In 2015 I had the opportunity to go through an interview process for a leadership position in a metropolitan city in the Pacific Northwest. It was quite an extensive experience with a meet and greet on one evening and then the following day, a series of meetings and conferences that lasted well over 13 hours. It was a long day, which is fine. What wasn’t fine was the obvious agenda of some of the activists who acted as “concerned citizens” in the community. They weren’t interested in finding out my qualifications for the position, but instead, they were actually interested in playing the “gotcha” game.

During the meetings and conferences, I was provided the opportunity to meet and dialogue with some activists who consider themselves liberals and progressives. And of course, people who are liberal and progressive claim to be tolerant — just ask them. In reality and in my experience, they are anything but. Unfortunately, they seem only to be “tolerant” with people who share their views. Disagree or simply have a different perspective, and the “tolerant” become the “intolerant.”

What I found was a group of individuals who seemed to be looking for something to be offended about. To them, terminology, phrases, most anything was a coded message that reflected bias. You couldn’t say a “mentally disabled person” as that was not correct. Instead, you must say a “person who is mentally disabled.” I was also told you couldn’t say “disabled person,” but rather, a “person who is disabled.” I was “educated” by the progressives participating in this process even though someone who was actually disabled said it the exact same way I did and the person correcting me actually criticized the disabled individual. I found that interesting. Maybe the person who was disabled misspoke.

During the interview process, it was also pointed out I had the audacity to criticize President Obama, Reverend Al Sharpton and other black leaders for seemingly taking advantage of the riots in Ferguson and Baltimore simply for political gain. The comments I made were part of a series of responses on some articles I had read. I mentioned how quick President Obama, Reverend Sharpton and other black leaders were to criticize the police and support the rioters and wondered why they didn’t call for calm. I also questioned as to why they only seemed to comment when the incident involved a police officer and the “victim” was black and yet they said little to nothing about the weekly carnage of the black children and teenagers in Chicago, perpetrated by other black teenagers. To me, it seemed a little hypocritical and bordered on political opportunism. But to the activists, I was demonstrating a built-in bias. I guess it’s being bias to point out the obvious.

What I found to be disheartening is these folks who claim to be the most progressive and tolerant of our society, failed to see the big picture. The discussion wasn’t about how to refer to a disabled person, but how to solve some of the problems they have to manage on a daily basis. The discussion wasn’t about how to refer to a mentally disabled person, but about how to focus government agencies to be better able to assist them in today’s society. But that discussion was lost on some who only wanted to point out how I was incorrect in my language choice. They completely missed the elephant in the room, or, chose not to see it.

And what I found to be the most troubling was how the most “tolerant” found bias in the comments regarding President Obama, Reverend Sharpton and other black leaders. Bias? How is it bias to point out how the black leaders in our country today have failed miserably to address the major issues facing black families in today’s society? The black leaders have failed to address the weekly carnage in our major metropolitan cities and work to develop workable solutions. If we can’t even discuss the elephant in the room for black families today, which is they are far more likely to become victims of crimes perpetrated by black suspects than they are by police officers in the US, then how can we solve the problems?

In 2015, the police in the U.S. shot and killed 948 people in the United States; 494 white people and 258 black people (Stats per the Denver Post). In Chicago, a single city and only in 2015, there were 468 homicides, of which 326 of the victims were black. And of the identified suspects, 71 percent of the murders were black. That’s 326 families who are now without a loved one. That’s 326 moms who are now without their kids to hold or to love. Yet, it’s biased to point out that our national black leaders fail to address this issue. Instead they supported the Black Lives Matter perspective, which is the police are biased and target blacks. The elephant in the room is creating a lot of sorrow for Chicago’s black families.

Political correctness keeps people from discussing the major problems in today’s country. Nobody likes to be accused of being bias, or worse. Few want to take the time to push back against those who claim to be offended by words, yet who don’t even whisper as hundreds of black kids are victimized by other black kids across the metropolitan cites in the US today. Words can be hurtful and even wrong, but they don’t cause funerals.

The “tolerant” search for ways to be offended, instead of working to actually solve problems. The “tolerant” seek redress for words and phrases that on face value, are not bias, but “offend” those who seek to be offended. Wouldn’t it be nice to have an open, direct conversation about those sensitive issues, without worrying more about offending the “tolerant” in our country? The “tolerant’ are anything but.

I have spent close to 30 years as a law enforcement officer. Not once did I stop somebody because of their race. Not once did I target someone because of their gender or sexual preference. Not once was there an allegation that I did anything wrong based on race, gender or sexual preference. Yet, during this interview process, I was accused of being insensitive to minority groups. Absurd to say the least. Even when I expressed that I have no history of any biased actions or beliefs, I was told that I did have an “unconscious bias” because I wasn’t part of a minority group. So in other words, even though I have no history of any bias in almost three decades of public service, I must have, as I have an “unconscious bias.” How do you defend yourself against that? No history of bias equals a bias history. What?

I have to admit that I do have a bias, one they missed. I have a bias against criminals. I think they should be in jail. It’s not based on race, gender or sexual orientation, as victims also come in all shapes and sizes. No, it’s based on seeing too many victims trying to pick up the pieces after they are victimized. It’s based on trying to protect the disadvantaged from the criminals who seek those who cannot protect themselves. So yes, I have a bias against the predators in our society. I admit that. I had that same bias for my entire career.

When I see the politicians and “leaders” ignore the almost weekly carnage in Chicago and other metropolitan cities involving black victims, I find it frustrating. Yet, the same folks find their voices when a police officer is involved. When I watch the Black Lives Matters activists chant about death and injury to police officers and again ignore the hundreds of black lives that are gunned down by black criminals, I find it frustrating. When I experience the “tolerant” who ignore the problems in today’s society and look for reasons to be offended based on political correctness, I find it frustrating.

You know what was the most awful part of the entire interview process? It’s that you can’t prove what you didn’t do. The “tolerant” can make all the allegations they can muster without any evidence. They say that even though you don’t have any outward bias, but instead have a built in “unconscious bias” that causes you to act in prejudicial ways, even though those prejudicial ways don’t manifest themselves in any outward projection of bias. What? All this without any proof or evidence. But I guess I just can’t see my unconscious bias. I’ve been told I have one, but for the life of me I can’t find it.

Did I learn something in the interview process? Yes, I did. It’s that for some, the search to be offended is more important than the cause. Its that no matter your work history or your longstanding reputation, they will seek to tarnish you if you happen to disagree with their political perspective. It’s too bad they don’t look in the mirror and see what real discrimination and intolerance look like. I guess it’s easier to be “offended” than actually work toward finding something tangible that can solve the issue at hand.

It's time for the “tolerant” to actually start being tolerant of the views of others, even though they may disagree. It’s time to stop being silent and simply tolerate the political correctness run amuck. It’s time to stop accepting their version of the facts. It’s time to stand up for what is right.

Even in today’s world, post election and all, the “tolerant” express their dislike of the election results by rioting and damaging businesses in their communities. They rage against the results, even though most of them that were asked didn’t even vote. And the media? Oh, they are right there to video every protest/riot and parrot the mindless chants and rants. So the “tolerant” are not so tolerant of the election results. A little hypocritical, since they claim to be the tolerant ones.

Oh, in case you’re wondering and last I looked, the leadership position in the Pacific Northwest city still sits unfilled. Interesting.

• • •

Allen Huggins has homes in Coeur d'Alene and Otis Orchards, Wash.