More on Master/Slave Relationships

Yeesh. The Master/Slave controversy just gets better and better.

More details here on the whole origin of the matter:

Sandoval said a Probation Department employee complained to the Office of Affirmative Action Compliance that video equipment had the terms “master/slave” written on it. As a result of the investigation, the affirmative action office said he should see whether the county could stop buying electronics with those labels on them.
[…] Dennis A. Tafoya, director of the affirmative action office, said an African-American employee who filed the complaint felt it was employment discrimination because the employee was working on video equipment with the label written on it. The office investigated and determined that the complaint did not involve employment discrimination, but the official recognized that the term could be perceived as offensive.
“The issue was the employee had to operate this equipment and look at the term ‘slave and master,’ and given their background as an African-American person, I imagine they had different feelings about it,” Tafoya said. “We found the terms were antiquated and offensive to individuals and that a more reasonable term could be used. I think that’s what we should do. If it means culture change, then we have to begin someplace.

So. One person — one county worker — sees a term, and makes some bizarro claim that this is “employer discrimination.” The county office responsible for such complaints finds no such discrimination — but decides that, well, someone could be offended by it, so let’s not worry about whether it makes any sense, let’s just coddle any possibility of anyone being in the least bit offended by anything that we do (especially if they might sue us) and just do away with the term.

Well, as a computer geek, I feel that my culture is being denegrated, and that complaints about such a reasonable, very descriptive, and not-at-all antiquated technical term are prejudicial against IT types, and probably constitutes discrimination against the IT employees of the county. I demand that attacks on such terms be ended. “If it means culture change, then we have to begin someplace.”

I mean, really. How many people need to be offended before we decide that a term is unacceptable? It seems that the answer is “1” — if, I might add, the complainer is of a group that is allowed to be offended and have action taken up on their behalf.

Tafoya continues,

“This has got some people’s hair up on the back of their neck. They believe it’s a question of being politically correct. It’s not that at all. It’s an issue of valuing diversity, respect and dignity for the individual who comes to work here every day. The issue that resonates in different people’s minds is a very negative connotation.”

We are therefore removing the following terms from all LA County publications, buildings, and equipment to be purchased: “South,” “Civil,” “Property,” “Cracker,” “Crow,” “Black,” “Whip,” “Cotton,” “Factor,” “Passage,” “Triangle,” “Chains,” and “Gone with the Wind.”

And what does the Joe Sandoval, division manager of purchasing and contract services in the Internal Services Department, have to say?

“What we are doing is soliciting vendors who regularly do business with the county to look at their equipment and help us where they can,” Sandoval said. “It’s not a policy decision or mandate, but that’s what folks took it as.”

Well, maybe this terminology made it look like a “mandate”:

[T]his is not an acceptable identification label. We would request that each manufacturer, supplier and contractor review, identify and remove/change any identification or labeling of equipment or components thereof that could be interpreted as discriminatory or offensive in nature before such equipment is sold or otherwise provided to any County department.

If I were selling equipment to the county, I’d sure take that as a mandate.

(Mutter mutter mutter …)

(via Volokh)