Campus Speech Issues: USC and Juanita College

[Golazo]

I'm surprised this hasn't made it to the fora:

USC: A professor is suspended for saying a Chinese word that sounds (somewhat) like the N word in a conversation about intercultural communication where the example was very appropriate to the topic at hand (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/08/professor-suspended-saying-chinese-word-sounds-english-slur)
Juanita College: A professor who argues that his colleges' reopening plan risks people dying is given an official reprimand (https://www.chronicle.com/article/this-tenured-professor-said-his-colleges-reopening-plans-risked-deaths-thats-now-in-his-personnel-file).

Both highly problematic, one an example of how far we have gone in terms of left SJW speech policing, the other a classic case of administrative crackdown.

In many ways this environment makes me glad I am at a public university where the 1st Amendment applies to my employer.

[Parasaurolophus]

I agree that they're problematic cases.

I don't think the first is an instance of 'left SJWing', however. We have no indications that the students in question are leftists (as business students, I doubt they're especially lefty) or motivated by concerns about social justice (which, incidentally, is not a bad word or thing). Instead, the evidence we have is that they're ignorant.

(That said, I can imagine situations where a prof's use of the Chinese word is actually problematic, such as one in which he's clearly using it as cover for the n word. But I see no indication that was the case.)

Edit: I see the detail now (which wasn't in other reports) that their letter mentioned Floyd and BLM. Fair enough. I still don't think this is indicative of anything more sinister than ignorance. And if you want to talk about censorship of speech, there's way more serious and pervasive stuff out there to worry about.

[Wahoo Redux]

We have entered an era of hysterical institutional overreach. 

And we've seen several versions of this overreach commented upon already.

The term "SJW" has taken on pejorative connotations because of just exactly this sort of militant reaction.

It makes the academy look bad, liberals look bad, students look bad, and the poor dorks who don't know this is coming look bad.

I think we need more free speech protections.

[Wahoo Redux]

Duquesne prof suspended.

Duquesne bites donkey balls, but still.

[spork]

USC repeatedly sounds like a cesspool. Admissions through bribery and fraud. Tyndall's years-long commission of sexual assaults on students, swept under the rug. Medical school dean doing drugs with prostitutes. Etc. But a professor who says an extremely common Chinese word during a course on inter-cultural communication in business? No, absolutely can't have that.

[marshwiggle]

I agree that they're problematic cases.

I don't think the first is an instance of 'left SJWing', however. We have no indications that the students in question are leftists (as business students, I doubt they're especially lefty) or motivated by concerns about social justice (which, incidentally, is not a bad word or thing). Instead, the evidence we have is that they're ignorant.

(That said, I can imagine situations where a prof's use of the Chinese word is actually problematic, such as one in which he's clearly using it as cover for the n word. But I see no indication that was the case.)

Edit: I see the detail now (which wasn't in other reports) that their letter mentioned Floyd and BLM. Fair enough. I still don't think this is indicative of anything more sinister than ignorance. And if you want to talk about censorship of speech, there's way more serious and pervasive stuff out there to worry about.

"Mentioned"? From the article:

"The way we heard it in class was indicative of a much more hurtful word with tremendous implications for the Black community," wrote the students, who identified themselves as Black M.B.A. Candidates c/o 2022.

The first statement the article attributes to the students is very militant.

Later

The Black students' letter says that "in light of the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor and the recent and continued collective protests and social awakening across the nation, we cannot let this stand."

This kind of uncompromising approach allows for nothing short of outright capitulation.

What's "sinister" (and as a left-handed person, I find that term offensive; how dare you!!!), is the total lack of spine among administrators to throw people under the bus for any perceived slight of the offense mob.

[Wahoo Redux]

Professor reinstated after being suspended for perceived slight.

People wouldn't need to be overly-sensitive and easily provoked if certain other people stopped thinking like bigots, Marshy.  One can still be paranoid even if they really are after you.  We have this knee-jerk reaction in culture because we have so many jerks who really do harbor the worst kind of thinking.  Higher ed just polices itself hysterically. This didn't come out of thin air.

[Caracal]

Suspending a professor seems like the wrong response. However, I'm not sure the lesson here is really that hysterical, dumb students have taken over. If the student's version of events is true, the guy didn't handle this well at all. It wasn't simply that he used the phrase once. He seems to have said it again and again over multiple lectures. That seems more than a little clueless. Generally, I'd say it is good to avoid saying things over and over that sound like racial slurs. I've definitely used the word "niggardly" in class before without thinking about it. There's nothing terrible about that since it has no linguistic connection to the slur, but if it was my favorite adjective in class, it might be reasonable for some students to wonder if something was up, or if I was trying to make some kind of point.

If the students really told him that it sounded to them like he was using the slur, it isn't great that he kept saying it. If I was saying something in class and students came up to me afterwards to tell me it really sounded like a different offensive word I wasn't trying to say, I'd be pretty horrified. I certainly wouldn't just keep on saying it for my next class. Probably, there's a lot of misunderstandings at play here, and a competent dean would have brought everyone into his office separately, tried to figure out what the heck was happening and then brought the students and the teacher into a meeting where he could straighten things out.

[tuxthepenguin]

Suspending a professor seems like the wrong response. However, I'm not sure the lesson here is really that hysterical, dumb students have taken over. If the student's version of events is true, the guy didn't handle this well at all. It wasn't simply that he used the phrase once. He seems to have said it again and again over multiple lectures. That seems more than a little clueless. Generally, I'd say it is good to avoid saying things over and over that sound like racial slurs. I've definitely used the word "niggardly" in class before without thinking about it. There's nothing terrible about that since it has no linguistic connection to the slur, but if it was my favorite adjective in class, it might be reasonable for some students to wonder if something was up, or if I was trying to make some kind of point.

If the students really told him that it sounded to them like he was using the slur, it isn't great that he kept saying it. If I was saying something in class and students came up to me afterwards to tell me it really sounded like a different offensive word I wasn't trying to say, I'd be pretty horrified. I certainly wouldn't just keep on saying it for my next class. Probably, there's a lot of misunderstandings at play here, and a competent dean would have brought everyone into his office separately, tried to figure out what the heck was happening and then brought the students and the teacher into a meeting where he could straighten things out.

No, that's not it at all. The students that complained are themselves borderline racists. They have no respect for other cultures and other people if they don't want the Chinese language spoken on campus. Those that defend their request are trying too hard to do (something, not sure what).

[Caracal]

Suspending a professor seems like the wrong response. However, I'm not sure the lesson here is really that hysterical, dumb students have taken over. If the student's version of events is true, the guy didn't handle this well at all. It wasn't simply that he used the phrase once. He seems to have said it again and again over multiple lectures. That seems more than a little clueless. Generally, I'd say it is good to avoid saying things over and over that sound like racial slurs. I've definitely used the word "niggardly" in class before without thinking about it. There's nothing terrible about that since it has no linguistic connection to the slur, but if it was my favorite adjective in class, it might be reasonable for some students to wonder if something was up, or if I was trying to make some kind of point.

If the students really told him that it sounded to them like he was using the slur, it isn't great that he kept saying it. If I was saying something in class and students came up to me afterwards to tell me it really sounded like a different offensive word I wasn't trying to say, I'd be pretty horrified. I certainly wouldn't just keep on saying it for my next class. Probably, there's a lot of misunderstandings at play here, and a competent dean would have brought everyone into his office separately, tried to figure out what the heck was happening and then brought the students and the teacher into a meeting where he could straighten things out.

No, that's not it at all. The students that complained are themselves borderline racists. They have no respect for other cultures and other people if they don't want the Chinese language spoken on campus.

Well, that's a bizarre take.

[marshwiggle]

Professor reinstated after being suspended for perceived slight.

People wouldn't need to be overly-sensitive and easily provoked if certain other people stopped thinking like bigots, Marshy.  One can still be paranoid even if they really are after you.  We have this knee-jerk reaction in culture because we have so many jerks who really do harbor the worst kind of thinking.  Higher ed just polices itself hysterically. This didn't come out of thin air.

If you don't think left-handed people have legitimate, long-standing grievances, you're a bigot. I invite anyone left-handed here to give examples of ways the world is unfair. They are legion.

The point is, being outraged about things is not productive, and accusing people of bad intent unjustly actually gets in the way of trying to improve the situation since the focus shifts from ways to make things better to whether animosity is the cause.

[Parasaurolophus]

The point is, being outraged about things is not productive, and accusing people of bad intent unjustly actually gets in the way of trying to improve the situation since the focus shifts from ways to make things better to whether animosity is the cause.

By parity of reasoning, you shouldn't be so quick to accuse "leftist SJWs" of bad intent, since that gets in the way of trying to improve the situation and shifts the focus away from ways to make things better to whether "leftist SJW animosity" is the cause. And yet...

The students' intentions here are not bad. But they're poorly informed dolts (frankly, given the subject, I'm not surprised). And the effect they've generated--despite their good intentions--is a bad one. That's why I'm not defending them: they're wrong, despite their good intentions.

The lesson you should be drawing, marshy, is that intentions are often beside the point. Where racism is concerned, intention is a sufficient, but not a necessary, condition: people are much less concerned about intentions than they are harmful (racist) effects. Indeed, quite a lot of racist policies--and I mean blatantly racist policies--have been and are carried out with the best of intentions in mind, but that didn't and doesn't stop them from being racist.

You're fully capable of drawing this lesson in one direction--indeed, you do draw it--but refuse to also draw it in the other.

[marshwiggle]

The point is, being outraged about things is not productive, and accusing people of bad intent unjustly actually gets in the way of trying to improve the situation since the focus shifts from ways to make things better to whether animosity is the cause.

By parity of reasoning, you shouldn't be so quick to accuse "leftist SJWs" of bad intent, since that gets in the way of trying to improve the situation and shifts the focus away from ways to make things better to whether "leftist SJW animosity" is the cause. And yet...

The students' intentions here are not bad. But they're poorly informed dolts (frankly, given the subject, I'm not surprised). And the effect they've generated--despite their good intentions--is a bad one. That's why I'm not defending them: they're wrong, despite their good intentions.

The lesson you should be drawing, marshy, is that intentions are often beside the point. Where racism is concerned, intention is a sufficient, but not a necessary, condition: people are much less concerned about intentions than they are harmful (racist) effects. Indeed, quite a lot of racist policies--and I mean blatantly racist policies--have been and are carried out with the best of intentions in mind, but that didn't and doesn't stop them from being racist.

You're fully capable of drawing this lesson in one direction--indeed, you do draw it--but refuse to also draw it in the other.

Their motivations may be OK, but their intentions aren't. Trying to get someone fired for saying something you don't like is bad for society. All kinds of extremist behaviour may be prompted by decent, or even noble, sentiments, but if the outcomes desired are out of proportion, then the intent is bad.

Intention
Description
Description
Intention is a mental state that represents a commitment to carrying out an action or actions in the future. Intention involves mental activities such as planning and forethought. Wikipedia

[apl68]

I agree that they're problematic cases.

I don't think the first is an instance of 'left SJWing', however. We have no indications that the students in question are leftists (as business students, I doubt they're especially lefty) or motivated by concerns about social justice (which, incidentally, is not a bad word or thing). Instead, the evidence we have is that they're ignorant.

(That said, I can imagine situations where a prof's use of the Chinese word is actually problematic, such as one in which he's clearly using it as cover for the n word. But I see no indication that was the case.)

Edit: I see the detail now (which wasn't in other reports) that their letter mentioned Floyd and BLM. Fair enough. I still don't think this is indicative of anything more sinister than ignorance. And if you want to talk about censorship of speech, there's way more serious and pervasive stuff out there to worry about.

Probably ignorance, all right.  In recent years the perfectly respectable, but now obscure, word "niggardly" has gotten people into serious trouble due to similar ignorant misunderstandings.  I for one would not dare to use it now (Plus "stingy" works just as well). 

It's still disturbing that simple ignorant misunderstandings can result in such extreme reactions.  Things like this are evidence of a dangerously high-tension climate, and slinging matches of the "Your side's worse!" variety--what this thread instantly and predictably declined into--aren't helping things one bit.

[Parasaurolophus]

Their motivations may be OK, but their intentions aren't. Trying to get someone fired for saying something you don't like is bad for society. All kinds of extremist behaviour may be prompted by decent, or even noble, sentiments, but if the outcomes desired are out of proportion, then the intent is bad.

The problem with ordinary language is that it's not very precise, and we don't typically use its terms in especially regimented ways. An awful lot of this hair-splitting hangs on how we describe the actions in question. When I try to move my arm, for instance, I intend to move my arm. I don't explicitly intend to send an action potential through the nervous system to the motor neurons that innervate the relevant muscle fibre, although of course that's what I do. It's not wrong to say that I intentionally send an action potential... etc., although depending on our conversational purposes, it may be misleading to describe it that way.

In this case, I think that the charitable explanation of what's going on is not that they're trying to get someone fired for saying something they don't like; they're trying to get someone to stop using a racial slur, improve the classroom or university climate for Black people, or something to that effect. And they're wrong about it, and being wrong about it makes them culpable.


But let's suppose you don't buy any of what I just said. That's OK. Just remember that, by your own lights, the cops' motivation for shooting an unarmed Black man may be good, but their intent isn't, since "the outcome desired is out of proportion". Now, I know you don't accept that, but by parity of reasoning you should.

I can settle for either one--I don't need to quibble about the distinction you're trying to draw between motivation and intention. But consistency would be nice.