's comments may have been actionable if he's contributing to a hostile work environment.

I strongly support Gay Rights that protect gay people from harassment, like getting fired or losing one's rented home, due to sexual orientation. But, Fabulon7 and mopoke, I don't think my employer needs to make me "comfortable", just provide me with a non-hostile environment.

My employer just made brought in chocolate. I'm feeling much more comfortable now.
posted by theora55 at 11:25 AM on October 31, 2002

I don't think my employer needs to make me "comfortable", just provide me with a non-hostile environment.

Maybe not, but it seems reasonable for your employer to *want* to make you comfortable.
posted by originalname37 at 1:06 PM on October 31, 2002

Ok, by show of hands how many actually read the article before posting comments? If more than 1/2 of you raise your hand, you are liars.

From the article:

He was not asked to admit his opinions were wrong but to acknowledge that the way in which he communicated them to about 1,000 people was inappropriate.

So, if my boss sends an all-staff letter saying to quit buying red staplers, I can't imagine responding to everyone that I really, really need red staplers and brown staplers are disgusting and offensive to me.

If I did accidentally respond to everyone, I would certainly apologize. Why wouldn't I?

So, by his refusal to apologize, he is affirming that he MEANT to send it to everyone.

I believe that mcwetboy's "martyr" comment is probably a very good explanation.

Also, it is not within your rights to request which communiques your company can send to you. They own the e-mail system.

Octobersurprise is right on the money.

If this had been the other way, that a mass e-mail was sent about bible study after work, and this guy replied to all and said it was offensive and disgusting, and was subsequently fired because he would not apologize, the exact same people who are defending this man would be praising Kodak's "sound judgement". That includes most of the posters above.

See, most people aren't actually interested in what he did. They are only interested if he acted for or against their beliefs. If for, he's right. If against, he's wrong. Funny how few people look at the actions themselves.

If he had complained to the author or his supervisor, nothing would have happened. Stirring up shit on purpose in front of 1000 people is asking for punishment.

If you don't like looking at Snap-On-Tool bikini calendars, don't work at a mechanic's shop. If you don't like to even be notified that things like gays exist, don't work at a gay-friendly corporation.

At-Will states. Gotta love 'em. They can fire you because they don't like your hair. Or because you clocked in one minute late. Or because you clocked in one minute early. Or because you send inappropriate e-mail to 1000 people.
posted by Ynoxas at 1:09 PM on October 31, 2002

It seems is many people seem to think that policies regarding homosexuality don't even need to be created/considered b/c they feel that we can all go by this honor-system wherein we all agree to not discriminate based on sexual orientation, but without actually having to write it down. Sexual orientation has everything to do with work ala what mopoke said and this country is far too schizophrenic about its own homophobia for the honor system to work properly. B/c in this country, we only like a certain type of homosexual, the type that doesn't "force it down our throats" who knows that we're kidding when we say something's "gay"--the type who shouldn't mind not talking about his/her weekend retreat b/c it might involve talking about his/her partner. I am sick to death of people who supposedly support gay rights but that those rights begin and end within the home of that gay person--spend a week not talking about dating and your partner at work, and if you do, remind yourself that your co-worker probably strongly supports your rights, but they don't want to hear anything even slightly related to it. It's a nice guilt-free way of oppressing people, by supporting them in theory and not in practice. How can an honor system in this environment of half-acceptance and denial be effective? It can't. And it seems more people need to realize that in order to understand why Kodak sent the email in the first place.
posted by Ms.JaneDoe at 1:52 PM on October 31, 2002

---
Ok, by show of hands how many actually read the article before posting comments? If more than 1/2 of you raise your hand, you are liars.
---

*raises hand*

---
So, by his refusal to apologize, he is affirming that he MEANT to send it to everyone.
---

Yep, but then the argument becomes, what's actually wrong with sending a reply to all recipients? Should you get sacked for something like that? I doubt you could here...

---
Also, it is not within your rights to request which communiques your company can send to you. They own the e-mail system.
---

I disagree. Not that rights come into it... but you can always request. It doesn't mean they have to honour that request, or like it, but you can still request.

---
See, most people aren't actually interested in what he did. They are only interested if he acted for or against their beliefs. If for, he's right. If against, he's wrong. Funny how few people look at the actions themselves.
---

I think that's making a pretty big assumption.

Anyway, I dunno, I think complaints by gays against an email announcing how to deal with "National 'Tell Everyone You're Straight' Day" would have a certain validity too.
posted by digiboy at 3:35 PM on October 31, 2002

Ms.JaneDoe: It's a nice guilt-free way of oppressing people, by supporting them in theory and not in practice.

Nice. Succinct. Beautifully put. And not frequently-enough called. (Doffs hat.)
posted by jonpollard at 3:52 PM on October 31, 2002

From the article - "the topic, which he said he found "disgusting and offensive".

This guy isn't discussing the appropriate use of mass emails, he's plainly saying that he thinks homosexuality is "disgusting and offensive". Of course, he isn't just chatting with a friend of similar opinions when he says this, but sending a message to 1000 others. What's the difference between this and standing in the street with a banner reading "Gays are disgusting and offend me"?

If you believe that the fact that the "reply to all" function was probably used accidentally negates this analogy, how about the fact that he refuses to apologise for his bigotry? Doesn't this equate to a public affirmation of his opinion that gays are "disgusting"?
posted by lambchops at 3:56 PM on October 31, 2002

---
This guy isn't discussing the appropriate use of mass emails, he's plainly saying that he thinks homosexuality is "disgusting and offensive".
---

Well, it certainly implies that's the case from what we know, but the article specifically says that he found "the topic" disgusting and offensive. The topic was "advice for assisting employees who decide to tell co-workers about their sexual orientations" on National Coming Out Day.

I personally wouldn't assume that finding the concept of "National Coming Out Day" disgusting and offensive equates with thinking homosexuality is disgusting and offensive.

I don't know the man, so I don't know his intent, but gays could equally find National Coming Out Day offensive.

Hell, politics aside, if I didn't live here I could find celebrating St. Patrick's Day offensive. I certainly could see it as being self-discriminatory. Good excuse for a drink, though.
posted by digiboy at 4:37 PM on October 31, 2002

I think complaints by gays against an email announcing how to deal with "National 'Tell Everyone You're Straight' Day" would have a certain validity too.

From my experience, every day is "National 'Tell Everyone You're Straight' Day". You probably don't even notice how often you communicate, verbally or otherwise, your 'sexual orientation' if you're 'heterosexual'.

But, hey, I hate the either-or definitions of sexuality anyway. Your computer is, at its core, binary. You, and your sexuality, are much more complicated than your computer.

Aren't you?

Anyway, Kodak made the right decision.
posted by sir walsingham at 7:17 PM on October 31, 2002

He should have deleted the email once he realized it was something that didn't apply to him. Or even before, given the probable subject line.

The 1000 people should have deleted it once they realized it was ol' Crock-O-Hetero-Shit going off.

And Ms. JaneDoe, I work in a biz rife with homosexuals, and no--I don't want to hear about their dates and the trials and tribulations of their lives. Nor those of my heterosexual fellow employees. I can think of nothing more boring than listening to someone's littany of personal woes or triumphs. Beyond pleasantries, I will make my friends whom I wish to know about and assume others can do the same.

This trying to be recognised as a normal and positive part of society by having huge special days and throwing snits seems odd to me. And this agonizing about coming out to people you work with every day also seems silly. I would say the odds are they know. And most of them would have the same response I had to my old roomate when he sat me down and soberly told me he was gay: "Yeah. So? That's news?" Which, after his initial shock at having his thunder stolen, he sort of appreciated.

Since this clown refused to issue even a token, backhanded, insincere apology, which he could have used to insinuate that this whole thing was silly, then, yeah, he should have been fired. But I care--if possible--even less about what Mister X thinks about Mr Y's gayness than I do about the gayness itself. Basically, we should never have heard about this. Delete, delete, delete...
posted by umberto at 7:49 PM on October 31, 2002

What's the difference between this and standing in the street with a banner reading "Gays are disgusting and offend me"?

Nothing, in principle - and he has the right to do that if he chooses. Everyone is entitled to have and express their own opinion, no matter how marginal it is. It's called free speech. If Kodak's company policy prohibited use of their e-mail system for personal opinions, they had the right to sack him, otherwise it is PC run amok, although the company probably had little choice but to toe the PC line or risk being sued.

[disclaimer] I do not agree with his opinion, he sounds like an arrogant pig. [/disclaimer]
posted by dg at 7:52 PM on October 31, 2002

Mid -- since my info is secondhand, and yours seems to be firsthand, I'm more than willing to defer to you on this. But do you think that Kodak is therefore acting out of ideology here? My experience has been that HR departments don't give a damn whether you're gay, straight, black, white, or green. They are interested in protecting the company against legal liability and troublemakers of any stripe. I find it hard to believe that Kodak's actions here have anything to do with how they actually feel about gay rights.
posted by fuzz at 10:34 PM on October 31, 2002

---
From my experience, every day is "National 'Tell Everyone You're Straight' Day". You probably don't even notice how often you communicate, verbally or otherwise, your 'sexual orientation' if you're 'heterosexual'
---

I understand, but what I don't see is why this can't apply to homosexuals (or whatever sexuality) as well. Once you first mention your boyfriend / girlfriend / whatever to your colleagues in day-to-day chit-chat, it becomes relatively clear to people what your sexuality is.

---
You, and your sexuality, are much more complicated than your computer.
Aren't you?
---

*thinks* Nope, my computer is way more complicated than my sexuality. I'll tell ye, I had to do a Computer Architecture module for my Computer Science MSc and it was bloody difficult.
posted by digiboy at 1:31 AM on November 1, 2002

I understand, but what I don't see is why this can't apply to homosexuals (or whatever sexuality) as well. Once you first mention your boyfriend / girlfriend / whatever to your colleagues in day-to-day chit-chat, it becomes relatively clear to people what your sexuality is.

Nice in theory. Ridiculous in the real world.
posted by Dreama at 5:55 AM on November 1, 2002

---
Ridiculous in the real world.
---

Why ridiculous?
posted by digiboy at 6:07 AM on November 1, 2002

If we're talking discrimination based on messages about "National Coming Out Day," it is going to be pretty tough to get the case out of the "sexual orientation discrimination" box and into the "because of sex" box.

Mid, I agree. I wasn't taking issue with your overall point (in fact, I wasn't taking issue at all). Just pointing out that there can, in some circumstances, be an actionable Title VII violation for harassment against someone because of his or her sexual orientation. But I agree that this case is nowhere near that line.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:20 AM on November 1, 2002

umberto--You've obviously never been in a position where your job and friends could potentially be in danger if they knew this one fact. I had to hide being a lesbian at a job I held--and I can tell you, they never knew. I pretty much was falling apart during my time there--the culture was very, very homophobic, and I couldn't go a week without hearing "faggot" or to hear about homosexuals being disgusting and unnatural. I couldn't even tell the co-workers I was close to for fear of them letting it slip, everyone else finding out and losing my job. If you've never had to hide anything, out of some false feeling of shame--then you wouldn't understand why people are in a "snit" about it. I couldn't even say what I was up to that night for fear of using the same female name too often. It took me a good while to find a new position--one where I wouldn't have to hide my sexuality, but I did, I had to move and take a serious pay cut--but I did it. I don't tell my co-workers about the intimate details of my sex life, but I've got a picture of my partner on my desk, I can talk about what exhibit I went to see and I have absolutely no fear of losing my position due to my sexuality. I can't tell you how liberating--how absolutely wonderful it is for me, and the homosexuals in your biz, to be able to at least have a chance to live on that same level as you. How else is change going to happen without these "snits"--without combating the intensely negative view of homosexuals in this country with a purely positive one? It's one "huge special day" in an entire year of worry and self-doubt--of hearing about groups trying to exclude you from society, trying to reprogram you and trying to discredit your every attempt at making people understand you are no less of a person b/c of your sexuality. Also, look around your neighborhood, look at your town and your work and count the number of rainbow flags and pro-gay paraphernalia you see; I'm sure you'll find that this "huge special day" is a lot smaller than you realize.

And please, pretty please, don't use what fragile rights we've gained thus far against us.
posted by Ms.JaneDoe at 6:37 AM on November 1, 2002

You've obviously never been in a position where your job and friends could potentially be in danger if they knew this one fact.

OK, this is true. It probably helps to be gay, doing what I do. Point taken.

I still do not believe having a big hullaballoo to trumpet one's differences makes for a nicer fit into society.
posted by umberto at 3:16 PM on November 1, 2002

MsJaneDoe: I had a long post prepared, eaten by ColdFusion and now lost forever.

The gist was - thanks for your bravery. Thanks, for telling us. And for not giving up.

I've wondered about those in this thread who would deny us our rights. Do they lack empathy? Or the ability to rationalise their disgust? Do they see the wrongs against us as 'just desserts'?

I'm still off work now, 5 months after I left my job due to the violence and verbal abuse aimed at me from clients which my bosses didnt take seriously.

Just wait till the law suit hits them in the ass...
posted by dash_slot- at 6:34 AM on November 2, 2002

Or the ability to rationalise their disgust?

Interesting side issue here. While my friendships are based on personality and my sexual politics are rational, conversations in the details of gay sex of my gender disgusts me. But then again, details of some sexual practices I find disgusting too regardless of the gender mix. I guess I'm against institutionalized sameness, and for individual choices in embracing or rejecting others.
posted by semmi at 10:40 AM on November 8, 2002