Hey, there! Log in / Register

Male Boston cop who publicly disparaged the rapid advancement of a woman officer in a Worcester suburb wasn't being sexist, commissioner says

Police Commissioner Michael Cox has declined to issue the oral reprimand recommended by the Civilian Review Board for a disparaging comment one of his officers left on a Facebook post by the Grafton Police Department honoring one of its own officers during Women's History Month this past March.

Cox wrote the board that while the officer did, in fact, post the online equivalent of a snort, he was not demeaning the Grafton officer or her gender, but was making a comment about "the politics of the promotion."

As such, that's fine, Cox wrote, "proper, legal and reasonable," even.

The Grafton PD post congratulated the new officer, a former town 911 dispatcher, for "crushing" the department's field-training program and finishing it early in 2022, after which she picked up certifications in sexual-assault investigations and teaching women how to fight off rapists and became a co-founder of a new department "youth mentorship" program.

The Boston officer replied to the post: "Wow less than a year from graduating she did more than the rest of the Department Police Officers ... I'm sure everything is on the level."

The review board said the comment warranted an oral reprimand as sexist and derogatory, but Cox concluded that:

The comments do not refer to the officer in a sexist or derogatory manner. On the contrary, and as stated by [the officer], his comments appear to be more about the politics of the promotion.

The comments, and others in a similar vein, have since been deleted from the post.

AttachmentSize
PDF icon Cox's complete reply53.95 KB


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Glad to see that, after the residents of Boston will again be paying for an expensive, over-the-top contract to BPD, that Commissioner Cox feels fine continuing to ignore the Civilian Review Board on [checking notes]...pretty much everything they recommend.

up
Voting closed 0

If only there was some way around it!

up
Voting closed 0

Employers are allowed to limit speech.

up
Voting closed 0

It does apply to government employers.

up
Voting closed 0

Oh honey.

up
Voting closed 1

the board recommended an “oral reprimand”

IANAL and maybe that matters here, but i cannot fathom the degree to which an oral reprimand amounts to a limitation of free speech

up
Voting closed 0

The punishment is secondary here. The main issue is telling someone they violated a policy or procedure when that is not the case. By accepting an “oral reprimand” it means if the worker does it again they can be issued a written reprimand, then a suspension, then termination……

up
Voting closed 1

Hey, common sense gets a long overdue W!

up
Voting closed 1

we have this thing called freedom of speech.

up
Voting closed 0

We also have these things called employment contracts, even if you work for the government.

up
Voting closed 1

What’s the point of civilian review boards when the police can simply ignore them?

up
Voting closed 1

That was their problem in this case. Labor attorneys gave the BPD the answer to this one. Not really that hard either.

up
Voting closed 1

He had a perfect right to state his opinion. I would say the same thing if it was reversed.

up
Voting closed 0

And they still can't understand why no one likes, trusts, or respects them anymore.

up
Voting closed 0