Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[marshwiggle]

Of course, the guy was not saying the player was a slave, and he was quoting a bible verse.   Should he have been punished merely because someone took offense?

In my opinion, yes. He is in a position of authority over mostly young Black men, yet he quoted a verse that was widely used in the South to justify slavery. Not cool.

Why don't we have similar outrage by descendants of Holocaust survivors over the causal use of "Nazi", such as "grammar Nazi"? That was less than a century ago, and there are still living Holocaust survivors, while slavery ended several decades before that so there probably aren't even any living people whose parents were slaves.

[jimbogumbo]

marshwiggle: because of Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner (1960s Mississippi), Emmit Till (late 1950s). In Indiana, a public lynching in Marion in 1930 (yes, I know how long ago that was).

And, survivors of the Holocaust along with their kids and grandkids DO get angry about indiscriminate references to Nazis and the Holocaust.

[dismalist]

There's no such thing as a free speech!

Once upon a time, lots of self restraint was exercised even in private speech. At the dinner table one wasn't supposed to talk about sex, money, or religion. [What else is there to talk about, I asked myself in my yute.] Anyway, it wasn't done.

Now that it is done, the question is remedies. Tell the misuser of scripture to STFU! That one has to report all this to the kindergarten monitors in a university where the students are grownups who can vote is of course weird. And to suspend somebody for saying something without thinking is of course overkill. The whole human race could be suspended for that offense.

This is not to say that all offenses should be self-suppressed at all universities. But if they are at some, there is no problem.

[jimbogumbo]

There's no such thing as a free speech!

Once upon a time, lots of self restraint was exercised even in private speech. At the dinner table one wasn't supposed to talk about sex, money, or religion. [What else is there to talk about, I asked myself in my yute.] Anyway, it wasn't done.

Now that it is done, the question is remedies. Tell the misuser of scripture to STFU! That one has to report all this to the kindergarten monitors in a university where the students are grownups who can vote is of course weird. And to suspend somebody for saying something without thinking is of course overkill. The whole human race could be suspended for that offense.

This is not to say that all offenses should be self-suppressed at all universities. But if they are at some, there is no problem.

I'm sorry, but a D1 basketball player does not have the liberty to tell their coach to STFU. The alternatives are quit, keep quiet and take it, or do something about it.

Athletic scholarships are at will employment, or close to it.

[apl68]

He apparently recognized immediately that he had accidentally given offense and apologized on his own.  Suspending somebody from work over something that was clearly not driven by malice is excessive.

[dismalist]

There's no such thing as a free speech!

Once upon a time, lots of self restraint was exercised even in private speech. At the dinner table one wasn't supposed to talk about sex, money, or religion. [What else is there to talk about, I asked myself in my yute.] Anyway, it wasn't done.

Now that it is done, the question is remedies. Tell the misuser of scripture to STFU! That one has to report all this to the kindergarten monitors in a university where the students are grownups who can vote is of course weird. And to suspend somebody for saying something without thinking is of course overkill. The whole human race could be suspended for that offense.

This is not to say that all offenses should be self-suppressed at all universities. But if they are at some, there is no problem.

I'm sorry, but a D1 basketball player does not have the liberty to tell their coach to STFU. The alternatives are quit, keep quiet and take it, or do something about it.

Athletic scholarships are at will employment, or close to it.

That's one helluva strong basketball player with spine who takes risks! If his game were like that he'd be out in a day. "Mommy, he hurted my feelings." Kindergarten.

[jimbogumbo]

dismalist, we actually do not know who reported it to the AD. And yes, the coach apologized, which is the right and sober response. Should he have been suspended? I still think so, and would accept a suspension if I were in his shoes. I have done at least three similar things in classrooms, and apologized. I was not suspended, but easily could have been.

I do think you all are mistaken in thinking that these are one time things with coaches. We older (I'm 70) people have imo an obligation to make sure that our upbringings do not reflexively exhibit in our speech, especially when considering our audiences.

[dismalist]

dismalist, we actually do not know who reported it to the AD. And yes, the coach apologized, which is the right and sober response. Should he have been suspended? I still think so, and would accept a suspension if I were in his shoes. I have done at least three similar things in classrooms, and apologized. I was not suspended, but easily could have been.

I do think you all are mistaken in thinking that these are one time things with coaches. We older (I'm 70) people have imo an obligation to make sure that our upbringings do not reflexively exhibit in our speech, especially when considering our audiences.

Good, glad to hear about the sportsman that he may not have reported the incident himself. But the institution is still a kindergarten!

We have an obligation... . sure, that's what I was driving at with self-restraint at the dinner table. This sort of thing has never happened to me while teaching, perhaps because of having internalized certain self-restraint, but I have never associated an individual with a group. That made it easy. Be that as it may, while I find the social aspect of apologizing for everything in sight abhorrent, because almost always disingenuous, in a personal case like this it is perfectly fine, especially if spontaneous.

If not, have universities with different degrees of skin thickness, some for kindergartners, some for adults.

[kaysixteen]

Random observations:

1) I get that some Southern whites have traditionally used this verse to justify slavery, but read clearly, it merely recognizes the existence of slavery, a ubiquitous fact in antiquity.  The verse is however regularly used in evangelical circles to mean essentially that people in subordinate relationships are to obey their superiors-- we have no slaves today, of course, but we do have employers, and what-not, and evangelicals traditionally teach that employees have to obey the boss or quit.   Unless,  of course, they can show, following Peter, that they had to 'obey God rather than man', as God is the only one whose authority is absolute and unconditional.

2) Basketball coaches probably do not have the same level of academic freedom that profs have, but any teacher of any sort cannot always be able to prevent any words that might conceivably cause any offense to someone from coming out of their mouths.  It is unjust to hold educators to this sort of standard.

[dismalist]

Random observations:

1) I get that some Southern whites have traditionally used this verse to justify slavery, but read clearly, it merely recognizes the existence of slavery, a ubiquitous fact in antiquity.  The verse is however regularly used in evangelical circles to mean essentially that people in subordinate relationships are to obey their superiors-- we have no slaves today, of course, but we do have employers, and what-not, and evangelicals traditionally teach that employees have to obey the boss or quit.   Unless,  of course, they can show, following Peter, that they had to 'obey God rather than man', as God is the only one whose authority is absolute and unconditional.

2) Basketball coaches probably do not have the same level of academic freedom that profs have, but any teacher of any sort cannot always be able to prevent any words that might conceivably cause any offense to someone from coming out of their mouths.  It is unjust to hold educators to this sort of standard.

It was unjust to hold me to the standard to not talk about sex, money and religion at the dinner table in my yute. But it made living together easier.

This discussion reminded me of a baseball card I had when I was a kid, naming the lake in the US with the longest American Indian name:

This is Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg in Connecticut. Light heartedly translated, it means: You fish on your side. I fish on my side. Nobody fish in the middle. We got 3500+ colleges and universities. It's easy to live and let live with that number. Educators can be held to all kinds of different standards.

[jimbogumbo]

kay, i think you are correct on both counts. But, asking young kids to correctly understand the scripture is not feasible (we haven't addressed the issue of justifying your coaching decisions at a public university via scripture).

I just read a follow up article, and he clarified that he did not in fact apologize to the team. He also is alleged to have spit on a player, and said "I can spit on you any time I please", which he denies.

[marshwiggle]

kay, i think you are correct on both counts. But, asking young kids to correctly understand the scripture is not feasible (we haven't addressed the issue of justifying your coaching decisions at a public university via scripture).

I just read a follow up article, and he clarified that he did not in fact apologize to the team. He also is alleged to have spit on a player, and said "I can spit on you any time I please", which he denies.

This is bizarre. Spitting on someone is a form of physical assault, and is vastly more serious than use of language. It's a testimony to how upside-down culture has become that this would be a footnote, rather than the main issue.

A question that has occurred to me regarding the familiar biblical passage.
In a society where slavery was deeply rooted and endemic, what sort of moral instruction would a progressive approve being given to enslaved people? Does an enslaved person have a moral imperative to try and rebel or escape? Even if that may bring retribution on their families? Or should there be no specific advice addressed to enslaved people? Should they be glossed over? (Just to be clear; advising the powers-that-be about the immorality of slavery is a completely different issue. Giving moral advice to enslaved people themselves is independent of that.)
(And given that there are still places in the world with forms of indentured servitude, this is still relevant.)

[Kron3007]

Random observations:

1) I get that some Southern whites have traditionally used this verse to justify slavery, but read clearly, it merely recognizes the existence of slavery, a ubiquitous fact in antiquity.  The verse is however regularly used in evangelical circles to mean essentially that people in subordinate relationships are to obey their superiors-- we have no slaves today, of course, but we do have employers, and what-not, and evangelicals traditionally teach that employees have to obey the boss or quit.   Unless,  of course, they can show, following Peter, that they had to 'obey God rather than man', as God is the only one whose authority is absolute and unconditional.

2) Basketball coaches probably do not have the same level of academic freedom that profs have, but any teacher of any sort cannot always be able to prevent any words that might conceivably cause any offense to someone from coming out of their mouths.  It is unjust to hold educators to this sort of standard.

If he quoted a bible verse stating that slaves should serve their masters better to a black player, he miss read the room.  Whether he meant offense or not, he owes the student an apology IMO.  If he did that, I dont feel a suspension or further punishment would be in order, but if he failed to do so I could see further consequences being warranted.

It dosn't really matter how it is used in evangelical circles, that is not how it is heard in the general public and it dosnt make it any less offensive.  My friends and I used to use terms that were routed in racism without knowing it.  Just because we didnt know, dosnt mean the terms are not offensive.  Now that I know, I do not use them and hope others would follow suite.  I dont think it takes a rock scientist to know that telling a black student that he should act more slave-like would be offensive.     

[Wahoo Redux]

Random observations:

1) I get that some Southern whites have traditionally used this verse to justify slavery, but read clearly, it merely recognizes the existence of slavery, a ubiquitous fact in antiquity.  The verse is however regularly used in evangelical circles to mean essentially that people in subordinate relationships are to obey their superiors-- we have no slaves today, of course, but we do have employers, and what-not, and evangelicals traditionally teach that employees have to obey the boss or quit.   Unless,  of course, they can show, following Peter, that they had to 'obey God rather than man', as God is the only one whose authority is absolute and unconditional.

I thought that we should read the Bible literally.

[kaysixteen]

Oh never mind.