Equal Employment loses it? St. Anthony, pray for them!
The story of an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) training session gone wobbly is making the rounds of conservative Catholic blogs, and it ought to be an instant classic in anybody’s “What Were They Thinking” folder.
Shelley, a certified archivist who works at a state university in Texas (she doesn’t say which), writes at the Catholic blog she co-authors with her sister, “Of Sound Mind and Spirit,” that as she was undergoing the university’s biennial training sessions (re-education camp) on various workplace matters, she saw this eye-popping slde in the EEO discussion of an example of “religious harassment”:
Joe Carter at First Things has the text (between understandable sputters):
Khalilah is a Muslim, and Janice is a Catholic. One day, Khalilah loses her favorite ring. Janice grabs Khalilah’s hands, bows her head, and starts praying to St. Anthony, the patron saint of lost things. Khalilah pulls her hands back and reminds Janice that she is a Muslim. Janice gets upset, tells Khalilah that she will never find her ring because she is a heathen, and storms off. Over the next couple of weeks, Janice stops by Khalilah’s desk over and over again to ask if she found her ring. When Khalilah said that she had not, Janice would smirk and tell her it is because she refuses to pray to St. Anthony. As a new employee, Khalilah is scared to mention anything to her supervisor, because she knows her supervisor is also Catholic.
Shelley says she was “stunned”:
“I didn’t know what to think. First of all, I’ve never met anyone, Catholic, Christian, or otherwise who would grab someone’s hands and begin praying out loud in the workplace. The scenario continues with the Catholic becoming upset, treating this new employee rudely, and disintegrates into being downright hateful. What this person is described doing would be considered against the very tenets of the Catholic Faith. It’s completely implausible!”
Maybe somebody confused Catholics with who…? This would be funny if it weren’t, well, not. And it’s about as dumb as a box of rocks, which is really offensive. Perhaps it is reassuring to think that someone out there knows who St. Anthony is, and that Catholics are so strongly associated with the veneration of saints?
Meh. Take it away Shelley:
“By creating this implausible scenario, the trainers did exactly what they’re trying to educate people from doing. They used an offensive stereotype about Catholics, implying we would be the type of people to blatantly intimidate or harass another faith. Under the guise of educating people, the trainers actually become the ones who offend.”
Touche’. Some of course will trumpet it as another example of discrimination against believers. I suspect ignorance is the operative dynamic — and that’s not exactly reassuring.
They used an offensive stereotype about Catholics, implying we would be the type of people to blatantly intimidate or harass another faith.
Although it was no doubt a mistake to use two actual religions in the example, “Janice” is not a stereotype. She might be a caricature, but unless I have missed something, if you asked someone to describe a stereotypical Catholic, would anyone come up with someone like “Janice”?
How do you come up with an example of objectionable behavior without offending somebody? (Which is why, of course, they should not have used two real religions.)
The reaction to this is yet another example of Christians claiming to be a persecuted, embattled minority in a hostile country filled with “Christophobes.”
I think it all began around 1970 when the National Mexican-American Anti-Defamation Committee objected to the Frito Bandito. Since then, the reaction to the depiction of any minority individual in any but the most positive light has been increasingly taken as an offense to the entire minority group. There are, of course, cases where depictions can be offensive, but it seems difficult to me to argue that the depiction of “Janice” is anything but a depiction of a nutty person who happens to be Catholic, not a depiction that implies Catholics as a group are nutty.
The last line of the story indicates that Khalilah thought that Janice was a typical Catholic — otherwise Khalilah would not have hesitated to report her to their Catholic boss. So, I’m with Shelley — Janice is intended as a typical Catholic, and her depiction as such is offense.
“The reaction to this is yet another example of Christians claiming to be a persecuted, embattled minority in a hostile country filled with “Christophobes.”
Right… I mean the forced closing of Catholic adoption agencies in Illinois and Massachusetts; the de-funding of Catholic Charities in DC; attempts in Connecticut to fine the Catholic Church as a “lobby” for protesting against anti-Catholic legislation…and, the grand-daddy of them all, the new health care law forcing all Catholic institutions – hospital and universities – to act against their religious conscious on contraception and sterilization.
These things are not attacks by the secular, politically-correct state enforcing its own brand of morality on the population…these events must have simply occurred in my head…
That’s bad. But I think I’d be much more offended if it hit closer to home. I’m actually rather amused by the idea that praying to St. Anthony to recover lost objects is a central tenet of the Catholic faith, to be forced on the willing and unwilling alike, to the greater glory of God. “Say the rhyme, you infidel!”
RE: “the forced closing of Catholic adoption agencies in Illinois and Massachusetts” I don’t know about Illinois, but in Massachusetts it was, as best I could tell, largely the Church’s decision, not the state’s, to get Catholic Charities out of the adoption business.
EEO? Was this produced by a government agency?
Otherwise, I would think it was just ridiculous http://youtu.be/j1XIfUy9bdY
It was a forced decision because of state mandates — a new “tolerance” that has lead to religious charities being driven from the public square despite the fact there were dozens of agencies that gay couples could have used beyond Catholic services.
Also, the Obama administration is currently trying to gut the “ministerial exception” in the current case at the Supreme Court:
“After Kruger (Obama admin lawyer) dodged a pointed question by Chief Justice John Roberts on the specific religious nature of the case—all she would allow was that associational rights were involved—Justice Antonin Scalia pressed her even further: “That’s extraordinary. That’s extraordinary. We are talking here about the Free Exercise Clause and about the Establishment Clause, and you say they have no special application?”
Later, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan asked Kruger about this same issue. When Kruger indicated that the “ministerial exception” was not grounded in the First Amendment, Kagan, citing Scalia’s concern, said “I too find that amazing, that you think that the Free—neither the Free Exercise Clause nor the Establishment Clause has anything to say about a church’s relationship with its own employees.”
My last post was to Luke on the Boston issue.
The last line of the story indicates that Khalilah thought that Janice was a typical Catholic — otherwise Khalilah would not have hesitated to report her to their Catholic boss. So, I’m with Shelley — Janice is intended as a typical Catholic, and her depiction as such is offense.
Ann,
It is a hypothetical case, and you can’t speculate on what Khalilah thought or didn’t think. There is nothing in the text that says Khaliah thought Janice was a typical Catholic. You can’t make up your own details.
These things are not attacks by the secular, politically-correct state enforcing its own brand of morality on the population…these events must have simply occurred in my head…
Brett,
All the things you mentioned are real, but there are two sides to every one of them. And even assuming the side you would argue is correct, they don’t add up to Christians being “a persecuted, embattled minority in a hostile country filled with ‘Christophobes.’”
David Nickol,
Stop defending the indefensible. The video is offensive and bigoted whether it’s intended to be or not. It offends me. I would file a complaint if this happened in my corporation and I would be successful in removing the offensive material. Leave your politics at the door.
Blogger Shelley writes:
I didn’t know what to think. First of all, I’ve never met anyone . . . . What this person is described doing would be considered against the very tenets of the Catholic Faith. It’s completely implausible!
Just because it’s outside of her experience doesn’t mean that these things don’t happen. In the last cycle of non-discrimination training I went through, every “hypothetical” scenario given was the actual facts from an actual case (with citations given).
David N,-
No, you certainly can’t make up your own details. But you can certainly ask: what were the assumptions of the person who made up the story? The fact that the story stops dead with the Muslim being afraid of the other Catholic in the office. Why? Obviously because the story-teller thinks this would be an understandable way for the Muslim to act under the apparent circumstances. There would be no point to the story if the story=teller’s assumption was that the Catholic boss would be fair.
Bob N. -
P. S. I come from an area founded by Catholics where it was the Protestants who had to eventually be accepted by the Catholics, not vice versa. So we don’t have the same sort of deep anti-Catholicism here you find in other places, though, of course, there is some. Consequently, I’m not a super-sensitive Catholic exaggerating religious slights. And as I see that story it is offensive.
There would be no point to the story if the story-teller’s assumption was that the Catholic boss would be fair.
Ann,
No, not at all. It is not important that we know what the story-teller thinks the Catholic supervisor’s reaction will be. We have no way of knowing that she even took the scenario that far in her mind, let alone what happened. The only thing that is important is that we know that “Khalilah is scared to mention anything to her supervisor, because she knows her supervisor is also Catholic.” It doesn’t say Khalilah is understandably scared, or she ought to be scared, or she has good reason to be scared. We don’t even know the exact point this scenario was constructed to make.
Stop defending the indefensible. . . Leave your politics at the door.
Frank Gibbons,
If people are offended, I have to take them at their word that they are offended. I personally see it as silly, but not offensive. After all, the point of the scenario is that Janice is doing something wrong, not that she is behaving like a typical Catholic.
It was unwise to use a Catholic and a Muslim in the scenario, and I grant that some Muslims would no doubt have taken offense if the roles were reversed. But in my opinion, those who see this as offensive to Catholics are being oversensitive.
David N.,
Are you saying that those Muslims who would have taken offense had the roles been reversed would be oversensitive?
Remember, folks, these are your tax dollars at work!
EEO? Was this produced by a government agency?
Kathy,
So far, it seems to have been developed by the HR department at a state university, but the person who wrote the original blog entry is trying to track down the ultimate source.
It will be amusing if it turns out to have been based on an actual case! It is not impossible for a Catholic to be nutty. I do think it is plausible that a Catholic invented the scenario and found it amusing rather than offensive. When you poke fun at your own, it doesn’t seem offensive to you. I remember a New Yorker cartoon in which there are two men (in a bar?), and one of them is looking very, very angry and saying, “It’s okay for me to make religious jokes, because I’m deeply religious!”
Are you saying that those Muslims who would have taken offense had the roles been reversed would be oversensitive?
Kathy,
I would call them oversensitive if there were six Muslims on the Supreme Court, a Muslim vice-president, a Muslim Speaker of the House, a Muslim House Minority Leader, etc., etc, . . . and they could build mosques in any location where Christian churches were welcome.
My Grandmother often prayed to St Anthony when something was lost (and she would escalate to St Jude if St Anthony wasn’t stepping up). I kind of think it worked.
Was the case study based on an incident that actually happened?
“It is not important that we know what the story-teller thinks the Catholic supervisor’s reaction will be. We have no way of knowing that she even took the scenario that far in her mind, let alone what happened.”
Bob N. –
Story-tellers *do* often reveal what they think in their stories even when they don’t say something explicitly. In fact, sometimes what is only implied makes a good story even better. And even the selection of certain details suggest strongly what happened in the background of the story.
First, what is the issue here? The issue is NOT what some fictional Muslim was thinking — the issue is what the story-teller who made up the story was thinking. It’s the story-teller who is in trouble, not some crazy fictional Catholic.
True, the story-teller did not take the story so far as to say that the boss was or wasn’t prejudiced, but that is part of my point. To make the story coherent (i.e., to make the inclusions of reference to the boss relevant in the first place), the story-teller should have given some (fictional) reason *why* that particular Muslim herself assumed that the boss was prejudiced. The story-teller doesn’t supply some actual, particular reason why the Muslim would say such a thing. So, by default, the story-teller has implied that the Muslim made a reasonable assumption about the boss, namely, that the Catholic boss was just prejudiced against Muslims. In other words, the only explanation for including the Catholic boss is that the story-teller was *also* assuming that assuming prejudice is others is also reasonable.
The story-teller doesn’t even see that an explanation of *that* purported prejudice needs to be explained. The story-teller simply assumes that the Muslim will make a reasonable assumption — that a Catholic boss will be unfair to a Muslim.
Put another ways: either the boss being Catholic is relevant to the story or not, and It is reasonable to assume that the story-teller thought it was relevant otherwise the Catholic boss wouldn’t be part of the story. But what would make the Catholic boss relevant? In the absence of any other explanation, the boss would be relevant only if the boss *were in fact assumed to be * prejudiced.
David N.,
I think it is quite plausible that an *ex*-Catholic wrote the story.
Would you think the Muslims were over-sensitive if they were forced to choose between their beliefs and doing charity work? http://www.pjstar.com/news/x2075437708/Catholic-Charities-of-Peoria-withdrawing-from-state-foster-care-contracts
A laundry list of all alleged Catholic grievances past and present is not going to prove anything about Khalilah and Janice, nor does a deep analysis of the story on Slide 24 of the presentation get us anywhere when we don’t know what is on Slide 25 or what the presenter said.
I don’t really know how relevant Catholic Charities of Peoria is to this thread, but it looks like they didn’t exactly lose, but gave up the fight. But even if they had lost the fight, it is not a matter of Catholics being persecuted or losing the privileged place they have in American society. Requiring all state-licensed adoption agencies to follow the same rules is not discrimination.
What would be the result if these training “experts” were to address intra-religious tensions, e.g., the conflict between Spirit of VII Catholics versus Letter of VII Catholics? Of course plenty of material for an almost endless series of such case studies is easily available on this website. The same could be done with the arguments of Reasserters vs Reappraisers among Episcopalians on other sites.
Quick, copyright all these heated exchanges! You thought they were to no good effect? In fact they form the basis for potentially priceless training material on rarefied offenses and the taking of offenses. If the diversity gurus are effective in dampening inter-religious tensions just think what they could achieve when they bring intra-religious factions to the same table? Of course they would be wise to first consult the patron of hopeless causes, St. Jude, lest their reputations forever be destroyed.
Lots of talk about something that, as Frank says (10/06/2011 – 5:27 pm), is clearly offensive. It seems people are more offended by the conservative Catholics’ taking offense than by the presentation itself. Knee jerk.
Lots of talk about something that, as Frank says (10/06/2011 – 5:27 pm), is clearly offensive.
David Smith,
Those who feel offended obviously feel something authentic, but I don’t think asserting something “is clearly offensive” makes it objectively offensive. People feel what they feel, and if they feel offended, they feel offended. But that doesn’t mean people who don’t feel offended are wrong.
Also, conceding for the sake of argument that the story is offensive, how important is it? Some are jumping to the conclusion that it came from the EEOC. However, it appears so far that it came from the HR department of an unnamed state university.
What I find amusing is that some of the people objecting to it on other sites (it is all over the place in the Catholic blogosphere) are saying it’s offensive because Catholics don’t act like that. Protestants act like that.
David Nickol, you certainly are the pot-stirrer when your ox isn’t being gored.
“People feel what they feel, and if they feel offended, they feel offended. But that doesn’t mean people who don’t feel offended are wrong.”
Indeed.
David Nickol, you certainly are the pot-stirrer when your ox isn’t being gored.
David Gibson,
You are mistaken if you believe I am indifferent to Catholics being insulted or belittled or falsely portrayed. I had to tightly control my temper when someone recently told me he wouldn’t vote for a Catholic. I have more than one ox.
This is a tempest in a teapot, and also as the story gets passed around, the facts are getting distorted.
And besides, I am not a pot-stirrer. I’m a “paid hack” and a “gadfly.” Ask the folks over at First Things.
David N, can one be a “paid gadfly”? That has always struck me as the best of all possible worlds, but I have yet to determine how to finagle it. :-)
I agree that it is possible to overstate the importance of this. I have relatively low expectations for corporate behavior-in-the-workplace training programs; a number of the videos I have seen that attempt to create “realistic” workplace scenarios bring home the lesson that even bad actors, bad directors and really, really bad writers are entitled to gainful employment.
Be that as it may, I also think that Catholics and Christian in general, while very, very far from being an ‘embattled, persecuted minority’, do not have precisely the same status, legally and socially, they had a generation or two ago, and I don’t think it’s wrong to monitor trends and feel at least a tug of anxiety. Conscience protections for Catholic healthcare workers and institutions are a genuine concern; so is legislation that would remove legal protections for what is said in the sanctity of the confessional. The notion that a priest or a Christian of any stripe could be jailed or otherwise punished for doing what a priest of a Christian is supposed to do has moved along the spectrum from “absurd fantasy” to “pretty unlikely”. I wouldn’t want it to move any farther than that.
“Say the rhyme, you infidel!”
Raber says, “Tony, Tony, look around, sump’ns lost and can’t be found” all the time. One time I told him that he was suppose to turn around in a circle three times for this to be effective. He ALMOST did it but knows my sense of humor too well.
Everybody knows its the evangelicals who pester other people with unwanted prayers (several of my students who invite me ceaselessly to their churches have “shared” that they got fired for trying to pray with co-workers on company time).
If you’re going to write a scenario about Catholics, they’d either be apathetic or too busy telling each other they’re not fit to receive Communion to bother with the souls of non-Catholics, much less their lost jewelry.
Jean writes: “If you’re going to write a scenario about Catholics, they’d either be apathetic or too busy telling each other they’re not fit to receive Communion to bother with the souls of non-Catholics, much less their lost jewelry.”
David says: “Bingo!”
It’s a strange time. I feel like the opposite of that famous poem is going on, “Then they came for me — and by that time no one was left to speak up.” They’re coming for us first–and then we can’t speak up. Isn’t that what’s happening? Isn’t that what’s been going on for the last decade?
“It’s a strange time. I feel like the opposite of that famous poem is going on, ‘Then they came for me — and by that time no one was left to speak up.’ They’re coming for us first–and then we can’t speak up. Isn’t that what’s happening? Isn’t that what’s been going on for the last decade?”
I think the statement–it’s not a poem–this comment alludes to is a statement of regret by a German who failed to speak out against fascism:
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak out for me.
I do not really understand the point of the comment, except that it seems to convey a vague sense of dread and paranoia that the unbelievers are “coming to get us” and soon we will be obliterated and no one will be left.
Doesn’t that run counter to Church teaching that the Church cannot fail?
If I’m missing the point, perhaps the writer could make it in a less cryptic fashion.
The sense of persecution is I think becoming a defining characteristic for many Christians in the U.S., though I don’t think it bears any semblance to reality, and it’s especially out of proportion given the actual persecution that Christians face in other countries.
Jean,
Perhaps the writer made her point clearly enough, since both you and David got the gist of it.
David,
I don’t think we’re being persecuted in the sense of martyrdom. I think we’re being silenced and marginalized. Even our charities have to give up, or give in. I also think that the left-wing Catholic press has not done a very good job of investigating why sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy has been reported disproportionally in the secular (and left- and right-wing Catholic) press, compared to sexual abuse by other demographic groups, including teachers, parents, and religious leaders across the board.
From David G’s original post: “I suspect ignorance is the operative dynamic — and that’s not exactly reassuring.”
I think that’s right; Catholics do a bad enough job with faith formation of their own. So when Bill Donohue shows up on TV crying discrimination when the Empire State Building declines to honor Mother Teresa with special lighting, how can we expect those outside the Church not to come up with Khalila and the Nutty Catholic scenario?
I don’t see others trying marginalize and silence Catholics; I see Catholics failing to help others, including other Catholics, “feel the love.”
jean –
That statement is from Pastor Dietrich Niemoller who spent 8 years in concentration camps, including Dachau, and barely avoided being executed.
Yes, this is the “strange time” I mean.
-I understand why young people used to say “don’t trust anyone over 30.”
-I understand when homosexual persons lobby for gay rights.
-I understand when Muslims are offended when they can’t build a mosque wherever they want.
Which is why
-I don’t understand why Catholics engage in public self-flagellation, and/or rush to the aid of anyone who wants to (what is the verb?) flagellate them.
-I don’t understand why Catholics alone aren’t allowed to take offense at obvious offenses.
Oops — that should have been Martin Niemoller.
I was thinking of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the more famous German minister who at first was not very anti-Nazi, but who eventually spoke out and was hanged in a concentration camp just before the end of the war.
What I mean to say is, thanks, David, for your post. It’s right on.
As I understand it, the saying alluded to above is attributed to Niemoller, but it’s unclear whether he actually wrote/said exactly that (and it was in German besides). Not quite as poetic as “No man is an island,” but the idea is similar.
Certainly it’s fair for Catholics to feel offended at the scenario in the harassment program David G. offers. If this showed up in my workplace, I would object to it. And I’m not even a Good Catholic.
To opine that this is somehow just another example of how “Catholics alone are not allowed to be offended” or of some sort of self-flagellation we all engage in strikes me as a bit of an overstatement.
That’s true. But in this case, as I understand it, an official presentation was written to present a Catholic as a bigot. How can that not be offensive? Personally, I’d have been offended if the bigot was portrayed as a Muslim or a Baptist or an Orthodox Jew.
Wherever it comes from, it needs to be called out, not because it’s aggressively anti-Catholic but because it’s the kind of thing that, cumulatively, builds up to a general tolerance for anti-Catholicism.
I have little tolerance for political correctness, but that’s not what’s happening here.
It’s an unaccustomed situation in which to find oneself, David. Only a generation or two ago, as someone wrote above, there was no official or semi-official hostility at all toward Christianity. Now, it seems just to be building.
Pain and discomfort are pain and discomfort – no matter that someone else has it worse. Especially when you’re in the process of suffering. The next time you come across someone with a punctured lung, I’d advise against explaining to her that it’s no big deal – that many people have things much worse.
Jean, we live in an era of media realities – if it’s on the screen, it must be true. No amount of individuals behaving charitably can counter an official media presentation declaring that they’re uncharitable.
“But in this case, as I understand it, an official presentation was written to present a Catholic as a bigot. How can that not be offensive? Personally, I’d have been offended if the bigot was portrayed as a Muslim or a Baptist or an Orthodox Jew.”
It was written to illustrate religious harassment in the workplace, and, in the course of doing so, used an example of a fictitious Catholic to play the wrong-doer.
Having written these types of scenarios for an employer who provided training programs for front-of-house employees in the hospitality industry, I will say that there are ways to do this without demonizing people or denominations.
Usually, we went to a diverse group of managers who brought in incidents that had really occurred, and then we “neutralized” some of the details so that the emphasis is on the unwarranted behavior, not on doctrinal issues. For example:
Tony is a front desk clerk in the Apex Hotel. Most of his co-workers happen to go to the same place of worship. Two employees corner Tony in the lunchroom and invite him to worship with them over the weekend. Tony declines. The employees press him about why he won’t attend services with them. “Afraid you’ll find your faith?” one jokes. Tony politely says he appreciates their concern, but is not interested.
In the course of the next two weeks, the two employees tell Tony they are fearful for the state of his soul. When Tony is upset about misplacing his watch, an expensive gift from his wife, his co-workers they tell him, “Maybe God is trying to tell you something.”
Tony begins to find notes in his locker with unkind messages about what happens to “unbelievers.” When Tony tells a third co-worker that he feels uncomfortable with this treatment, his co-worker responds, “The truth hurts, doesn’t it?”
I have little tolerance for political correctness, but that’s not what’s happening here.
David Smith,
Of course it’s political correctness, of a sort. A hypothetical story of a person behaving badly is presented. There is no implication whatsoever that all Catholics go around grabbing Muslims and harassing them to pray to St. Anthony, but the story is taken to reflect badly on all Catholics. One of the essentials of political correctness is that you must never portray anyone from any identifiable group acting badly, because it will be (unreasonably) taken to be a slander against the whole group. There is a legitimate complaint when the depiction of an individual reinforces a negative stereotype, such as a miserly Jew or a dumb blonde. But there is simply no reason to assume that Catholic in the example we are talking about was somehow supposed to represent all Catholics.
Jean, I think you and your team wrote something that is really useful. “Neutralizing” the scenario to “place of worship” is exactly what should be done in thsoe exercises.
“Neutralizing” is exactly what is not happening to Catholicism in public. There is an impression being made: the Catholic Church is a uniquely unsafe place for children (not at all true), the Catholic Church hates homosexual persons and women (not at all true). And here, the Catholic Church force-converts Muslims in the workplace.
The problem is that when such an impression is made about a group, the group loses credibility. It loses its moral voice, and the Church’s moral voice is worth being heard. That has always been true. In this country it’s been true about miscegenation, labor–all sorts of things. The group also tends to lose rights. This is already happening.
“There is no implication whatsoever that all Catholics go around grabbing Muslims and harassing them to pray to St. Anthony, but the story is taken to reflect badly on all Catholics”
Bob N. –
There isn’t just one Catholic in the story — there are two. The Muslim assumes that BECAUSE the boss is a Catholic the boss will not be fair, and nothing is said to the contrary. That is the implication that counts. Subtle? Rather. But it is offensive nevertheless.
I almost forgot, the Catholic Church is against scientific progress too, right? Isn’t that the line?
Subtle? Rather.
Ann,
If you insist on interpreting the scenario that way, it looks like there’s no way to convince you otherwise. But I would point out that the detail of the Catholic supervisor is so subtle that no one else has noticed it, or at least made an issue of it. I think I have read most of what’s out there when it comes to people outraged over Slide 24 of a presentation at an EEO training session in an unnamed state university, and you are the only one who has commented on the Catholic supervisor.
Kathy,
Suppose there is a Catholic applying for a job, dealing with the non-Catholic family of his or her potential future spouse, or running for elective office. Would you say this is the worst time in American history to be a Catholic in each of these situations? Surveying the history of anti-Catholicism in the United States, would you say the present is one of the low points for Catholics?
My first college roommate (middle 1960s) told me that when he left for school, his mother said, “There is one thing I want you to promise me—never date a Catholic girl.” Do you suppose that is more common today, about the same, or less common?
One of my Jewish roommates told me his father told him, “If you’re going to mess around with girls, do it with gentile girls. Jewish girls are for marrying.” How that is relevant here I am not sure, but I always have found it interesting and never found a way to use it before!
David N. –
Perhaps no one has analyzed out a reason why this story shows prejudice, but note that any number of people on this blog have asserted that it does. There must be a reason why they do. I say it’s the image of the boss and lack of criticism of her in the story.
Ann,
Every objection to the scenario I have read is basically a variation on, “Catholics don’t act like that—it’s unrealistic!”
The original post by “Shelley” says
If the reason the scenario is offensive depends on the implication (which I don’t see in the text) that the Catholic supervisor will side with the Catholic employee and not the Muslim, you seem to be the only one who has detected the real reason why the story strikes Catholics (and other Christians) as offensive, whereas the person who actually went through the training session and wrote the blog post about it doesn’t even comment on the detail of the Catholic supervisor.
As I have said several times, I believe it was a mistake to name actual religions in a hypothetical scenario. However, I am sure if the person who created the presentation had writing an extremely plausible scenario, or simply taken a real case in which a Catholic had engaged in religious harassment, everyone would be just as angry. “Why single out a Catholic to use as a bad example?” I think a lot of what is criticized as “political correctness” is actually positive, but as I have argued previously, I think the criticism of this particular slide and scenario from the presentation under discussion assumes, in a “politically correct” way, that any negative depiction of a member of an identifiable group is an attack on the whole group.
“I think a lot of what is criticized as “political correctness” is actually positive,. . .”
Well, we agree on that. Some criticisms that should be made aren’t, and that’s because people fear being called prejudiced. There are *positive* stereotypes too, and they can do harm or just cause misunderstanding.
David,
One reason non-Catholics were taught not to date Catholic girls was because they were considered “fast”–so I’ve been told.
Your question is specious, I think. What does history have to do with this? Catholics shouldn’t just be treated better than they were in 1900. They should be treated as other groups are treated.
Your question is specious, I think. What does history have to do with this? Catholics shouldn’t just be treated better than they were in 1900. They should be treated as other groups are treated.
Kathy,
The impression I get from many Catholics (and Evangelicals) is that they sincerely believe we are heading very quickly to a time when they will be arrested for teaching their beliefs and put in reeducation camps.
They should be treated as other groups are treated.
But that is exactly what Catholics object to! Almost all of the current conflict between Catholics and government is because Catholic institutions want to be exempted from being treated like everyone else. It’s all about the Catholic view of sexuality and reproduction. Rightly or wrongly, the world (including many if not most Catholics) have gone in a direction different from the official teaching of the Church. A small number of Catholics are fighting tooth and nail to keep insurance from being required to cover contraception, while perhaps 5% of Catholics who are sexually active and of childbearing age don’t use contraceptives. Birth control is so widely accepted and used by Catholics and others that it seems quixotic to be putting up such a fuss.
One reason non-Catholics were taught not to date Catholic girls was because they were considered “fast”–so I’ve been told.
Kathy,
This does not explain why the roommate whose mother urged him never to date Catholic girls, when he saw me reading a copy of America Magazine, told me that the Jesuits worshipped fire.
I don’t know if I have mentioned here that I fairly recently found out that my father’s side of the family was appalled that he married a Catholic. Of course, that was in the early 1940s. But in the 1960s, a cousin on my father’s side of the family stayed with our family for a couple of weeks (I was away at college). My brother was an altar boy, and my cousin got up early (I believe they were 6:00 o’clock masses) and accompanied my brother. They were both in high school at the time. My mother called me and told me that when my cousin got home, he told his parents he wanted to be a Catholic. I said, “Oh, that’s nice,” and my mother said, “No it’s not!” The Nickols of Pennsylvania where not about to let one of their children be converted by the Nickols of Ohio.
David N.,
What do you think of this?
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-07/bmj-cot071811.php
Back in your cousin’s day, they had to have 6 am Masses, because nobody could have breakfast beforehand.
Kathy,
I hope none of those doctors who had objections to treating various kinds of patients ever sign up to work in the emergency room.
David,
Notice that the largest group of objectors was Muslim.
In any case, I don’t think it’s paranoid to suspect that there are large-scale propaganda campaigns going on in a struggle described by the HHS Secretary as a “war.”