A professor admits she faked her racial identity

[marshwiggle]

From that string of tweets:

She made a living & a whole life out of parroting Black Rican trauma and survival. As a Black Rican I am PISSED.
The other thing is that, let historians tell it, her work is actually good, chick is smart- so why lie?
why chase the extra clout of being a hood raised Black Boricua?

Unintentional 4th wall break?

Could you explain? She was claiming to be a Puerto Rican (Boricua) woman from the "hood" (Bronx)....

That sounds a lot like "'hood privilege". Wouldn't her original "white privilege" have been worth more? Or, is privilege context-specific?

[Parasaurolophus]

Or, is privilege context-specific?

Yes. You can be privileged in some respects, and not in others.

[dismalist]

Depends whether you're the privileger or the privalegee! :-)

[Wahoo Redux]

The fact that two white women passed as a black women to get a jobs, and then were humiliated and lost said jobs when their real ethnicity was outed, should answer those particular questions and provide some level of proof to the assertion of...well, I don't want to use the term because some folks take umbrage. 

[marshwiggle]

The fact that two white women passed as a black women to get a jobs, and then were humiliated and lost said jobs when their real ethnicity was outed, should answer those particular questions and provide some level of proof to the assertion of...well, I don't want to use the term because some folks take umbrage.

To clarify; the fact that women got jobs by appearing to be black, and lost them once they were revealed to be white, is definitely evidence of something.

[Caracal]

The fact that two white women passed as a black women to get a jobs, and then were humiliated and lost said jobs when their real ethnicity was outed, should answer those particular questions and provide some level of proof to the assertion of...well, I don't want to use the term because some folks take umbrage.

To clarify; the fact that women got jobs by appearing to be black, and lost them once they were revealed to be white, is definitely evidence of something.

Yes, it is evidence that if you misrepresent yourself or lie about your background and someone finds out, you usually get fired. I assume the same thing would happen if you falsely claimed to be a military veteran, or lied about being  in the WTC towers on 9/11. You wouldn't be fired because only a veteran or a 9/11 survivor could hold the job, you'd be canned because the lie was a breach of trust and a moral failure.

[writingprof]

There is only one story here. If you incentivize something, you get more of it.  If you tax something, you get less of it.  The American professional class has incentivized blackness and taxed whiteness.  Rational actors in the marketplace are adjusting accordingly. 

Also: I'm a black Native American, so it's racist of you to disagree with me.

[marshwiggle]

The fact that two white women passed as a black women to get a jobs, and then were humiliated and lost said jobs when their real ethnicity was outed, should answer those particular questions and provide some level of proof to the assertion of...well, I don't want to use the term because some folks take umbrage.

To clarify; the fact that women got jobs by appearing to be black, and lost them once they were revealed to be white, is definitely evidence of something.

Yes, it is evidence that if you misrepresent yourself or lie about your background and someone finds out, you usually get fired.

The twist here is that it was lying about things that for a few decades would have been illegal or at least totally inappropriate to ask about, let alone consider in hiring decisions. The regress of society into explicit tribalism is sad and dangerous.

I assume the same thing would happen if you falsely claimed to be a military veteran, or lied about being  in the WTC towers on 9/11. You wouldn't be fired because only a veteran or a 9/11 survivor could hold the job, you'd be canned because the lie was a breach of trust and a moral failure.

If it was considered relevant to the job, (such as to teach military history, or dealing with trauma), then there would be an implicit understanding of being especially suited to the job. (Or in the case of the claim to be a veteran, if there was some job recruiting program for veterans that the person misrepresented themself to get into, then it is actual fraud.) If the job were to teach computer science, those issues would not have had any reason to come up in the job search or interviews, and would be no more relevant than professed ability to play the cello. If the person had performed well teaching for several years, it would be unlikely to be a firing offense in and of itself.

[Caracal]

I assume the same thing would happen if you falsely claimed to be a military veteran, or lied about being  in the WTC towers on 9/11. You wouldn't be fired because only a veteran or a 9/11 survivor could hold the job, you'd be canned because the lie was a breach of trust and a moral failure.

If it was considered relevant to the job, (such as to teach military history, or dealing with trauma), then there would be an implicit understanding of being especially suited to the job. (Or in the case of the claim to be a veteran, if there was some job recruiting program for veterans that the person misrepresented themself to get into, then it is actual fraud.) If the job were to teach computer science, those issues would not have had any reason to come up in the job search or interviews, and would be no more relevant than professed ability to play the cello. If the person had performed well teaching for several years, it would be unlikely to be a firing offense in and of itself.

I think anybody who misrepresented themselves in a professional capacity can end up in real trouble. If I teach computer science and like to go to the bar and tell lies about my tour of duty in Afghanistan, that might not be relevant to my job. However, if I bring up my imaginary combat tour every time an issue involving veterans comes up in a faculty meeting, that's rather different. It wouldn't matter whether being in the army had any relevance to my job responsibilities or if my misrepresentation had actually resulted in any tangible benefits for myself.

[marshwiggle]

I assume the same thing would happen if you falsely claimed to be a military veteran, or lied about being  in the WTC towers on 9/11. You wouldn't be fired because only a veteran or a 9/11 survivor could hold the job, you'd be canned because the lie was a breach of trust and a moral failure.

If it was considered relevant to the job, (such as to teach military history, or dealing with trauma), then there would be an implicit understanding of being especially suited to the job. (Or in the case of the claim to be a veteran, if there was some job recruiting program for veterans that the person misrepresented themself to get into, then it is actual fraud.) If the job were to teach computer science, those issues would not have had any reason to come up in the job search or interviews, and would be no more relevant than professed ability to play the cello. If the person had performed well teaching for several years, it would be unlikely to be a firing offense in and of itself.

I think anybody who misrepresented themselves in a professional capacity can end up in real trouble. If I teach computer science and like to go to the bar and tell lies about my tour of duty in Afghanistan, that might not be relevant to my job. However, if I bring up my imaginary combat tour every time an issue involving veterans comes up in a faculty meeting, that's rather different. It wouldn't matter whether being in the army had any relevance to my job responsibilities or if my misrepresentation had actually resulted in any tangible benefits for myself.

But that's the point; bringing up your imaginary combat tour in discussing an issue involving veterens would indeed be claiming that it had specific relevance to the job. (The "job" of a faculty member does indeed go beyond just teaching.) Just like Jessica Krug and Rachel Dolezal used their faked ethnicity to imply relevant perspective to their teaching.

With the rise of the emphasis on "lived experience" in certain humanities fields, only someone claiming the "right" ethnicity would be able to speak freely, while anyone from with the "wrong" ethnicity would only even have a chance at being hired if they readily and consistently espoused the "correct" perspective.

[mahagonny]

I assume the same thing would happen if you falsely claimed to be a military veteran, or lied about being  in the WTC towers on 9/11. You wouldn't be fired because only a veteran or a 9/11 survivor could hold the job, you'd be canned because the lie was a breach of trust and a moral failure.

If it was considered relevant to the job, (such as to teach military history, or dealing with trauma), then there would be an implicit understanding of being especially suited to the job. (Or in the case of the claim to be a veteran, if there was some job recruiting program for veterans that the person misrepresented themself to get into, then it is actual fraud.) If the job were to teach computer science, those issues would not have had any reason to come up in the job search or interviews, and would be no more relevant than professed ability to play the cello. If the person had performed well teaching for several years, it would be unlikely to be a firing offense in and of itself.

I think anybody who misrepresented themselves in a professional capacity can end up in real trouble. If I teach computer science and like to go to the bar and tell lies about my tour of duty in Afghanistan, that might not be relevant to my job. However, if I bring up my imaginary combat tour every time an issue involving veterans comes up in a faculty meeting, that's rather different. It wouldn't matter whether being in the army had any relevance to my job responsibilities or if my misrepresentation had actually resulted in any tangible benefits for myself.

How black do you have to be to say you're black. We had a black POTUS who was, at the most, 50% of African descent. How about 1/4, 1/18, 1/16, 1/32 black? Are they making false claims?

[Wahoo Redux]

The fact that two white women passed as a black women to get a jobs, and then were humiliated and lost said jobs when their real ethnicity was outed, should answer those particular questions and provide some level of proof to the assertion of...well, I don't want to use the term because some folks take umbrage.

To clarify; the fact that women got jobs by appearing to be black, and lost them once they were revealed to be white, is definitely evidence of something.

Yes, it is evidence that if you misrepresent yourself or lie about your background and someone finds out, you usually get fired.

Fair enough.  I simply meant that both Dolezal and Krug got their jobs essentially because they were taken to be of a particular race.  In other words, denying that race was a factor in their employment, and their dismissal, is the kind of "denial" we see when people do not want to admit to something----the term is used most frequently in drug or alcohol rehabilitation.

[Caracal]

The fact that two white women passed as a black women to get a jobs, and then were humiliated and lost said jobs when their real ethnicity was outed, should answer those particular questions and provide some level of proof to the assertion of...well, I don't want to use the term because some folks take umbrage.

To clarify; the fact that women got jobs by appearing to be black, and lost them once they were revealed to be white, is definitely evidence of something.

Yes, it is evidence that if you misrepresent yourself or lie about your background and someone finds out, you usually get fired.

Fair enough.  I simply meant that both Dolezal and Krug got their jobs essentially because they were taken to be of a particular race.  In other words, denying that race was a factor in their employment, and their dismissal, is the kind of "denial" we see when people do not want to admit to something----the term is used most frequently in drug or alcohol rehabilitation.

How do you know that's true? As I understand it, she was actually hired as a member of the history department. She's a historian of Africa and the African Diaspora. I can tell you that most historians of Africa aren't black. I haven't read any of her work, but I've heard from people that her book was actually good and careful scholarship.

[apl68]

Her colleagues in her department are now calling for her firing or resignation:

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2020/09/08/jessica-krugs-department-speaks-out?_ga=2.186742637.499993294.1599585461-2042736888.1573583818

It's hard to see her holding out against that.  Or any other department trusting her enough to hire her for a comparable position.  Or her work, whatever its merits, being taken seriously in the field after this.

[Caracal]

Her colleagues in her department are now calling for her firing or resignation:

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2020/09/08/jessica-krugs-department-speaks-out?_ga=2.186742637.499993294.1599585461-2042736888.1573583818

It's hard to see her holding out against that.  Or any other department trusting her enough to hire her for a comparable position.  Or her work, whatever its merits, being taken seriously in the field after this.

Indeed, although there are lots of terrible people who have written good books.