http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002&pid=5043301

just keep it hidden better.

"No comment" does not necessarily mean approval.

If upper management (the owner) is in a fact gathering phase, then it would be inappropriate for him to comment. In fact, the owner would probably do best not to comment until he makes a decision and takes action. In that case, assuming these allegations are true, his first and last comment would be something like "that supervisor no longer works here."

If he outsources management, then he could be in discussions with the agency that actually employs the supervisor about the situation.

These are very serious charges and they should be given the attention of the owner, who should not make a snap judgment until he has spoken to witnesses and determined the facts.

If nothing happens, then we might ask why not.

However, if a newspaper called me and made these allegations and asked for comment, the comment would be "Bring this evidence to me to look at. If what you say is true, then all parties involved are fired. I will NOT tolerate ANY racists behavior in my employees or contractors for ANY reason."

However, newspapers don't like to give away their sources. Doing so tends to get reporters fewer good sources. How did the reporter know this guy isn't just as much a racist as the supervisor seems to be? That could have resulted in the employees who came forward being fired.

Yes, he could have responded to the reporter as you suggest, but if he were already looking into the problem, then he would have been less likely to do so.

I believe I read in the other thread on this story that the supervisor at the center of this matter is presently on vacation. The owner should probably ask him some questions after he gets back.

I'm not a lawyer, but I expound the legalistic point of view for two reasons. The one that I consider less important is that the owner wants to avoid a wrongful termination suit. The more important one is that, even if the supervisor is the local Grand Dragon, he deserves to be treated fairly. The more important one less legalistic than it is ethical. Serious accusations like this should not be treated as though they're being taken at face value any more than they should be simply dismissed out of hand. It is the owner's responsibility to all involved to gather the facts and sort them out before doing anything.

which they are doing anyway. Who was the source of the video is irrelevant. If someone shows me a video of a manager hired at my behest saying that, I don't care if the source of the video was the Illuminati or Underpants Gnomes, someone is getting fired.

I cannot think of any context where this sort of comment would be ethically or legally defensible.

Absolutely true, in which case your response is: "I am not aware of this incident, however, I take the accusation as gravely serious and will investigate immediately. Should I discover evidence of racism, then action will be swift."

Instead, we get "No comment".

Sorry, but if you operate in the public arena "No comment" is tacit admission of the incident while you try to figure out how to spin it.

To me, "no comment" is what is said when to say any more than that is to say too much. The owner could have been in that spot.

But SCOTUS recently ruled that there is no more racism in the United States.

for the headline writer to remove the quotes around "racist"

This has always been America. The only "new" thing here are the smartphones and online media sources that make it more visible.

of people in fear of losing their status as defacto masters of the universe and every nonwhite in it. Truly the state of amerikkka today. Sounds like some shit I had to endure in the 50's and 60's. geez

This incident is a painful reminder that racism is far from dead in this country. If anything, racist sentiments seem to be on the rise in recent years. So much for living in the 21st century.