I came in expecting to GIF-response with a, "This is where I get off the train..." message. Lo and behold, I am again confronted by an illogical approach to combating racism that is more racist itself in nature. Key passage:
What is the crime here? Where is the evidence that he believes blacks are inferior? Am I also supposed to infer that he thinks it's appropriate for blacks to be dragged behind trucks until they die? Am I supposed to infer that this private conference call indicates that he believes the term should be acceptable in normal workplace environments instead of a privately discussed conference call by management where the very topic is how to handle racial sensitivity?
We have taken our eyes so far off the ball that we no longer remember what the purpose of this selective, voluntary censorship was intended to effect.
*Edit* Furthermore, since I anticipate the "it reflects poor judgment" defense, then I'd like to point out that poor judgment is intended to reflect the misapprehension of a deeper transgression. He is the one on the hot seat. What is his deeper transgression, then?
Furthermore, this conference call would have stayed private if it wasn't leaked to the press. Isn't the person with poor judgment the one who would leak it? The issue is public perception. He didn't air this out in public, so I don't see the flaw in judgment...unless one is to presume that he can't even trust a single conversation held on business time concerning the business to ever be kept confidential, or handled with discretion.
Even in private you must self-censor your speech, but only if you are white. That is the message I am gleaning.