What all occupations prevent someone

[bloom]

from wearing (to a private party) what would be a legal Halloween costume for anyone else?


Judge apparently.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1071163

Police?

Teacher?

Anyone with any authority?

How about your job? Can you dress up as you desire?


Maybe a law should be written. People can't dress as another race, religion (that would make dressing as witches a problem), ethnicity... social "class" - to dress as a hobo might seem insensitive...."fairy" might me taken the wrong way...

[uberotto]

1. Several years ago...

My dad turned down a fairly lucrative job offer from Lockheed Martin. He was currently working in Civil Service and the Lockheed job would have paid him almost twice what his current salary was.

To my surprise, my dad turned down the job offer. My dad is a typical republican who really likes his money.

When I asked him why he didn't take the job, he explained that he didn't like the life codes attached to the position.

When I asked him what life code were, he explained that they were unwritten codes like a dress code, but encompassed most everything in your life. They dictated what kind of house you could live in, what kind of suits you had to wear, what kind of car you could drive and what kind of wife you could have.

Since then I've heard other people mention these unwritten life codes. When I was in college, we were having a party at our house (not a frat house, but a plain ol house). One of the school's cheerleaders showed up to the party but she didn't stay long. She was good friends with one of the other guests, but she couldn't be seen going to a "regular" party. Being seen there could have gotten her kicked off of the team.

I've seen the same thing where I work now. When you reach a certain level of success, you are expected by your colleagues to "fit in" and put forward the proper image to the adoring public. This is what the judge didn't do. It's their rules, and he broke them.

They (the successful) like their rules because it separates them from the rest of society. In their minds it puts them above society. We (the less successful) like their rules because it makes us glad we are not them.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, AFTER POSTING HERE FOR OVER THREE YEARS, I FINALLY HAVE MY 500th POST!!!!!

[Randers]

2. Congrats on your 500

[bloom]

3. I seem to be in the far minority around here

but your response makes sense.

I don't think everyone in certain positions goes along with giving up all their freedoms - but I guess you are on to a reasonable explanation.

I know a couple of judges. And while they aren't the insensitive types like this one may have been, they don't necessarily follow all of the unwritten rules on how they should look, etc...and it's worked OK for them.

It did seem funny to me how people who for themselves expect fairly wide-ranging freedoms and tolerance for their own behaviors would expect such narrow ones for others.


I guess I just see Halloween as more of a free-for-all as long as it's not obscene or something. Sometimes people work out things psychologically - trying on roles. That could have been what the judge was doing as a "prisoner".

[bleedingheart]

28. my bro-in-law worked for a company like that...

I recall he wouldn't accept a Jerry Garcia tie because it was not acceptable attire.

He was required to eat out every day at lunch to be seen and to network..it was nuts.

[ixat]

35. Well, it's not really about "fitting in"...

Personally, reading that thread I started out thinking "come on, this is just knee-jerk political correctness." However, when you think about it, when a judge in Louisiana of all places wears blackface and cuffs for Halloween, he's only rubbing salt in America's wounds... I think that one criterion of the state of racial relations is how calmly ethnic jokes may be accepted in an interracial milieu, and call me a pessimist, but I think that we're still very far from having such a healthy state of race relations in this country, especially in the South. When we do, the Hon. Timothy Ellender will be welcome to wear wheatever he likes.

[DrWeird]

4. So a judge dresses up in black face and a prison uniform...

and you don't see a conflict of interest?

[bloom]

5. Not to a private Halloween party.

no.

[DrWeird]

6. Amazing.

nt

[Logansquare]

8. Yes, he meant it as a loving tribute

to the thousands of black men incarcerated in the U.S. Sorry, I don't know how to do the little icon with the eyes rolling.

[DrWeird]

9. colon eyes colon

There's a whole is of them if you click on the link "smilies lookup table."

I didn't know which was more appropriate, the rolling eyes or the puking.

[Logansquare]

11. Thanks, my sarcasm has found a face

:eyes:

[brindis_desala]

7. you seem to be implying

that since the party was "private" what's the big deal? But apparently it was to somebody. This person is a JUDGE. Not only did he not know WHO he might be meeting at this "private party", any of the guests could possibly appear before his court. I doubt after that very many have much confidence in his Judgment.

[mcscajun]

15. And if it had been a really Private Party...

...it wouldn't have been held in the back room of a public restaurant.

It was a black member of the staff who was offended and who ultimately made the complaint.

[bloom]

17. ok

That makes more sense.

[UdoKier]

29. It's offensive and rude.

But I don't see how it should be illegal.

Does seem to cloud his ability to judge cases involving black plaintiffs or defendants objectively, though.

Mark Führerman lost his job because he used the 'n' word, right?

Seems like conduct unbecoming a judge, may merit discipline or even dismissal.

[bloom]

10. So feel free to help me see how this makes sense.

Is it like if a CEO were to dress up as a factory worker?

Or the executive director of a Woman's Shelter were to dress up as a wife beater?

Or is it just the black face part? If he were a white prisoner would that be OK?


I'm apparently a socially clueless person - so I guess I just don't get it. I thought people were free to dress how they wanted on Halloween. I thought that was the point. Dressing as dead people or as weird as you can think of....

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

13. IT would be like a police officer dressing as Rodney King

The only difference being judges have a judicial cannon which DOES dictate how they must conduct their private life. They agree to live up to that cannon in spite of the incumberances..that's why they make the big bucks..in essence, he violated the terms of his employment contract..a contract he agreed to.

[bloom]

14. a judicial cannon

So it is something written down - that he would have been aware of...

Like the first responder said - there are a lot unwritten rules that some people are supposed to accept. But - I guess this would go beyond that.

I'm sure you are right.

I still have to wonder if he wasn't trying to imagine - for a night - what it is like to be one of the many people that he sentences. I don't like to assume hateful intentions without knowing more.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

16. No judges have a code (written) of ethics that extends beyond their

duties and behaviors on the bench and I am betting that in it expressing bias or mocking races is covered. Ethics vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction i.e. federal canons may vary from local and state codes of ethics but most would cover acting in the manner in which he did. Since he can use the title JUDGE on his private stationary and in his private dealings, he must live up to that title in his private dealings..but truth be told..most companies have SOME statement in their company policy about how one must behave even OFF the clock if they are representing the company in some way shape or form and many people fail to consider this in their daily doings. That is why I suspect if a social worker were to mock minorities or someone that works for a non-profit, they too might very well face some disciplinary action.

On edit: as to the last sentence and him possibly using the blackface to identify with his cases, I would VENTURE to guess that HAD he presented himself in that manner and DEFENDED himself FOR that reason, he probably would NOT have been disciplined. I am siding toward him making a mockery of people who come before him but that's because I know lots of judges and go to parties with them ;-)

[bloom]

18. The judges I know are respectful

even at parties - (and wouldn't have done this) - that is why I give judges the benefit of the doubt.




There was one... who seemed to think his friends were above the law and I don't condone that in the least. But this is not about the law as it applies to most people....so I had to question it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

19. Understandable

I think giving people the benefit of the doubt is a good thing. I would also venture to guess that those judges we both know that are mostly good wouldn't be thoughtless enough to do this. Hope you didn't think I was being flippant in my responses to you. I knew where you were coming from

[bloom]

22. I didn't think

you were being flippant. I think it does make a difference if you see the judges as people. You are the only one giving me any credit at all.


I see where people are coming from. But I think a lot of people take their freedoms (to wear what they want - to act like idiots if they want...) pretty lightly while withholding them fairly easily. And judges aren't paid all that much - compared to a lot of lawyers/businesspeople, etc.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

25. No but they have a great deal of power

and in exchange for that power, they are asked to demonstrate that they can use that power in an impartial and just manner.

[bloom]

26. power

I was noticing with other cases that people were fired and suspended from jobs and schools over things like this. The suspensions/firings seem to all have been overturned because of free speech rights.

It does seem to come down to Judges are the only ones without free speech rights. I won't argue that they should be able to be racist and hateful - that is obviously the perception of many - but it does seem rather ironic, anyway.



(I did read in another aricle that the Judge didn't wear blackface originally - but the judge and wife put it on at the suggestion of the brother-in-law who was "Buckwheat" when their costume had "no effect" otherwise. They shouldn't have been so concerned about getting attention. :shrug: )

[tx_dem41]

27. "that is obviously the perception of many"

Is it your perception? If not, explain, outside of theatrics, how it could not be perceived as racist?

[bloom]

31. Halloween can be "theatrics" to some people.

To others it has apparently become an opportunity to express racism.

I think you have to know what the intent was.

Ok some people receive messages that weren't intended and the person is responsible anyway.

I don't know for sure that this guy intended to be racist. I agree that it was stupid.

Once upon a time - I dressed up with black face paint with yellow, orange and green polka dots. For someone whose perception was different from my intent they might have just really noticed the black and not thought of it as a non-objective abstraction which is how I intended it.

Looking back I wouldn't do it again - it was 20 years ago. I've been blue, purple, green, glittery, white... but not black. Even though I had no intention of doing blackface - I realized that that is how someone could have seen it anyway.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

32. Actually that isn't true. Most cases JUST like this where employees are

public employees are NOT overturned on a free speech basis since they agree to be held to a higher threshold.

Here is an article that makes it clear that he violated at least TWO Louisiana judicial canons ( I looked up the story):http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1098253620150260.xml


Not only that but at first he DENIED he went as a black prisoner even though he admitted his hair in the costume was an AFRO...I am certain the high court did not take kindly to being lied to by another judge...it's ALL A POX on the presumed imparitality of the justice system. Here is some of the reasoning of the justices of the Louisiana Supreme court:

When Bordelon said the judge's wig was really a "black clown wig" and that he went to the party as a "white convict," Justice Jeannette Theriot Knoll cut in.

"Are you saying today that he went dressed as a white convict?" Knoll asked. "He wanted to convey a white convict?"

Bordelon said he didn't know exactly what Ellender wanted to convey.

The wig disparity, which flies in the face of the legal stipulation Ellender signed off on -- that the wig was an Afro -- drew fire from Lombard.

When pressed, Bordelon said Ellender had agreed it was an Afro wig, and that the judge admitted he violated two provisions of the judicial canon.

"He never stipulated he violated the Constitution," Bordelon said.

Knoll said it was "unimaginable" that the state Constitution would not let the justices sanction a judge simply because he did not do something inappropriate more than once. What is persistent, she said, is the harm caused to the judiciary by Ellender.

"The harm continues," Knoll told Bordelon, whose client sat with other attorneys and his son, who shares his father's name. "There will be harm because of his racially charged conduct. The harm could be taking the place of persistency."

BTW... you are in Indiana where the KKK has a long history with the state house. I would HOPE Indiana would be as fierce as Louisiana in their discipline of a judge were this to occur there. It's really hard to tell the black population they are getting a fair shake in the justice system when judges charged with administering that justice are mocking them.



BTW on edit: Referring back to my post 16 wherein we were discussing if he were "trying to relate" it is clear the judge attempted to DENY he was dressed as an afro American prisoner originally even though he called his wig an "afro"...so it's pretty clear he DID know he screwed up big time.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

33. BTW..here's the Code of Judicial Conduct for Louisiana

http://www.lasc.org/rules/html/cjc.htm

[bloom]

37. I wasn't looking up case history

just - articles and things on the web.

There were the NYC firefighters who sounded quite a bit worse. Dressed up in blackface in a parade, threw watermelon and somehow suggested the Byrd dragging. Were fired for racism and later it was overturned.


The others were students.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

38. In the case of the students, I wouldn't doubt it was overturned as a

free speech right. In the case of the firefighters, I would venture to guess that their firing violated their clauses in their union contract as it pertained to termination. I'm not certain and would need to look up the cases, but I would venture to guess that was what got them rehired.

[Logansquare]

20. He's free to dress like that in his bedroom while he's satisfying his wife

I'm presuming that might be the only thing that works for her, in any event. On the planet Earth, in the country of the United States of America, it is a widely held belief that whites wearing blackface is a statement of mockery and disrespect to blacks. (You see, I'm talking to you like you're from Mars--I hope that helps.) This widely held belief stems from the fact that entertainment events known as "minstrel shows," wherein white men wore black face and talked in exaggerated "black" accents, were part of a culture of contempt and mockery toward blacks that pervaded the United States for over 100 years. During this time, while whites were being made jolly by this form of entertainment, some of them were also entertained by a form of terrorism known as "lynching." During this time, blacks could not appear on a stage entertaining whites unless they also added burnt cork to their faces.
Astounding, but true. Knowledge of this sad and disgraceful chapter in American history is so widespread that it hardly seems possible that the good judge was unaware of it. Perhaps he is also from Mars. We haven't even touched on implications of why he chose to symbolically change his race in order to play a prisoner. Are black prisoners just so much funnier? You be the "judge."

[bloom]

21. When I dressed up for Halloween

I have, on occasion, dressed as a witch. Witches have a history of persecution in this country. They were unjustly tried and executed. In fact, I know some witches today who do not let it be known to the general public that they are witches. So they are historically and currently discriminated against. So it seems to me - a judge could lose ones job for dressing as a witch....

But then witches aren't really a protected group...


Actually I think everyone could use more respect.


I also think it is possible that the judge just thought it would more of a "disguise" if he changed the color of his face - since otherwise he would just look like himself. He could have changed it to green - but he probably wasn't thinking about being from Mars or he may very well have. I imagine he wishes he did. :)

[KenCarson]

30. could it be?

that it's tied to his career. if he's a judge, then he has put people (some of them black) behind bars. now that's just stupid and disrespectful. wouldn't it be equivalent to:

a social worker dressing as beaten housewife

an army doctor dressing as a wounded iraqi amputee

etc.

[TalkingDog]

40. Ask yourself one question?

Would it have been as effective as a costume if he had gone as a white prisoner?

If you say yes, then why the need to dress up in blackface? The only possible reason (assuming you agree that the blackface was not a necessary part of the costume to be effective as a costume) is to make a comment on the KIND of people who go to prison. In the judge's eyes, that is obviously a black person.

Everyone has prejudices. It's a part of human nature. But there are a few people in this country we expect to keep those prejudices well hidden. One of those people is a judge. (along with Dr.s, policemen, therapists or anyone who holds the public trust) We trust judges to be fair. The mindset he was displaying with that costume is anything but fair.

That's why people are upset. He took the job of being impartial. He has shown he is not. If you were black, would you want this man to be the sitting judge at your trial? I wouldn't.

[bloom]

41. You're right.

I wouldn't like it.

I haven't had much experience in courtrooms. I did go to one case, though that involved sensitive issues relating to women. First there was a male judge - who was way too easy on the male defendant. The next time there was a female judge - same case. Totally different take on it - she nailed him. It was the difference between night and day.


It would be great if everyone were equally, reasonally fair. Some think they are being more fair to the victim - some the defendant. Like you say - people have biases. (I wouldn't be surprised if there are not more in the way of gender biases than race biases - in judging - bu that is just me.)


To me- I think it matters more what kind of judge he was than what he wore on Halloween. But perceptions are important - or people will not want to bother with the system - and he definately violated people's trust.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

12. Social worker would probably too

Frankly this judge violated the ethics of his position by wearing that costume. As a judge he must rule on issues concerning race and police brutality..so since his wife was dressed as a cop and he was dressed in blackface, it does allude to his biases on the bench when hearing these cases. I think his punishment is appropriate.

[SemperEadem]

23. As a judge, he should by now have enough smarts to know

that that was inappropriate for one of his societal standing.

For a defense attorney attending the party and possibly having to come before this judge, it would speak volumes about the fairness in law interpretation a client would be able to expect from this person, if he's being this blatant in his ridicule of black inmates, some of which, I'm sure, he's had before him in court.

yes, there is a certain code of behavior to which a person of his 'rank' should adhere. That's a no brainer. What if he dressed up as a priest with a life sized doll of a naked boy? Would that be OK with you?

He exhibited very bad taste and very bad judgement.

[bloom]

24. I don't like unwritten laws

People do seem to equate this as a taboo on a level with child molesting - given the reaction. If that is the case, it would not be that difficult to have a law that outlaws blackface for everyone. There could be labels on black face paint that warned against improper/unlawful usage.

[SemperEadem]

42. morals clause

Usually, jobs of a certain pay tier have something inserted in the employment contract called a 'morals clause'--which outlines acceptable behavior by the employee during their employment. It includes their behavior in and out of the office where identification with the employer can be drawn. I"m quite sure this judge, if he didn't have one specifically for his job, is quite aware of it as a matter of contract law--something he would have covered in law school. He is aware of such things, so playing stupid about it doesn't cut the ice here. Forgetting about it is even sadder. If it has to be spelled out in plain English for him, then that's really a shame.

Common sense should tell one where the line is drawn. However, at a certain age, things such as what this judge did is recognized as being quite distasteful, boorish and not honorable to one's esteem and personnage.

If one didn't 'get the memo', then they are a thoughtless lunk, quite self-centered, self-absorbed and self-ish. This is really a no-brainer.

[CornField]

34. I see his taste in friends as the problem here

He was attending a private party. He was supposedly among friends. Hmmm...

It seems to me that a true friend - or even someone who somewhat cared about the man and his family - would have made a complaint to his face and ask him to remove the face paint/costume/offensive material.

I have no problem with the man's costume, although I feel it is in poor taste. It was a private party.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

36. It was a private fuction in a public seafood restaurant

The party was NOT entirely in private...had it been so, it's doubtful we would be reading about it and this racially insensitive judge would still be engaging in his racial insensitivity from the bench.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

39. people in power should at least attempt not to be overtly racist

and if one cant tell the difference between blackface and dressing up as a fairy...maybe one should consult their history books a little bit more