Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[jimbogumbo]

I would say in the context of a custody battle it was way more than tone deaf.

In court? In the presence of lawyers? Sure. In a one-on-one conversation? The tone of that conversation is completely defined by the relationship, and anything that is said will be interpreted according to that, no matter what language is used.

I am not a member of SCOTUS or any other legal organization. Of course I meant in court, and if You read the articles the reporting clearly states the custodial relationship is adversarial. So, protest all you want but this is not a team of endearment in that family, and Looney stated that in several places.

[Wahoo Redux]

I would say in the context of a custody battle it was way more than tone deaf.

In court? In the presence of lawyers? Sure. In a one-on-one conversation? The tone of that conversation is completely defined by the relationship, and anything that is said will be interpreted according to that, no matter what language is used.

He was stupid.

And his vindictive ex burned him but good with his stupidity and the zeitgeist.

I sure feel sorry for the daughters.

[smallcleanrat]

In this case, however, I believe U of M issued a statement that these were events off-campus and therefore there were no Title IX or campus issues so no action was to be taken----and good for them!  Looney temporarily stepped down on his own because of student protest. 

[...]

Free speech has consequences.  And for the record, I think Looney was well named for being a looney, moronic, racist, tone-deaf dumbass...but should the students have the ability to hound him from his job?...I dunno...

Agree that the university made the right decision, but not sure what you mean by the last bit.

What specific 'abilities' should be curtailed and under whose authority?

Not saying the students were in the right, but also not sure what specific student actions one could point to and say "That should not be allowed." by law or by university policy.

Direct harassment (stalking, doxxing, vandalism, threats of violence, etc.) has not been mentioned, so I'm working off the assumption Looney was not subjected to such. There's no mention even of him directly getting nasty messages from students.

Based on the reporting on this story, student actions have been:
(1) Notifying admins of the existence of the screenshots/video (which a non-student made publicly available)
(2) A protest on campus
(3) An online petition

Should any of these actions have been banned or resulted in disciplinary measures against the students?

[Wahoo Redux]

In this case, however, I believe U of M issued a statement that these were events off-campus and therefore there were no Title IX or campus issues so no action was to be taken----and good for them!  Looney temporarily stepped down on his own because of student protest. 

[...]

Free speech has consequences.  And for the record, I think Looney was well named for being a looney, moronic, racist, tone-deaf dumbass...but should the students have the ability to hound him from his job?...I dunno...

Agree that the university made the right decision, but not sure what you mean by the last bit.

Well, it is pretty easy, actually.  While the university did the right thing in refusing to sanction the professor for off-campus behavior, the students have the right to voice their concerns----even if they are a bit melodramatic.  Looney took leave of his own accord because of his actions when his poor judgment and sublimated racism were brought to light.  In other words, rightly or wrongly, the professor brought this on himself.

At the same time, the guy is not one of these torchlight neo-Nazis who parade around screaming racist obscenities, so his punishment does not seem to fit the crime.

There is this frontier-style justice with the Internet which is not always wrong (anyone remember Brock Turner?) but is often intemperate and hysterical.

It's a conundrum. 

[marshwiggle]

I would say in the context of a custody battle it was way more than tone deaf.

In court? In the presence of lawyers? Sure. In a one-on-one conversation? The tone of that conversation is completely defined by the relationship, and anything that is said will be interpreted according to that, no matter what language is used.

I am not a member of SCOTUS or any other legal organization. Of course I meant in court, and if You read the articles the reporting clearly states the custodial relationship is adversarial.

I meant that if he made those comments in court, or in the presence of lawyers, it would have been extremely stupid and bad for his case. People who are angry with each other say things all the time like "drop dead" but those aren't treated like actual death threats in court, no matter how angry the person was who said them, unless they are followed by some sort of action indicative of criminal intent.

The fact that private communications between individuals totally unrelated to the work environment of one of them was used by a third party who had no connection to the accused person in the work environment to try to get the person fired is very worrying.

Thoughtcrime is very close to a reality.

[jimbogumbo]

I would say in the context of a custody battle it was way more than tone deaf.

In court? In the presence of lawyers? Sure. In a one-on-one conversation? The tone of that conversation is completely defined by the relationship, and anything that is said will be interpreted according to that, no matter what language is used.

I am not a member of SCOTUS or any other legal organization. Of course I meant in court, and if You read the articles the reporting clearly states the custodial relationship is adversarial.

I meant that if he made those comments in court, or in the presence of lawyers, it would have been extremely stupid and bad for his case. People who are angry with each other say things all the time like "drop dead" but those aren't treated like actual death threats in court, no matter how angry the person was who said them, unless they are followed by some sort of action indicative of criminal intent.

The fact that private communications between individuals totally unrelated to the work environment of one of them was used by a third party who had no connection to the accused person in the work environment to try to get the person fired is very worrying.

Thoughtcrime is very close to a reality.

marshwiggle, you post as though you aren't really up on the US legal system. He is not in court the way you are using the term I think. He is in Family Court. Having some experience with family members and reading a lot, it is a whole different concept. He is not being tried; the discussion is centered solely on fitness for custody, visitation rights, in addition to financial responsibility for care and child rearing expenses. Please trust that his words will be considered sole in that context in the court I'm referring to, and almost certainly will hurt him badly.

[Wahoo Redux]

CHE: Professor's career jeopardized by protest (and watching the video it seems appropriate to me).

The Professor and the Protester

[Wahoo Redux]

CHE: State of Conflict: How a tiny protest at the U. of Nebraska turned into a proxy war for the future of campus politics


State of Conflict]

Over the next few months, Nebraska would become the next front of a battle over what kinds of speech should be tolerated on a college campus. It was a case study in the politics of provocation and the increasingly fraught relationship between state universities and the public they serve. What started as a brief verbal clash between two women on a campus plaza ended with a drawn-out standoff between powerful institutions over what a state, and its people, should stand for.

[Wahoo Redux]

CHE: A University Resisted Pressure to Cancel a Controversial Speaker. But It Moved the Event Online.


Controversal Speaker Moved Online]

[jimbogumbo]

Wahoo: would you say a little bit more about the first one you just posted?

[Wahoo Redux]

Wahoo: would you say a little bit more about the first one you just posted?

D'oh!!!

OMG!!!  That link was a post for my class on "Things Fall Apart!"  My sucky university-issued computer apparently held onto the url for that presentation.

Geeze!

Apologies all.

What I meant to post was this:

https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-professor-and-the-protester

[jimbogumbo]

Thank God! I thought I might have permanent brain fog.

[Wahoo Redux]

Thank God! I thought I might have permanent brain fog.

Afraid the brain fog is mine...

[mahagonny]

Sounds to me like Oliver Baker tried to grab the sign from the counter-protester, a struggle ensued and the two of them fell to the ground, resulting in a bloody nose for the student, but there's no video evidence showing that and none of the protesters would tell the truth about what happened, because they hate the counter protester. They are a worked up mob. So the charges were either dismissed or the defendant was acquitted. The counter protester and the protesters already knew each other before that day and had argued, likely.

[marshwiggle]

The very sad underlying principle in all of these is that civility is viewed as some sort of moral failure by activists on all sides of issues. Two-year olds have tantrums; developing self-control takes a lot of time and work. Unfortunately, we live in a society where actions by someone on the right "side", (whatever that is), are lauded even when they are extreme, and by people who should know better, like educators, journalists, and politicians.