"Racist" professor found dead in home

[Wahoo Redux]

Gone off the rails, boys...

Indeed. 

And you're one of the engineers.

Agreed.

[mahagonny]

Adjunct faculty are more conservative than intentional faculty.

[kaysixteen]

Well I confess I did not read the article that clearly to really read what exactly the Vermont principal actually said, only the gist of it.   I am not sure I would have sought her dismissal for such remarks, but the point remains that a public school principal is not a teacher.  She is the leader of a public institution, like the police chief or head of the county public health dept.   She should learn to use extreme discretion in her public remarks, all the more so in the age of the internet.  The public must be able to have confidence that people given public leadership positions in their community are not biased, and not so out of step with the mainstream values of *their communities* that people holding those views would not enjoy the confidence of the majority of the members thereof.  This is sort of like the classic Potter Stewart definition of porn/ obscenity-- I do not know exactly how to describe it but I know what it is when I see it.  Point is, that we would probably *all* agree that there would be certain public remarks, remarks that would be legal, would not be advocating criminal behavior, etc, that would nonetheless be sufficiently beyond the pale for a public school head to post on the net, such that she should lose her job for making them, although I suspect many of us would likely disagree with exactly what those comments would encompass.

[marshwiggle]

Point is, that we would probably *all* agree that there would be certain public remarks, remarks that would be legal, would not be advocating criminal behavior, etc, that would nonetheless be sufficiently beyond the pale for a public school head to post on the net, such that she should lose her job for making them, although I suspect many of us would likely disagree with exactly what those comments would encompass.

What this means is that the most "acceptable" candidates for these offices will essentially be automatons, who have no presence on social media, are not members of any organizations, and who reveal nothing of their personal lives, interests, or view on basically anything.

In other words, the kinds of peole that in movies turn out to be spies or serial killers because their offices, homes, etc. are totally devoid of any personal cues.

[research_prof]

Point is, that we would probably *all* agree that there would be certain public remarks, remarks that would be legal, would not be advocating criminal behavior, etc, that would nonetheless be sufficiently beyond the pale for a public school head to post on the net, such that she should lose her job for making them, although I suspect many of us would likely disagree with exactly what those comments would encompass.

What this means is that the most "acceptable" candidates for these offices will essentially be automatons, who have no presence on social media, are not members of any organizations, and who reveal nothing of their personal lives, interests, or view on basically anything.

In other words, the kinds of peole that in movies turn out to be spies or serial killers because their offices, homes, etc. are totally devoid of any personal cues.

That's a sad realization. Since I started working for a university, I have stopped sharing *anything* that has to do with my personal life on social media. Why? Because I am scared that if I post something that others do not like (for whatever reason), the university will fire me. I even deleted things I had posted in the past and turned all my social media accounts to private.

In other words, I have been feeling that I am the b***h of the university that employs me. I have to do whatever they ask me to, otherwise, I will get fired in a blink of an eye. And this will probably put a stigma on me for the rest of my career.

Let me give you a simple example: you post something that others perceive as controversial, somebody writes an article about you and how "racist", "ignorant", "inconsiderate" (or whatever else you can imagine) you are on the Internet, the article shows up on Google. That's it. You are screwed. For how long? Probably for the rest of your life... Not to mention that I was afraid to take legal actions in the past in a case that I probably should have because the records would probably show up on Google and this would put another stigma on me (and this one I have seen it coming up with candidates for faculty jobs in the past, since they are believed to be "trouble makers"...).

[research_prof]

[please ignore--misclick]

[Wahoo Redux]

Point is, that we would probably *all* agree that there would be certain public remarks, remarks that would be legal, would not be advocating criminal behavior, etc, that would nonetheless be sufficiently beyond the pale for a public school head to post on the net, such that she should lose her job for making them, although I suspect many of us would likely disagree with exactly what those comments would encompass.

What this means is that the most "acceptable" candidates for these offices will essentially be automatons, who have no presence on social media, are not members of any organizations, and who reveal nothing of their personal lives, interests, or view on basically anything.

In other words, the kinds of peole that in movies turn out to be spies or serial killers because their offices, homes, etc. are totally devoid of any personal cues.

That's a sad realization. Since I started working for a university, I have stopped sharing *anything* that has to do with my personal life on social media. Why? Because I am scared that if I post something that others do not like (for whatever reason), the university will fire me. I even deleted things I had posted in the past and turned all my social media accounts to private.

In other words, I have been feeling that I am the b***h of the university that employs me. I have to do whatever they ask me to, otherwise, I will get fired in a blink of an eye. And this will probably put a stigma on me for the rest of my career.

Let me give you a simple example: you post something that others perceive as controversial, somebody writes an article about you and how "racist", "ignorant", "inconsiderate" (or whatever else you can imagine) you are on the Internet, the article shows up on Google. That's it. You are screwed. For how long? Probably for the rest of your life... Not to mention that I was afraid to take legal actions in the past in a case that I probably should have because the records would probably show up on Google and this would put another stigma on me (and this one I have seen it coming up with candidates for faculty jobs in the past, since they are believed to be "trouble makers"...).

In theory I understand the restrictions on public figureheads and people in authority.  We have a problem if we have a sheriff who comes out and says, "We're going to round up all the [marginalized whatever] and have them shot."  That would be scary.

The flip-side is that myself, Mahoganny, Marshy, and apl68 could all lose our jobs if somehow our identities were to be hacked on this website simply because we have opinions.

[research_prof]

Point is, that we would probably *all* agree that there would be certain public remarks, remarks that would be legal, would not be advocating criminal behavior, etc, that would nonetheless be sufficiently beyond the pale for a public school head to post on the net, such that she should lose her job for making them, although I suspect many of us would likely disagree with exactly what those comments would encompass.

What this means is that the most "acceptable" candidates for these offices will essentially be automatons, who have no presence on social media, are not members of any organizations, and who reveal nothing of their personal lives, interests, or view on basically anything.

In other words, the kinds of peole that in movies turn out to be spies or serial killers because their offices, homes, etc. are totally devoid of any personal cues.

That's a sad realization. Since I started working for a university, I have stopped sharing *anything* that has to do with my personal life on social media. Why? Because I am scared that if I post something that others do not like (for whatever reason), the university will fire me. I even deleted things I had posted in the past and turned all my social media accounts to private.

In other words, I have been feeling that I am the b***h of the university that employs me. I have to do whatever they ask me to, otherwise, I will get fired in a blink of an eye. And this will probably put a stigma on me for the rest of my career.

Let me give you a simple example: you post something that others perceive as controversial, somebody writes an article about you and how "racist", "ignorant", "inconsiderate" (or whatever else you can imagine) you are on the Internet, the article shows up on Google. That's it. You are screwed. For how long? Probably for the rest of your life... Not to mention that I was afraid to take legal actions in the past in a case that I probably should have because the records would probably show up on Google and this would put another stigma on me (and this one I have seen it coming up with candidates for faculty jobs in the past, since they are believed to be "trouble makers"...).

In theory I understand the restrictions on public figureheads and people in authority.  We have a problem if we have a sheriff who comes out and says, "We're going to round up all the [marginalized whatever] and have them shot."  That would be scary.

The flip-side is that myself, Mahoganny, Marshy, and apl68 could all lose our jobs if somehow our identities were to be hacked on this website simply because we have opinions.

Right. And I do not want to sound alarming, but things like that have happened in the past. I agree that people should be able to express their opinion freely (that's what democracy is about), unless they are going to say something really offensive (and yes, I know, defining what is offensive and what is not nowadays is another challenge).

But my tactic (and what I have learned over the years of seeing people losing their jobs and having their lives ruined in a blink of an eye for posting something that others perceived as controversial) is to keep my opinion to myself. And I will continue doing so.. Having no opinion is the new normal (at least for now and for the years to come).

[marshwiggle]

But my tactic (and what I have learned over the years of seeing people losing their jobs and having their lives ruined in a blink of an eye for posting something that others perceived as controversial) is to keep my opinion to myself. And I will continue doing so.. Having no opinion is the new normal (at least for now and for the years to come).

The problem here is the commonly stated idea that "silence is part of the problem". In other words, it's not enough to not be a racist, you have to be "anti-racist". What does that mean? Well, it means virtue-signalling at every opportunity. That's just one example. I just saw a headline that some restaurant owner burned the table used by Epstein and Weinstein. If that isn't a ridiculous level of posturing I don't know what is. (Even if anyone cared, who would even know which table they used???)

Among many vocal elements in society, "no opinion" will be equated with holding the "wrong" opinion automatically.

[research_prof]

But my tactic (and what I have learned over the years of seeing people losing their jobs and having their lives ruined in a blink of an eye for posting something that others perceived as controversial) is to keep my opinion to myself. And I will continue doing so.. Having no opinion is the new normal (at least for now and for the years to come).

The problem here is the commonly stated idea that "silence is part of the problem". In other words, it's not enough to not be a racist, you have to be "anti-racist". What does that mean? Well, it means virtue-signalling at every opportunity. That's just one example. I just saw a headline that some restaurant owner burned the table used by Epstein and Weinstein. If that isn't a ridiculous level of posturing I don't know what is. (Even if anyone cared, who would even know which table they used???)

Among many vocal elements in society, "no opinion" will be equated with holding the "wrong" opinion automatically.

Life is all about statistics and chances after all. If you have no opinion, people cannot prove that you are on the wrong side of things. They can still blame you, but if you are not vocal, chances are that nobody will accuse you of being on the wrong side of things. The problem is when you do or say something (which might even be totally unrelated to the accusation) and this triggers people to accuse you of being on the wrong side of things.

I mean, look: I have been in a situation where people (of a certain political ideology--you can probably guess which one) were telling me in my face that I indoctrinate their kids and that I am a state employee that receives a fat paycheck from their taxes and that I have not put a day of full work in my life. Can you imagine what would have happened if I had reacted to all that?

[mahagonny]

But my tactic (and what I have learned over the years of seeing people losing their jobs and having their lives ruined in a blink of an eye for posting something that others perceived as controversial) is to keep my opinion to myself. And I will continue doing so.. Having no opinion is the new normal (at least for now and for the years to come).

The problem here is the commonly stated idea that "silence is part of the problem". In other words, it's not enough to not be a racist, you have to be "anti-racist". What does that mean? Well, it means virtue-signalling at every opportunity. That's just one example. I just saw a headline that some restaurant owner burned the table used by Epstein and Weinstein. If that isn't a ridiculous level of posturing I don't know what is. (Even if anyone cared, who would even know which table they used???)

Among many vocal elements in society, "no opinion" will be equated with holding the "wrong" opinion automatically.

Regarding silence, the person who doesn't confess to white racism original sin will come to be looked upon as like the way my grandparents regarded Americans who didn't go to church. They may not be a clear and present danger, but they aren't doing what they should be doing to give their moral selves some desperately needed improvement. Together, they represent a sad moral failing of our society.
If you say it's a religion, people might think you're overreacting. On the other hand the antiracism crowd gets to go places religion can't. Like your course syllabus.
And the antiracism movement is a dogma that is growing all the time. New kinds of racism are being found and added to the list. Only owned by whites, by definition.
Explained here: https://www.startribune.com/counterpoint-i-am-a-racist-so-is-katherine-kersten/571937132/?refresh=true

Some will just tell the anti-racism webinar training team what they want to hear just to be left alone, and then commiserate with friends in private. A part of me says you should. You know, 'I takes dat Gospel whenever it's possible, but with a grain of salt.'

[bento]

Women's Studies is indeed nonessential.  We lived without that field of academic inquiry for almost all of human history.  Please don't kill me for agreeing with this guy.

Here are some other things we've lived without for almost all of human history:  roads, tools, farming, medical science, anesthesia, disinfectants, all of academia, all of industry, architecture, transportation other than walking.

Your criterion of importance is flawed.

[Wahoo Redux]

Is it possible for people to have moderate, empathetic,and logical opinions?

Mahagonny speaks truth from my experience (I've been through a number of sensitivity training sessions), but M, my brother, racism in America has been a largely white phenomenon.  We really can't deny that.  It is reasonable to discuss "white privilege" as an empirically provable reality.  The 16th through the 20th centuries are rife with European colonialism, even if, yes, we fully acknowledge China and Japan and, sure, parts of African and what-have-you as also displaying these same very human tendencies.  That doesn't legitimize what goes on here.  We do need to acknowledge what BLM says, even if some members turn to zealotry.

One could see the extremist opinions of BLM as a counterpoint to the extremist beliefs of the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys of the world, not to mention the Aryan Cowboys who try to incite race riots during peaceful protests...and to yourself, my friend.  You've got very lopsided, strident views.  I've got some insight into your character, I think, and if the universe were reversed, I wonder how balanced you would be about race and stereotypes if you and I were in historically oppressed minorities.

[marshwiggle]

One could see the extremist opinions of BLM as a counterpoint to the extremist beliefs of the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys of the world, not to mention the Aryan Cowboys who try to incite race riots during peaceful protests...and to yourself, my friend. You've got very lopsided, strident views.  I've got some insight into your character, I think, and if the universe were reversed, I wonder how balanced you would be about race and stereotypes if you and I were in historically oppressed minorities.

Assuming this is directed at me, I'm curious what "strident" views I've expressed. And what insight that has given into my character.

[mahagonny]

One could see the extremist opinions of BLM as a counterpoint to the extremist beliefs of the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys of the world, not to mention the Aryan Cowboys who try to incite race riots during peaceful protests...and to yourself, my friend. You've got very lopsided, strident views.  I've got some insight into your character, I think, and if the universe were reversed, I wonder how balanced you would be about race and stereotypes if you and I were in historically oppressed minorities.

Assuming this is directed at me, I'm curious what "strident" views I've expressed. And what insight that has given into my character.

No I believe our friend was addressing me.
Wahoo -- well, OK; obvious to me, you're still trying to win the argument. I think there are Black Americans who have better answers than the BLM crew, for example Glenn Loury, John McWhorter.
Re: my character. Thanks for your candor. I will give it some thought. Cheers.