Kate Merrill lawsuit: Microaggression vs. discrimination
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Advertisement
What if everyone involved had simply tried to talk to each other instead of marching to HR to lodge a complaint? Is there no middle ground where people of basic good will can meet, talk, and move on? Without it, this country is going to swing back and forth between the extremes of cancel culture, where every utterance can be taken as an expression of bias, and the anti-DEI fervor, led by President Trump, that is empowering a new class of aggrieved white people.
Are microaggressions teachable moments? Or is someone charged with launching them so beyond redemption that they are unworthy of employment? Addressing a School Committee chair and her assistant as 'ladies' cost Vito Perrone, a candidate for school superintendent in Easthampton, a job offer in 2023. Former state treasurer Shannon O'Brien was fired as chair of the Cannabis Control Commission in 2024 for alleged grievances that included suggesting to a Black commission member that she would know a lawmaker who was also Black.
Advertisement
In Merrill's lawsuit, the former anchor said she learned that Mikell, who is named as a defendant, had complained that she welcomed him to Boston by saying he would 'find his people.' She contends she only meant he would 'create a community of friends' but he interpreted it differently. Courtney Cole, another Black colleague who is named in the suit, was allegedly upset because Merrill said she should go to Nashville where she could become the main anchor, a statement that Cole interpreted as implying she would be a better racial fit in Nashville. Saying nothing was also a problem for Merrill. For example, Mikell also allegedly complained that Merrill did not ask him about his weekends. Other complaints involved allegations that Merrill rolled her eyes when talking to people of color and did not greet people of color when they entered a room.
In her lawsuit, Merrill also said that when Mikell was hired, he allegedly told her he had never been to Boston before, asked for help in getting acclimated, and specifically asked for help with pronouncing local town names. Since a television meteorologist is part of a news broadcast, proper pronunciation does matter.
'There's always been a certain charm about the peculiar spellings and unusual pronunciations of local city and town names, but on-air reporters' failing to say them correctly can undermine the reporter's credibility and authenticity for people who live here and call into question other aspects of the reporter's work,' Marjorie Arons-Barron, the longtime WCVB editorial director who is now a blogger, told me. 'Faith in our institutions, including media, is already low enough.'
Advertisement
Mispronouncing Concord, if that's what happened, isn't the end of journalism. But even in a weather report, it would be better to say it correctly.
There should be some way to tell someone that.
Joan Vennochi is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Washington state's radical new law turns priests into government informants
Washington state recently passed one of the most extreme anti-religious-liberty laws in America. If it is allowed to go into full effect, it could have a far-reaching impact on protections for clergy in states across the country. Senate Bill 5375 effectively requires clergy to serve as agents of Washington state, compelling them to report child abuse and mistreatment to government authorities. On the surface, that might sound like a good change. But in reality, it means priests, pastors, rabbis, and other religious leaders could soon be forced to report parents who refuse to affirm a child's chosen gender identity, oppose abortion, or hold traditional beliefs about sexuality. Even the confessional is not safe. Under this law, if a child admits during a sacred religious rite that their parents will not recognize their preferred gender or support an abortion, the priest hearing that confession could face criminal charges for failing to inform the state. New Rules for Clergy In May, Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson, a Democrat, signed SB 5375 into law. Prior to Ferguson's approval, the legislation had received overwhelming support from Democrats in the state's legislature. SB 5375, which went into effect on July 27, has been sold by its supporters as an important effort to protect children from abuse, especially sexual crimes. Under the legislation, clergy are now lumped in with teachers, nurses, social workers, psychologists, and a long list of others who must alert the authorities whenever they have "reasonable cause to believe" a child has been abused or neglected. Importantly, the law requires clergy to report potential abuse regardless of how it came to their attention. That means that clergy must report what they hear even when the source of the information is from a religious confession. Confession is a rite practiced by multiple theological traditions, including Roman Catholics and some Anglicans and Lutherans. In many churches that practice confession, clergy are required to keep much of what they learn confidential. It's an essential practice, because without confidentiality, many people would be unwilling to confess. Catholic clergy can even be removed from ministry if they violate their oath to keep confessions a secret. The legislation is a clear violation of religious liberty, as it requires clergy to violate their oaths. But supporters of the law say that protecting children from sexual and physical abuse is more important than religious rights. Following the passage of the law, three Catholic bishops sued the state, alleging that the legislation violates the First Amendment. In July, a U.S. District Court granted a temporary injunction that blocks Washington officials from requiring clergy to report what they hear during a confession. However, the injunction does not apply to situations in which clergy hear about potential abuse through other means. It's Worse than You Think Thus far, the media coverage of the law has focused on its demand for clergy to report physical and sexual abuse, as well as questions about First Amendment protections for clergy. But the legislation goes much further than forcing religious leaders to report physical and sexual abuse, a requirement that many in the public are sympathetic to. The law also includes vague mandates about reporting "maltreatment" and "negligent treatment," which includes anything negatively affecting a child's "welfare" and "health." These obscure requirements will almost certainly be used to force clergy to tell state officials when parents have conflicts about issues related to abortion, gender identity, and even sex, making this law's assault on religious freedom even more extensive than most have recognized. For illustration, under other existing Washington state regulations and laws, access to abortion is treated as a health care right for minors, regardless of what that child's parents believe. Further, the Washington Department of Children, Youth, and Families has issued guidance requiring foster parents and caregivers to affirm a child's sexual orientation and gender identity. As these examples show, in Washington state, denying a child's gender identity or trying to stop an abortion is considered to be bad for a kid's health and welfare. In practice, this could mean that under SB 5375, if parents seek pastoral counsel about trying to stop their teenage daughter from having an abortion, or if they discuss strategies for preventing a child from transitioning to a different gender, the pastor or priest listening could be compelled to report those parents to the state. It all depends on how Washington state officials and courts choose to interpret SB 5375's vague language about "maltreatment," "health," and "welfare." Supporters of SB 5375 insist this is all about protecting children from abuse, but for many progressive government officials, "abuse" includes countless commonly held religious views. If this law is allowed to stand, it won't stop with Washington. Other progressive states will adopt similar measures, using vague definitions of "maltreatment" and "welfare" to spy or even criminalize parents who hold traditional moral beliefs. Americans must decide now whether they will tolerate a government that spies on sacred rites and punishes families for living out their faith, or whether they will demand that their leaders defend freedom. If the courts fail to uphold the First Amendment, Congress must act, stripping federal funds from states that trample religious liberty. With another election just over a year away, the time to act is now.
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Trump slams 'anti-American' pushback after fresh delay to Arizona copper mine
U.S. President Donald Trump has slammed an appeals court decision to temporarily block a land transfer needed by mining giants Rio Tinto and BHP to develop what is slated to become one of the country's biggest copper mines. In a post on social media platform Truth Social on Tuesday, Trump said the latest setback to Arizona's Resolution Copper mine would impact thousands of jobs at a time when the world's largest economy "quite simply, needs Copper — AND NOW!" His comments came shortly after he met the chief executives of Rio Tinto and BHP at the White House, alongside Interior Secretary Doug Burgum. Two of the world's largest mining firms, Rio Tinto and BHP have been trying to develop the Arizona copper project together for roughly two decades, but the procedures have been beset by legal issues. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday issued a temporary restraining order to prevent a land transfer while the court considers challenges that have been brought by opponents including the San Carlos Apache Tribe, which is seeking to block the project over religious, cultural and environmental reasons. "It is so sad that Radical Left Activists can do this, and affect the lives of so many people. Those that fought it are Anti-American, and representing other Copper competitive Countries," Trump said in a Truth Social post. Resolution Copper described the Monday ruling as "merely a temporary pause," adding it was confident the court would ultimately affirm the necessary land transfer. "This proposed mine is a rip-off, will destroy a sacred area, decimates our environment, threatens our water rights, and is bad for America," Terry Rambler, chairman of the San Carlos Apache Tribe, said in a Facebook post. Addressing Trump's Truth Social post on the recent court ruling, Rambler said the U.S. president's comments "mirror misinformation that has been repeated by foreign mining interests that want to extract American copper." He added that he was willing to meet with the Trump administration to help "protect American interests." The Arizona copper project is a proposed underground mine roughly 60 miles east of Phoenix, close to the the town of Superior. The joint venture is 55% owned by Rio Tinto and 45% by BHP. Resolution Copper says the ore deposit represents "one of the most significant untapped copper deposits today" and estimates the potential for the project to add $1 billion a year to Arizona's economy. A highly conducive metal, copper is a critical component to virtually everything in the modern economy, from solar panels and wind turbines to defense applications and artificial intelligence infrastructure. Demand for copper is expected to skyrocket over the coming years, dramatically outstripping supply amid a transition to a low-carbon world. In a LinkedIn post, BHP CEO Mike Henry thanked Trump and Burgum for "for their strong leadership to reinvigorate mining and processing supply chains in and for America." Alongside Rio Tinto CEO Jakob Stausholm and the company's incoming CEO Simon Trott, BHP's Henry said they met with Trump and Burgum to underscore the firm's commitment to develop Resolution Copper.
an hour ago
Immigrants seeking lawful work and citizenship are now subject to 'anti-Americanism' screening
Immigrants seeking a legal pathway to live and work in the United States will now be subject to screening for 'anti-Americanism',' authorities said Tuesday, raising concerns among critics that it gives officers too much leeway in rejecting foreigners based on a subjective judgment. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said officers will now consider whether an applicant for benefits, such as a green card, 'endorsed, promoted, supported, or otherwise espoused" anti-American, terrorist or antisemitic views. 'America's benefits should not be given to those who despise the country and promote anti-American ideologies,' Matthew Tragesser, USCIS spokesman, said in a statement. 'Immigration benefits—including to live and work in the United States—remain a privilege, not a right.' It isn't specified what constitutes anti-Americanism and it isn't clear how and when the directive would be applied. 'The message is that the U.S. and immigration agencies are going to be less tolerant of anti-Americanism or antisemitism when making immigration decisions," Elizabeth Jacobs, director of regulatory affairs and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for immigration restrictions, said on Tuesday. Jacobs said the government is being more explicit in the kind of behaviors and practices officers should consider, but emphasized that discretion is still in place. "The agency cannot tell officers that they have to deny — just to consider it as a negative discretion,' she said. Critics worry the policy update will allow for more subjective views of what is considered anti-American and allow an officer's personal bias to cloud his or her judgment. 'For me, the really big story is they are opening the door for stereotypes and prejudice and implicit bias to take the wheel in these decisions. That's really worrisome," said Jane Lilly Lopez, associate professor of sociology at Brigham Young University. The policy changes follow others recently implemented since the start of the Trump administration including social media vetting and the most recent addition of assessing applicants seeking naturalization for 'good moral character'. That will not only consider 'not simply the absence of misconduct' but also factor the applicant's positive attributes and contributions. 'It means you are going to just do a whole lot more work to provide evidence that you meet our standards,' Lopez said. Experts disagree on the constitutionality of the policy involving people who are not U.S. citizens and their freedom of speech. Jacobs, of the Center for Immigration Studies, said First Amendment rights do not extend to people outside the U.S. or who are not U.S. citizens. Ruby Robinson, senior managing attorney with the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, believes the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution protects all people in the United States, regardless of their immigration status, against government encroachment. 'A lot of this administration's activities infringe on constitutional rights and do need to be resolved, ultimately, in courts,' Robinson added. Attorneys are advising clients to adjust their expectations. 'People need to understand that we have a different system today and a lot more things that apply to U.S. citizens are not going to apply to somebody who's trying to enter the United States," said Jaime Diez, an immigration attorney based in Brownsville, Texas. Jonathan Grode, managing partner of Green and Spiegel immigration law firm, said the policy update was not unexpected considering how the Trump administration approaches immigration. 'This is what was elected. They're allowed to interpret the rules the way they want,' Grode said. 'The policy always to them is to shrink the strike zone. The law is still the same.'
