Strands #262 “For Our Furry...
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Is the race card being used once again?
16 Answers
http://www.dailymail....l-discrimination.html
One will soon have to consult every publication in the British Library to verify that what one has said does not hold any racist connotations.
One will soon have to consult every publication in the British Library to verify that what one has said does not hold any racist connotations.
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
in this instance, based on what this article says (and you know I'm not assuming it to be the whole truth and nothing but the truth) I'd agree that this appears to be someone searching for racist connotations in a statement where there was never necessarily anything meant. You could read into this statement, as with many, a hundred ways and one could be racist, that's not to say it was made with any consideration of race.
I'd agree with paul on this - the gentleman has only brought his claim after two years of working for the college, and then being dismissed - whereupon he has elected to decide that he was actually offended by a comment in his previous interview, despite not raising the issue at the time.
Possibly the literary allusion was ill-judged, but that does not infer that mailce, or indeed a racial slur was intended.
Since the dismissal of the chef is highly unlikely to be have been as a result of anything the two-year-previously interview panel have said, we can reasonable assume that he was dismissed for other issues not referred to in the Mail's report, which are unlikely to have a racial context, because if they were, the Mail would have established that fact, which would give additional weight to its story.
Possibly the literary allusion was ill-judged, but that does not infer that mailce, or indeed a racial slur was intended.
Since the dismissal of the chef is highly unlikely to be have been as a result of anything the two-year-previously interview panel have said, we can reasonable assume that he was dismissed for other issues not referred to in the Mail's report, which are unlikely to have a racial context, because if they were, the Mail would have established that fact, which would give additional weight to its story.
pa____ul / andy-hughes
Something smells in the way the Mail has reported this story...and here's where the odour comes from...it would appear, reading the whole piece. That the Mail has focused on one incident in the unfair dismissal claim, and is presenting it as the main reason behind the claim.
Further down the story, it's stated that this was one event and that there were others.
For some reason (and I would hazard a guess that it would dilute the thrust of the biased report) the other incidents aren't given credence.
Something smells in the way the Mail has reported this story...and here's where the odour comes from...it would appear, reading the whole piece. That the Mail has focused on one incident in the unfair dismissal claim, and is presenting it as the main reason behind the claim.
Further down the story, it's stated that this was one event and that there were others.
For some reason (and I would hazard a guess that it would dilute the thrust of the biased report) the other incidents aren't given credence.
Some people inadvertently reveal their own subconscious prejudice.
They subconsciously need racism to exist, and so they will "find" it, even where it doesn't exist.
Where there is no racism ... they will create it.
At the same time, they will convince themselves that they are actually fighting against prejudice.
They subconsciously need racism to exist, and so they will "find" it, even where it doesn't exist.
Where there is no racism ... they will create it.
At the same time, they will convince themselves that they are actually fighting against prejudice.
The case of a chef who accused New College of unfair dismissal with discrimination has been reopened, after the decision of an original employment tribunal was overruled earlier this term.
Gregory Lewis’ case will now be remitted to a freshly constituted panel at the Employment Tribunal.
The appeal tribunal found that the original judge had “at least given the appearance of holding a stereotypical view” of black Caribbean males that they felt was “inappropriate”.
The original judge had said that he did “not believe that there is a stereotypical view of Black Caribbean males being “lazy and stupid”. They may have a more “relaxed” approach to life than other ethnic groups but that is not in any way a derogatory assessment”.
Lewis was dismissed in 2009 on the grounds of medical capability. In 2007 he had been interviewed for the role of head chef after working as a deputy head chef for eight years at New College. The Campaign for Racial Equality at Oxford University claim that, at the time, there had never been a black head chef at an Oxford University college. His application was unsuccessful.
The judge’s argument referred to comments made by Dr Parrott, a history don who formed part of the interview panel in 2007. Parrott described Lewis in his notes as “Dr Pangloss himself”, a reference to Voltaire’s Candide.
Lewis had later noted in his witness statement that “there was no need to refer to me as any character from any era, much less an idiotic one from a racist era.”
However, while the appeal tribunal described Parrott’s comments as “elliptical”, they concluded that the “gist” of the term was “he appeared to accept matters as they are, rather than striving for change, viewing life as all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds”.
Caroline Thomas, New’s Home Bursar, said: “Despite the omissions in the written judgement of the ET Judge, it was absolutely clear to all three members of the ET panel that there was no evidence of any racism at New College in relation to Mr Lewis.”
She emphasized: “Clearly it isn’t a judgment against the College. The Judge at the original tribunal used his own paraphrase of the claimant’s representative’s description of a particular stereotype – the words the Judge used were had not been used by any member of the College at any time – they were his own and came out of the blue.”
However, Lee Jasper disputed this: “This is a disgraceful case of elite academic racism, New College sought to belittle and humiliate a proud black man doing his job.” He continued: “What is clear is that Gregory having suffered racism at the hands of New College became doubly victimised by employment tribunal process.”
The appeal tribunal concluded: “It is extraordinary in this case what a large role this epigrammatic comment by an interviewer has had. It has been an interesting excursion and it does invoke some straining of a connection between an Age of Enlightenment, pre-revolutionary philosopher, fictionalised by a satirist in 1759, and a Black Afro-Caribbean chef in 2007 Oxford.”
Gregory Lewis’ case will now be remitted to a freshly constituted panel at the Employment Tribunal.
The appeal tribunal found that the original judge had “at least given the appearance of holding a stereotypical view” of black Caribbean males that they felt was “inappropriate”.
The original judge had said that he did “not believe that there is a stereotypical view of Black Caribbean males being “lazy and stupid”. They may have a more “relaxed” approach to life than other ethnic groups but that is not in any way a derogatory assessment”.
Lewis was dismissed in 2009 on the grounds of medical capability. In 2007 he had been interviewed for the role of head chef after working as a deputy head chef for eight years at New College. The Campaign for Racial Equality at Oxford University claim that, at the time, there had never been a black head chef at an Oxford University college. His application was unsuccessful.
The judge’s argument referred to comments made by Dr Parrott, a history don who formed part of the interview panel in 2007. Parrott described Lewis in his notes as “Dr Pangloss himself”, a reference to Voltaire’s Candide.
Lewis had later noted in his witness statement that “there was no need to refer to me as any character from any era, much less an idiotic one from a racist era.”
However, while the appeal tribunal described Parrott’s comments as “elliptical”, they concluded that the “gist” of the term was “he appeared to accept matters as they are, rather than striving for change, viewing life as all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds”.
Caroline Thomas, New’s Home Bursar, said: “Despite the omissions in the written judgement of the ET Judge, it was absolutely clear to all three members of the ET panel that there was no evidence of any racism at New College in relation to Mr Lewis.”
She emphasized: “Clearly it isn’t a judgment against the College. The Judge at the original tribunal used his own paraphrase of the claimant’s representative’s description of a particular stereotype – the words the Judge used were had not been used by any member of the College at any time – they were his own and came out of the blue.”
However, Lee Jasper disputed this: “This is a disgraceful case of elite academic racism, New College sought to belittle and humiliate a proud black man doing his job.” He continued: “What is clear is that Gregory having suffered racism at the hands of New College became doubly victimised by employment tribunal process.”
The appeal tribunal concluded: “It is extraordinary in this case what a large role this epigrammatic comment by an interviewer has had. It has been an interesting excursion and it does invoke some straining of a connection between an Age of Enlightenment, pre-revolutionary philosopher, fictionalised by a satirist in 1759, and a Black Afro-Caribbean chef in 2007 Oxford.”
joggerjayne
True - and it's also true that others face and deal with racism. My guess is that there is FAR less overt racism in the UK compared of other European countries because people are so much more ready to shout out about it.
Of course, there will be some who will use it to their own advantage, just like there are a minority of women who will make false claims concerning sexism, and there are some elderly people who will claim they are unfairly treated because of their age - but it would be a surprise to learn that the MAJORITY of those claims were false...
True - and it's also true that others face and deal with racism. My guess is that there is FAR less overt racism in the UK compared of other European countries because people are so much more ready to shout out about it.
Of course, there will be some who will use it to their own advantage, just like there are a minority of women who will make false claims concerning sexism, and there are some elderly people who will claim they are unfairly treated because of their age - but it would be a surprise to learn that the MAJORITY of those claims were false...
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
I see what you're saying SP hence my initial comment that I won't take this story as gospel, but that was my deduction from what I know. I can't see how anyone could use that as evidence of racial discrimination. He may well have been on the end of racist comments or treated differently because of this, at the same time, he may not have, we don't know and it's unfair to assume that just because somebody claims they are being treated differently for whatever reason that it is the case. As we've seen on London trams, paranoia is contageous!
1 to 16 of 16
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles23 mins ago
Is There An Option To Turn Of Reader
TV39 mins ago
ChatterBank48 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.