"Racist" professor found dead in home

[Wahoo Redux]

And BTW, is your reaction any less sectarian and hysterical than the people who had Principal Riley fired?

It's taken from their website: 'what we believe.'

What We Believe
Four years ago, what is now known as the Black Lives Matter Global Network began to organize. It started out as a chapter-based, member-led organization whose mission was to build local power and to intervene when violence was inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes.

In the years since, we've committed to struggling together and to imagining and creating a world free of anti-Blackness, where every Black person has the social, economic, and political power to thrive.

Black Lives Matter began as a call to action in response to state-sanctioned violence and anti-Black racism. Our intention from the very beginning was to connect Black people from all over the world who have a shared desire for justice to act together in their communities. The impetus for that commitment was, and still is, the rampant and deliberate violence inflicted on us by the state.

Enraged by the death of Trayvon Martin and the subsequent acquittal of his killer, George Zimmerman, and inspired by the 31-day takeover of the Florida State Capitol by POWER U and the Dream Defenders, we took to the streets. A year later, we set out together on the Black Lives Matter Freedom Ride to Ferguson, in search of justice for Mike Brown and all of those who have been torn apart by state-sanctioned violence and anti-Black racism. Forever changed, we returned home and began building the infrastructure for the Black Lives Matter Global Network, which, even in its infancy, has become a political home for many.

Ferguson helped to catalyze a movement to which we've all helped give life. Organizers who call this network home have ousted anti-Black politicians, won critical legislation to benefit Black lives, and changed the terms of the debate on Blackness around the world. Through movement and relationship building, we have also helped catalyze other movements and shifted culture with an eye toward the dangerous impacts of anti-Blackness.

These are the results of our collective efforts.

The Black Lives Matter Global Network is as powerful as it is because of our membership, our partners, our supporters, our staff, and you. Our continued commitment to liberation for all Black people means we are continuing the work of our ancestors and fighting for our collective freedom because it is our duty.

Every day, we recommit to healing ourselves and each other, and to co-creating alongside comrades, allies, and family a culture where each person feels seen, heard, and supported.

We acknowledge, respect, and celebrate differences and commonalities.

We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people.

We intentionally build and nurture a beloved community that is bonded together through a beautiful struggle that is restorative, not depleting.

We are unapologetically Black in our positioning. In affirming that Black Lives Matter, we need not qualify our position. To love and desire freedom and justice for ourselves is a prerequisite for wanting the same for others.

We see ourselves as part of the global Black family, and we are aware of the different ways we are impacted or privileged as Black people who exist in different parts of the world.

We are guided by the fact that all Black lives matter, regardless of actual or perceived sexual identity, gender identity, gender expression, economic status, ability, disability, religious beliefs or disbeliefs, immigration status, or location.

We make space for transgender brothers and sisters to participate and lead.

We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.

We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.

We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.

We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work "double shifts" so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and "villages" that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).

We cultivate an intergenerational and communal network free from ageism. We believe that all people, regardless of age, show up with the capacity to lead and learn.

We embody and practice justice, liberation, and peace in our engagements with one another.

If you really do teach college you will have the intellect and perspicacity to see where you have distorted what the website says.

[kaysixteen]

WRT the now-fired principal, had she been a Walmart cashier and made these sorts of remarks, she may have been fired.   But public school principals are public figures, and must not make divisive remarks that serve no purpose and may well indicate racism on line.   She will lose the confidence of her community, especially in a bright bright bright blue place like Vermont.  She has no tenure, further, and no right to maintain her position once her remarks demonstrate valid reasons to suspect she may be less than fair in her treatment of all her students and families.   

[Wahoo Redux]

WRT the now-fired principal, had she been a Walmart cashier and made these sorts of remarks, she may have been fired.   But public school principals are public figures, and must not make divisive remarks that serve no purpose and may well indicate racism on line.   She will lose the confidence of her community, especially in a bright bright bright blue place like Vermont.  She has no tenure, further, and no right to maintain her position once her remarks demonstrate valid reasons to suspect she may be less than fair in her treatment of all her students and families.

Gotta disagree.

Her comments were relatively mild, in the first place, and did not demonstrate any valid reasons to indicate she behaves unfairly toward anyone.  She does not appear to understand BLM, but her opinion is her right.

In the second place, we are on very dangerous ground.  We are edging into territory in which our private lives are dictated by our employers, and in this case a public employer.  Think about it: Institutions can tell us what to say and what not to say when we are not on the job.  That's frightening.  America has always prided itself on the ability of its citizens to express themselves, even if that opinion is unpopular.  School principals have as much right to speak their minds as do cashiers. 

Be honest, how would you have reacted if Principal Riley were fired for supporting BLM?  There are places in America that would like to see that happen to BLM supporters (see out friend Mahagonny's reaction above).

Not only that, but this move will hurt BLM.  I guarantee the conservative websites are jumping all over this----Windsor just gave hardcore, sectarian conservatives exactly what they want.  BLM just lost.

There was a time within living memory that people could be openly fired for being gay or publicly supporting communism, and the reasons were very much the same as you just stated----we may be returning to just these sorts of mentality.  Very frightening.

I support BLM.  I do not support people who take their good message too far.

[marshwiggle]

What We Believe


We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement

If you really do teach college you will have the intellect and perspicacity to see where you have distorted what the website says.

You highlighted the part after this, but not this. What is the "nuclear family structure requirement", and why is it inherently "Western"? And what does it mean to "disrupt" the "requirement"? If most people drink coffee for breakfast, I doubt many people would call opening a tea shop "disruptive". Recognizing alternatives isn't disruptive by nature; it's only disruptive when there's some effort to undermine.

[mahagonny]

What We Believe


We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement

If you really do teach college you will have the intellect and perspicacity to see where you have distorted what the website says.

You highlighted the part after this, but not this. What is the "nuclear family structure requirement", and why is it inherently "Western"? And what does it mean to "disrupt" the "requirement"? If most people drink coffee for breakfast, I doubt many people would call opening a tea shop "disruptive". Recognizing alternatives isn't disruptive by nature; it's only disruptive when there's some effort to undermine.

I suspect that it's already known that children born out of wedlock and fatherless homes are such an epidemic that the 'disruption' is fait accompli. What they are attempting to do now is put a positive spin on it by implying "sure, there's a huge deficit in regular families, but we have a replacement. The community-family.' Which is a pipe dream. What works for white America will also work for black America. The nuclear family. Kids' lives matter. And that's why BLM  is off on the wrong trolley.

[marshwiggle]

What We Believe


We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement

If you really do teach college you will have the intellect and perspicacity to see where you have distorted what the website says.

You highlighted the part after this, but not this. What is the "nuclear family structure requirement", and why is it inherently "Western"? And what does it mean to "disrupt" the "requirement"? If most people drink coffee for breakfast, I doubt many people would call opening a tea shop "disruptive". Recognizing alternatives isn't disruptive by nature; it's only disruptive when there's some effort to undermine.

I suspect that it's already known that children born out of wedlock and fatherless homes are such an epidemic that the 'disruption' is fait accompli. What they are attempting to do now is put a positive spin on it by implying "sure, there's a huge deficit in regular families, but we have a replacement. The community-family.' Which is a pipe dream. What works for white America will also work for black America. The nuclear family. Kids' lives matter. And that's why BLM  is off on the wrong trolley.

And historically did work for black families.

The family structure of African Americans has long been a matter of national public policy interest. A 1965 report by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, known as The Moynihan Report, examined the link between black poverty and family structure. It hypothesized that the destruction of the black nuclear family structure would hinder further progress toward economic and political equality.

When Moynihan wrote in 1965 on the coming destruction of the black family, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was 25% among blacks. In 1991, 68% of black children were born outside of marriage. In 2011, 72% of black babies were born to unmarried mothers. In 2015, 77% of black babies were born to unmarried mothers.

[Caracal]

[

Her comments were relatively mild, in the first place, and did not demonstrate any valid reasons to indicate she behaves unfairly toward anyone.  She does not appear to understand BLM, but her opinion is her right.

In the second place, we are on very dangerous ground.  We are edging into territory in which our private lives are dictated by our employers, and in this case a public employer.  Think about it: Institutions can tell us what to say and what not to say when we are not on the job.  That's frightening.  America has always prided itself on the ability of its citizens to express themselves, even if that opinion is unpopular.  School principals have as much right to speak their minds as do cashiers. 

Well, there never has been a right to not face consequences for speech. Those consequences just can't involve prosecution by the government in most circumstances. I agree that the principal's remarks weren't particularly egregious, but as Kay points out, she is in a position of authority and trust. If you're the principal of a school and you say something that most students, parents and alumni think is incredibly tone deaf and ignorant about an issue important to them, it is going to be really hard to do your job effectively.

[mahagonny]

Her comments were relatively mild, in the first place, and did not demonstrate any valid reasons to indicate she behaves unfairly toward anyone.  She does not appear to understand BLM, but her opinion is her right.

In the second place, we are on very dangerous ground.  We are edging into territory in which our private lives are dictated by our employers, and in this case a public employer.  Think about it: Institutions can tell us what to say and what not to say when we are not on the job.  That's frightening.  America has always prided itself on the ability of its citizens to express themselves, even if that opinion is unpopular.  School principals have as much right to speak their minds as do cashiers. 

Well, there never has been a right to not face consequences for speech. Those consequences just can't involve prosecution by the government in most circumstances. I agree that the principal's remarks weren't particularly egregious, but as Kay points out, she is in a position of authority and trust. If you're the principal of a school and you say something that most students, parents and alumni think is incredibly tone deaf and ignorant about an issue important to them, it is going to be really hard to do your job effectively.

You've just defined mob rule and letting people get ostracized for not conforming.
If the goal were to enable her to do her job effectively, then the logical thing to do would be to remind people that while the Black Lives Matter and its stated agenda have the support of many in the community, it is not a requirement of her job to support and nurture the success and inclusion of Black Americans in the specific ways that that organization prescribes.
But that's not the goal. The goal is to help get a good head of steam for the revolution. Yeaahhh!!! (channelling Howard Dean).

[Caracal]

If the goal were to enable her to do her job effectively, then the logical thing to do would be to remind people that while the Black Lives Matter and its stated agenda have the support of many in the community, it is not a requirement of her job to support and nurture the success and inclusion of Black Americans in the specific ways that that organization prescribes.

You don't get to decide what other people find acceptable in their leadership. Would a department chair be able to operate effectively if he was a vocal holocaust denier? If the director of my kid's day care was always posting about how George Soros was operating a conspiracy against America, I wouldn't be ok with that. If enough other people felt the same way, they'd probably be fired.

[marshwiggle]

If the goal were to enable her to do her job effectively, then the logical thing to do would be to remind people that while the Black Lives Matter and its stated agenda have the support of many in the community, it is not a requirement of her job to support and nurture the success and inclusion of Black Americans in the specific ways that that organization prescribes.

You don't get to decide what other people find acceptable in their leadership. Would a department chair be able to operate effectively if he was a vocal holocaust denier? If the director of my kid's day care was always posting about how George Soros was operating a conspiracy against America, I wouldn't be ok with that. If enough other people felt the same way, they'd probably be fired.

But as  Wahoo said,

Be honest, how would you have reacted if Principal Riley were fired for supporting BLM?  There are places in America that would like to see that happen to BLM supporters .

Would you be as sanguine about that situation?

[tuxthepenguin]

WRT the now-fired principal, had she been a Walmart cashier and made these sorts of remarks, she may have been fired.   But public school principals are public figures, and must not make divisive remarks that serve no purpose and may well indicate racism on line.   She will lose the confidence of her community, especially in a bright bright bright blue place like Vermont.  She has no tenure, further, and no right to maintain her position once her remarks demonstrate valid reasons to suspect she may be less than fair in her treatment of all her students and families.

Gotta disagree.

Her comments were relatively mild, in the first place, and did not demonstrate any valid reasons to indicate she behaves unfairly toward anyone.  She does not appear to understand BLM, but her opinion is her right.

In the second place, we are on very dangerous ground.  We are edging into territory in which our private lives are dictated by our employers, and in this case a public employer.  Think about it: Institutions can tell us what to say and what not to say when we are not on the job.  That's frightening.  America has always prided itself on the ability of its citizens to express themselves, even if that opinion is unpopular.  School principals have as much right to speak their minds as do cashiers. 

I almost agree with you. If something like "race relations" is a big part of the job, statements like this can indicate potential bias or ignorance that would prevent you from properly doing your job, so firing is a perfectly acceptable outcome. I don't see how that applies in this particular case, but it's possible to construct theoretical scenarios in which her firing was not completely insane. I also disagree that this didn't happen in the past. See, among others, Dalton Trumbo.

[apl68]

I support BLM.  I do not support people who take their good message too far.

I support it in principle also.  A majority of Americans have come to support police reform.  A majority of Americans have come to acknowledge that racism is still a serious problem in our society.  That's a huge win in terms of raising awareness and support.

But I am deeply concerned that the growing radicalism of so many BLM supporters and their demands is going to damage the chances of getting the reforms we need.  The ongoing nightly riots and near-riots in certain cities are already damaging support for police reforms.  I personally can't endorse BLM as a movement despite my sympathy for their initial goals, because they speak of "abolition" instead of reform, and their leadership seems to have moved far to the left on many other issues. 

Just one example of how BLM has been hijacked.  In recent days vandals have been spray painting all over graves at our state's largest Confederate Civil War cemetery.  Prominent among the messages has been "Black Lives Matter."  Isn't cemetery vandalism considered a hate crime?  Yet in the minds of a growing number of people--people who have ancestors buried in this cemetery--BLM is now being associated with this kind of hate.  I suspect that there have been other incidents like this in other states as well.

[Wahoo Redux]

What We Believe


We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement

If you really do teach college you will have the intellect and perspicacity to see where you have distorted what the website says.

You highlighted the part after this, but not this. What is the "nuclear family structure requirement", and why is it inherently "Western"? And what does it mean to "disrupt" the "requirement"? If most people drink coffee for breakfast, I doubt many people would call opening a tea shop "disruptive". Recognizing alternatives isn't disruptive by nature; it's only disruptive when there's some effort to undermine.

I suspect that it's already known that children born out of wedlock and fatherless homes are such an epidemic that the 'disruption' is fait accompli. What they are attempting to do now is put a positive spin on it by implying "sure, there's a huge deficit in regular families, but we have a replacement. The community-family.' Which is a pipe dream. What works for white America will also work for black America. The nuclear family. Kids' lives matter. And that's why BLM  is off on the wrong trolley.

And historically did work for black families.

The family structure of African Americans has long been a matter of national public policy interest. A 1965 report by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, known as The Moynihan Report, examined the link between black poverty and family structure. It hypothesized that the destruction of the black nuclear family structure would hinder further progress toward economic and political equality.

When Moynihan wrote in 1965 on the coming destruction of the black family, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was 25% among blacks. In 1991, 68% of black children were born outside of marriage. In 2011, 72% of black babies were born to unmarried mothers. In 2015, 77% of black babies were born to unmarried mothers.

Come on, kids.  That is not what they are saying.  I highlighted everything and underlined further to make sure the context is clear.  You are the ones cherry-picking and taking out of context.

Academics, of all people, should not do that.

[Wahoo Redux]

WRT the now-fired principal, had she been a Walmart cashier and made these sorts of remarks, she may have been fired.   But public school principals are public figures, and must not make divisive remarks that serve no purpose and may well indicate racism on line.   She will lose the confidence of her community, especially in a bright bright bright blue place like Vermont.  She has no tenure, further, and no right to maintain her position once her remarks demonstrate valid reasons to suspect she may be less than fair in her treatment of all her students and families.

Gotta disagree.

Her comments were relatively mild, in the first place, and did not demonstrate any valid reasons to indicate she behaves unfairly toward anyone.  She does not appear to understand BLM, but her opinion is her right.

In the second place, we are on very dangerous ground.  We are edging into territory in which our private lives are dictated by our employers, and in this case a public employer.  Think about it: Institutions can tell us what to say and what not to say when we are not on the job.  That's frightening.  America has always prided itself on the ability of its citizens to express themselves, even if that opinion is unpopular.  School principals have as much right to speak their minds as do cashiers. 

I almost agree with you. If something like "race relations" is a big part of the job, statements like this can indicate potential bias or ignorance that would prevent you from properly doing your job, so firing is a perfectly acceptable outcome. I don't see how that applies in this particular case, but it's possible to construct theoretical scenarios in which her firing was not completely insane. I also disagree that this didn't happen in the past. See, among others, Dalton Trumbo.

The line goes both ways, though.

At what point do we decide that someone has indicated a potential bias?  What is a correct philosophy or persona?  If a Facebook post expressing a political opinion (and BLM is political) can get one fired, we are sneaking toward an Orwellian culture.  As apl68 pointe out, there may be some reasons to question BLM.

Dalton Trumbo is indeed a perfect example.  As I said, we are on very thin ice here.   

And, again as apl68 just posted, BLM is destroying its own base through radicalism and zealotry.  FOX news and Breitbart just got new headlines. 

More importantly: Should apl68 now lose hu's job if someone finds out who apl68 really is?   

[Caracal]

If the goal were to enable her to do her job effectively, then the logical thing to do would be to remind people that while the Black Lives Matter and its stated agenda have the support of many in the community, it is not a requirement of her job to support and nurture the success and inclusion of Black Americans in the specific ways that that organization prescribes.

You don't get to decide what other people find acceptable in their leadership. Would a department chair be able to operate effectively if he was a vocal holocaust denier? If the director of my kid's day care was always posting about how George Soros was operating a conspiracy against America, I wouldn't be ok with that. If enough other people felt the same way, they'd probably be fired.

But as  Wahoo said,

Be honest, how would you have reacted if Principal Riley were fired for supporting BLM?  There are places in America that would like to see that happen to BLM supporters .

Would you be as sanguine about that situation?

Sanguine? No, I'd probably disagree with it, although it would depend on what was said. Even if the move was popular in the local community, there might be a lot of blowback. Again, there isn't some clear rule about what exactly is and isn't considered acceptable, nor is there any way to make one. I don't think the principals statement was akin to posting "black lives matter" and I think it betrays real ignorance, obviously there are various people on here who disagree.

From a legal standpoint, courts have mostly taken this view too, rather than trying to find some consistent standard. Public employees' speech is protected, in most cases, if they are commenting on matters of public concern. However, courts have held that speech is only protected when "the interest of the employee as a citizen, in commenting on matters of public concern, outweighs the employer's interest in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees."