[rayiner]

> The heart of the A.C.L.U.’s defense — arguing for an expansive definition of what constitutes racist or racially coded speech — has struck some labor and free-speech lawyers as peculiar, since the organization has traditionally protected the right to free expression, operating on the principle that it may not like what someone says, but will fight for the right to say it.

The ACLU's position in this case is based not only on an "expansive definition" of "racist or racially coded speech," but also on a racial hierarchy. The ACLU's emails make clear that the employee's statements were deemed racist because the employee is asian and was talking about her black supervisors. The ACLU does not seriously argue it would have deemed the same statements racist if the races were reversed.

It's not just the ACLU. Many organizations and corporations seem to have assumed that certain progressive ideas about racism are actually reflected in the law. That is not the case, and many organizations have left themselves open to civil rights suits based on these misconceptions.