October 10, 2013

"This bill is bad for Mukwonago taxpayers, bad for the Republican Party and its reputation for having a race problem, bad for Scott Walker if he aspires to the national stage..."

"... but most importantly this bill is bad for children. You will be doing a favor to everyone including Mukwonago and your own Republican Party if you let this horribly racist legislation die a peaceful death in committee."

Try to think of what the bill in question could be. It's pending in the Wisconsin legislature. It's not the bill discussed in the previous post, which was about creating a new basis for lawsuit. This one is actually about repealing an existing basis for lawsuits. Here's another quote about the bill:
“There’s an elephant in the room that needs to be addressed directly. The elephant in the room is white Republican racism... Some have called [this bill] the ‘most racist legislation of the current generation.... That could be the kiss of death for a politician having national aspirations...” 
The politician with national aspirations is Scott Walker. What is this law that would put the stink of racism on Scott Walker and wreck his career?
Under the current law, a school district must prove that its mascot or nickname is not offensive if someone files a complaint. But the new bill stipulates that any complaints would have to include a petition signed by 10 percent of the district’s student population saying the logo or mascot is offensive, shifting the burden of proof to those filing the complaint.
“That’s like if an employee of the Ho-Chunk nation felt they were sexually harassed and had to get 10 percent of the other employees to agree (with them),” Greendeer said. “That’s absurd.”

Jennifer Kammerud, DPI’s legislative liaison, said Nass’ bill takes away the complaint process. “It is setting a level of discrimination into state statute,” Kammerud said. “You have to have your feelings validated by having 10 percent of your community agreeing with you.”

39 comments:

tim maguire said...

Hmmm...10% of the student population? You mean minors? People legally ineligible to enter into contract or other legal commitment?

How will that work?

I like the part of this bill that puts the burden of proof on the complainant, but that proof is laid out very strangely.

Henry said...

“It is setting a level of discrimination into state statute,” Kammerud said. “You have to have your feelings validated by having 10 percent of your community agreeing with you.”

So you file a lawsuit to have your feelings validated?

How about validating your feelings by going to your community and attempting to persuade them to change their minds.

Moose said...

I don't see anything that prevents the aggrieved party from filing a lawsuit - am I missing something or is the just a bag of flaming poo?

Graham Powell said...

I think what the bill is getting at is that one person out of thousands can't get a mascot changed. Let's face it, there's always someone who's offended. Should we give that person veto power?

Whether this is a good precedent or not is another question, and I'm not sure what my opinion on that is.

Bob Ellison said...

Madison resident and American Indian Arvina Martin, 33, said the bill was offensive and discriminatory because it allows a group of people to be portrayed in images of the past.

“People are still flabbergasted that I exist here in 2013 in Madison, Wisconsin,” she said. "How come you aren’t wearing moccasins? How many scalps do you have? These are all questions I’ve been asked over the years.”


I've been asked some strange things over the years, like "isn't it true that the orange farmers inject sugar into the fruit and spray them with orange coloring?" and "you do know that diabetes is a result of a chromium-vanadium deficiency, right?"

So maybe she was asked these strange things.

Carol said...

Denying welfare benefits to felons?

Carol said...

Oh I thought we were supposed to guess without looking. My bad.

David said...

Racism has become the new wolf.

Carnifex said...

Jesus God...More "My feelings were hurt" bullshit. Is that the one and only thing Dem's really care about? Oh! That and killing babies.

MadisonMan said...

If the people of Mukwanago like a name, for whatever reason, who am I to tell them it's wrong. The Madison resident quoted needs to thickenize her skin. The right to be un-offended is written nowhere into law.

I'd like this to become a National Topic so I can see local anchors all over the country trying to pronounce Ma-GWAN -a - go

Carnifex said...

As an aside, I heard my Grandfather call my Mom a Cat-lickin'(Catholic) Diego. I got over it.

SGT Ted said...

The attack on the bill you quote is pure Alinsky.

An allegedly offensive mascot is compared to criminal activity such as sexual harrassment in order to demonize its supporters.

Calling Republicans racist...How ordinary.

its "offensive and discriminatory because it allows a group of people to be portrayed by images of the past"

...oh you mean, like allowing the Democrats to portray members of the GOP in mental images of the racist past of the Democrats, when it was Democrats that fought a war to own other human beings and enforced racist Jim Crow laws until they put the 101st Airborne on the ground to enforce equal rights? Yea, It IS just like that. It's called free speech though and you really need to grow some thicker skin.

This is the usual leftwing- progressive speech and thought policing.

Seeing Red said...

Change the name to Ho-Chunk and the mascot is a casino chip.

Hagar said...

Squareheads of Wisconsin. Arise!

SGT Ted said...

Shorter Greendear:

"Shut up and do as I say, racists!"

William said...

Isn't defining people as racist on such a tenuous basis kind of racist. Why do white people have to prove that they're not racist? Is there some kind of hurtful stereotype that white Republicans are racists? Perhaps if some celebrities did PSAs proclaiming the humanity of Reublicans, then this stereotype could be overcome.

Matthew Sablan said...

I would think that if a school district couldn't produce 10% of the students who wanted the name changed, that kind of proves the name isn't offensive? Well, not really. They could all be racists.

Eh, it's a mess.

Seeing Red said...

Maybe he should do like millions of others and drop the "deer" from his name?

Larry J said...

William said...
Isn't defining people as racist on such a tenuous basis kind of racist. Why do white people have to prove that they're not racist? Is there some kind of hurtful stereotype that white Republicans are racists? Perhaps if some celebrities did PSAs proclaiming the humanity of Reublicans, then this stereotype could be overcome.


How do you prove a negative? Also, why is it that I'm supposed to walk on eggshells to avoid offending the same people who go out of their way to offend me? I'm talking about liberals in general, wear it if it fits.

Seeing Red said...

This country validates feelings every 2 years or sooner if people really get pissed about something.

He hasn't figured that out yet?

SGT Ted said...

Also, why is it that I'm supposed to walk on eggshells to avoid offending the same people who go out of their way to offend me? I'm talking about liberals in general, wear it if it fits.

Fens Law applies here:

Fen's Law: "The Left doesn't really believe in the things they lecture the rest of us about"

Larry J said...

Fen's Law: "The Left doesn't really believe in the things they lecture the rest of us about"

I think the Left is guilty of the things they accuse the Right of doing or thinking. It's called projection.

MikeDC said...

1. That sounds exactly like the sort of briar patch a Republican would like to be thrown into. If that's the best the Dems can come up with when charging racism, it'll subvert their claims.

2. "the bill was offensive and discriminatory because it allows a group of people to be portrayed in images of the past." but it's ok to talk about "white Republican racism..". Um... no.

Big Mike said...

The Republicans are pushing this through only because they got wind of my nefarious plan to force the University of Wisconsin to renounce their badger logo by claiming it offends me.

Damn that evil Walker administration!

Sigivald said...

How the hell can one prove "non-offensiveness"?

To whom? A reasonable person? Anyone ever?

I far prefer the proposed poll standard, for two reasons:

1) It's actually clear and specific.

2) It prevents a single Professionally Offended (or simply Very Sensitive And Outspoken) person from forcing things.

PB Reader said...

Gee, a 10% minority veto is OK but a 40% veto level in the US senate isn't?

Big Mike said...

FWIW the bill is good for the Mukwonago taxpayers, since it probably means that the local high school won't have to pay money to paint over their former logo, buy new uniforms for their sports teams without the old logo, put together committees to select a new logo (which someone else may very well protest in a year or two), etc., etc.

And as far Scott Walker's potential national ambitions are concerned, a law along those lines would mean that the Redskins wouldn't have to change their name unless 10% of the people who watch the NFL regularly agree that it offends them. Lots of luck with that.

Go Scott Walker!!!

MadisonMan said...

buy new uniforms for their sports teams without the old logo,

If Mukwanago is like Madison, the School District is not buying uniforms for the kids anyway.

(The parent-led booster club does)

Big Mike said...

@MadMan, the parent-led booster club has no taxpaying members?

n.n said...

Sometimes they favor democracy while other times they favor dictatorship. Sometimes they favor diversity while other times they favor conformity. All of the time they are selective.

The content and character of a legitimate complaint needs to be internally, externally, and mutually consistent. This complaint is nonsense designed to advance a position through emotional extortion.

Marshal said...

It's ridiculous to assign racist motivations to an attempt to limit the disruptive powers of political activists.

It's delusional to think this issue could possibly effect Walker's national aspirations.

Archie said...

I am deeply offended by the name Mukwanago. In my people's language it means " (rasict word redacted)laughable, rent seeking, rabble rousing, losers and mopes". I demand that this so called tribe change it's name immediately

Sam L. said...

I only know that I, as a white guy, am not allowed to be offended.

Joe Kristan said...

How will it work? Hilariously. In no time at all 10% of Wauwatosa West High School students will petition that the "Trojans" nickname is a slur on the Condom-American Community.

gregq said...

It's a good start.

And thanks for pointing this person out. We now know that nothing Kammerud says has any value or worth, at all.

Revenant said...

Seems like a reasonable law to me.

Nihimon said...

"... white Republican racism..."

I'm offended. Do I need to get 10% of "progressive" journalists to agree with me? Or can I just get the government to demand she change that phrasing... and maybe give me some cash, too?

The Godfather said...

I don't know how public schools are governed in Wisconsin. Maybe there's an hereditary school czar, or a secret committee that meets in a hidden cave? Most places, there's a school board that's elected by the local folks. If you think that it's offensive to call the High School team "The Althouse Commenters", then you complain to the locally elected officials, and if there are enough people who agree with you, then the name gets changed. But if most of the damn fools in the community don't agree with you, well then you're stuck. That's called "democracy". It's also called "tough shit".

In fact, that would be a GREAT name for a high school football team, the Mukwonago Tough Shits!

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

Under the current law, a school district must prove that its mascot or nickname is not offensive if someone files a complaint.

Under the Constitution, that's backward - you're innocent of giving offense until convicted of it by a jury of your peers. Three outraged political activists don't constitute that jury.

But under Obama, proving your innocence is the new standard. The Gibson guitar company is an example - raided by the Feds who confiscated records and materials, levied a fine and issued threats against Gibson in case it complained publicly. No prosecution, no trial, no defense, just guilty, with a single agency serving as plaintiff, sheriff, judge, jury and executioner.

The current law in Madison is a step away from such lynch law, and puts at least some of the burden on the plaintiff.