The question in question is: How can I deal with discrimination against groups of colleagues?
To me, it clearly describes a behaviour from management that reeks of discrimination, or at least unbalanced behaviour towards groups of employees. There's a comment there that I find quite surprising:
Isn't the discrimination the other way around? Sounds like management is more interested in keeping an eye on the hearing employees than the non-hearing. Assuming you're a hearing person, management is watching YOU! If they were concerned about the deaf colleagues, they'd be watching THEM! :) Maybe you can edit and clarify why you think this is discriminatory towards the deaf colleagues. I don't get it. Good luck! :)
The question seems extremely clear to me, but if it managed to confuse jmort253 I'm more than willing to accept that the question isn't that clear to everyone else. That said I'd appreciate a more detailed explanation, by anyone, if I wanted to discuss this with jmort253 I'd either ping him in chat or post a comment to the question responding to his.
The other comment that addresses what people may have thought was problematic with the question is:
I think this question would be better handled if you remove the racial discrimination from it. You provide no details of the discrimination and it is a seperate issue from what is beiong asked here. It distracts from the heart of this question.
Cool, I've made some edits myself, removing the mention to racism, but I fail to see what "the heart" of the question is, or, better, why the heart of the question wasn't clear from the start. All I wrote above for jmort253 also apply to Chad, the poster of the second comment.
There are three answers, two of them are good, and all say more or less the same thing: Gather more evidence, and report the behaviour. This is the answer (imho), to an actual, practical problem in the workplace.
Another, perhaps lesser, issue is that, albeit the question being closed as Not A Real Question, there were two Off Topic close votes in there. I have absolutely no idea what's off topic about the question, I could understand the need for further clarifications or the broadness of the subject, but I'd like to urge close voters to spend a couple of seconds picking the more appropriate close reason when they've already decided that the question doesn't belong.
I'm more than aware that closed means closed, and the close reason itself is not that important, however this is the very first question the OP asked on Stack Exchange ever. Let's be a bit more thoughtful and welcoming in the future please, it's not that hard to check a user's profile, see that they have absolutely no familiarity with the network and be a bit more careful. Close reasons are designed to broadly communicate what the trouble is with the question, there are just five of them, is not that hard to pick the more appropriate one.
As a moderator on Programmers, I'm more than ready to explain each and every one of my close votes there. I'm not assuming that everyone will agree with my explanation, all I'm saying is that I have an explanation for both the closure and the close reason, and I fail to see how anyone would pick Off Topic here. As always, I'm ready to be proven wrong.
A tangentially related note:
I did some minor edits on the Dealing with sexual harassment in the workplace question (no idea how the question was viewed 800+ times, and no one noticed the misspelling on harassment in the title), and shared it around in a general and a couple of more specialized communities, in an effort to attract experts.
And, then it got a close vote, an Off Topic one, after I removed the only thing in it that seemed off topic (the request for legal advice). While I couldn't care less for a single close vote, I'm afraid the Workplace is quickly becoming a site for trivial interviewing and resume questions, questions that more often than not are answerable by a simple web search or common sense, and not a high quality site where actual, practical and non trivial problems get solved.
I do realize both questions might be problematic, but I would expect the community to be a bit more careful, welcoming, and thorough on questions that are about non trivial and perhaps a bit sensitive matters. Edit, comment, discuss in chat, and only close if (when?) all else fails.
I'm afraid we are shifting towards trivial questions, and, as a community, we failed more than once on non trivial questions.
The question was re-opened, thanks all for taking a closer look at it and especially to those who edited it and improved it. I'm still very interested in reading your answers on the deeper issues I (think) I'm bringing up here.