Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[mahagonny]

Consider this scenario.

When I get class lists, I can view them with or without information about what program each student is in. For years, I have avoided looking at that information to avoid any potential unconscious bias on my part; for instance, favouring students in the major over others. Suppose that after a course is over, and grades have been submitted, I decide to view that information and it turns out that all of the students in the Spoonbending program wound up in the bottom 20% of my class. I pass this information on to the chair, and possibly our academic advisor, and possibly even the chair of the Spoonbending department so that we can figure out if there's something going on that we can improve. If this information gets out into the wild, Spoonbending students see it, and get it written up in the student newspaper about the discrimination against Spoonbending students in my Basketweaving course. They call for my apology, or preferably firing. ("Because I said Spoonbending students were stupid".)

Should I be required to apologize? Should I be fired? (If so, what was my offense?) What if Spoonbending takes in a higher percentage of some identifiable group than Basketweaving?

In our current climate, increasingly people are being fired because someone felt hurt; not because of what the people actually did.

You've just given a clear example of what well-above-average scholar Writingprof observed: it is now considered bigoted to notice something going on in your midst if your speaking aloud about it is offensive (unpleasant) for someone to hear, relating to matters of race or people belonging to groups identified as marginalized. (Aside from other implications, are we going to create a world where nothing unpleasant may be experienced?)
A professor who has black students at the bottom of the class, regularly, has a problem she doesn't deserve, namely that eventually someone will notice and she'll be call racist just for doing her job. Whereas, since she's not racist, the situation drives her crazy, as she stated.* That's why the Georgetown Law school adjunct professor (adjunct) could have been defended by the tenured faculty and, instead of the stupid mess they have now, a situation could be brought to light and headed for resolution, or alternatively, understood as not great, but acceptable. And even though she apologized, they let her twist in the wind.
Why I'm not a fan of tenure; they neglect bad situations and mistreatment of  individuals that tenure is purported to protect the institution from.

I could get fired from some of the things posted on the anonymous message board, so could Mahagony.

Thanks for the compliment! If you can't step outside groupthink there doesn't need to be a forum. Probably why writing prof left though...sad.

*she doesn't give grades; she merely records the results of the students' activity (or lack thereof)

Anyway, I still say, follow the money. Academics are in the oppression analyzing business. The more oppression there is in our culture, the higher their stock price. Why I don't expect much from this discussion, frankly.

[Wahoo Redux]

To be clear, I'm with Caracal here. It's just that to the extent the problem does exist--and I think it's fairly limited--the media narrative has the wrong end of the goat here.

We always blame the media which is, yes, sensationalistic but reports on what is happening in the world.  Legitimate sources fact-check, so even if editors have the impulse to follow a certain lead, facts are facts.

There are a number of Op-eds about this subject----which is a whole different can of worms.

I don't think you can really say that this conundrum is merely a "media narrative."  The proof is only a Google search away, and, yes, I would argue that Google searches are a legitimate way to gage what is happening in the world.  And there is a lot on Google; I stopped cutting-n-pasting after the 4th page.

I looked in Ebscohost for hard numbers and did not find any immediately, and with a glut of grading and prep and writing to do, I don't think I will search very hard at the moment.  But I do find a number of academic articles about the subject, which further suggests the depth of the issue.  Perhaps someone who is more tuned to social science research can find something specific.

We all want to fight bigotry in all its forms, so we resist anything that is critical of the fight.

If we pretend this is not a dangerous zeitgeist, and this wave of firings is not a symptom, I will mention a real life scenario: Our department has a minority faculty whose tenure bid was extended because of COVID.  Everyone is very relieved because this good person simply has not done the necessary work to receive tenure.  I have been urging my wife to vote for tenure no matter what happens.  We do not need accusations of racism.  We do not need our names or department launched into cyberspace with pictures of screaming students outside our building.  I don't know that that is what would happen, but still...

[marshwiggle]

If we pretend this is not a dangerous zeitgeist, and this wave of firings is not a symptom, I will mention a real life scenario: Our department has a minority faculty whose tenure bid was extended because of COVID.  Everyone is very relieved because this good person simply has not done the necessary work to receive tenure.  I have been urging my wife to vote for tenure no matter what happens.  We do not need accusations of racism.  We do not need our names or department launched into cyberspace with pictures of screaming students outside our building.  I don't know that that is what would happen, but still...

I recall hearing a potential juror for the Derek Chauvin case was worried about their family being at risk due to them serving on the jury. That's  the above scenario on steroids. When there is an outcome that can be seen before the deliberation even begins as being "unacceptable", then there's a serious problem.

[ergative]

To be clear, I'm with Caracal here. It's just that to the extent the problem does exist--and I think it's fairly limited--the media narrative has the wrong end of the goat here.

We always blame the media which is, yes, sensationalistic but reports on what is happening in the world.  Legitimate sources fact-check, so even if editors have the impulse to follow a certain lead, facts are facts.

There are a number of Op-eds about this subject----which is a whole different can of worms.

I don't think you can really say that this conundrum is merely a "media narrative."  The proof is only a Google search away, and, yes, I would argue that Google searches are a legitimate way to gage what is happening in the world.  And there is a lot on Google; I stopped cutting-n-pasting after the 4th page.

I looked in Ebscohost for hard numbers and did not find any immediately, and with a glut of grading and prep and writing to do, I don't think I will search very hard at the moment.  But I do find a number of academic articles about the subject, which further suggests the depth of the issue.  Perhaps someone who is more tuned to social science research can find something specific.

We all want to fight bigotry in all its forms, so we resist anything that is critical of the fight.

If we pretend this is not a dangerous zeitgeist, and this wave of firings is not a symptom, I will mention a real life scenario: Our department has a minority faculty whose tenure bid was extended because of COVID.  Everyone is very relieved because this good person simply has not done the necessary work to receive tenure.  I have been urging my wife to vote for tenure no matter what happens.  We do not need accusations of racism.  We do not need our names or department launched into cyberspace with pictures of screaming students outside our building.  I don't know that that is what would happen, but still...

If we accept that this is a dangerous zeitgeist, then we must also admit that it is no different a zeitgeist from previous zeitgeists, in which people could be fired for getting married, for getting pregnant, for being gay, for supporting gay people, for accepting a boss's advances, for rejecting a boss's advances, for having AIDs, for attending union meetings, for expressing support of union meetings, for being a communisst, for being accused of being a communist, for refusing to vow not to be a communist, [on edit] for serving on juries in which black people were accused of crimes  . .  .

I will grant that firing people for transgressing arbitrary societal norms in ways that don't hurt people is bad. But I will never grant that firing people for transgressing left-leaning societal norms is new and unique and worse than all the previous times when the same thing happened w/r/t right-leaning societal norms.

[eigen]

I just wanted to toss in here that I think it's amazingly ironic that the same people I grew up with who hosted book burnings of the Harry Potter books and boycotted the local library to have them banned when I was growing up are now the people decrying "cancel culture" attacking J.K. Rowling.

There's a current hysteria and hype surrounding "cancel culture", but I honestly can't see that it's any different than any other period in our society: it's just focusing on different things now.

Similarly, the same people who are currently upset about firings with causes they disagree with are the same people who have for years supported the idea that companies don't "owe" anyone a job and should be able to fire an employee for any reason. Again, the reality hasn't changed: what's changed is who is experiencing different parts of that reality.

[Wahoo Redux]

Agreed, there was a different zeitgeist before this one which, I think, was much worst than the current one which is trying hard to dismantle the worst leftovers from the previous zeitgeist and in typical human fashion (perhaps) taking it too far.

[ergative]

I just wanted to toss in here that I think it's amazingly ironic that the same people I grew up with who hosted book burnings of the Harry Potter books and boycotted the local library to have them banned when I was growing up are now the people decrying "cancel culture" attacking J.K. Rowling.

There's a current hysteria and hype surrounding "cancel culture", but I honestly can't see that it's any different than any other period in our society: it's just focusing on different things now.

Similarly, the same people who are currently upset about firings with causes they disagree with are the same people who have for years supported the idea that companies don't "owe" anyone a job and should be able to fire an employee for any reason. Again, the reality hasn't changed: what's changed is who is experiencing different parts of that reality.

Exactly.

[marshwiggle]

I just wanted to toss in here that I think it's amazingly ironic that the same people I grew up with who hosted book burnings of the Harry Potter books and boycotted the local library to have them banned when I was growing up are now the people decrying "cancel culture" attacking J.K. Rowling.

This is the point; the two sides have switched places. Now the people who derided the people burning Harry Potter books want to prevent people buying them, seeing the movies, etc.

The point isn't that this is worse, just that the hypocrisy is on both sides of the political spectrum. And this is why freedom speech as a principle is important, because a given person will quite likely find themselves on different sides of the issue during their lifetime.

[mahagonny]

I just wanted to toss in here that I think it's amazingly ironic that the same people I grew up with who hosted book burnings of the Harry Potter books and boycotted the local library to have them banned when I was growing up are now the people decrying "cancel culture" attacking J.K. Rowling.

This is the point; the two sides have switched places. Now the people who derided the people burning Harry Potter books want to prevent people buying them, seeing the movies, etc.

The point isn't that this is worse, just that the hypocrisy is on both sides of the political spectrum. And this is why freedom speech as a principle is important, because a given person will quite likely find themselves on different sides of the issue during their lifetime.

The thought process though is if one has tenure one is only on the winning side, always.

[eigen]

I just wanted to toss in here that I think it's amazingly ironic that the same people I grew up with who hosted book burnings of the Harry Potter books and boycotted the local library to have them banned when I was growing up are now the people decrying "cancel culture" attacking J.K. Rowling.

This is the point; the two sides have switched places. Now the people who derided the people burning Harry Potter books want to prevent people buying them, seeing the movies, etc.

The point isn't that this is worse, just that the hypocrisy is on both sides of the political spectrum. And this is why freedom speech as a principle is important, because a given person will quite likely find themselves on different sides of the issue during their lifetime.

The thought process though is if one has tenure one is only on the winning side, always.

It is really tiring that you beat this horse in every. single. thread. no matter whether it's related to the topic or not.

[eigen]

I just wanted to toss in here that I think it's amazingly ironic that the same people I grew up with who hosted book burnings of the Harry Potter books and boycotted the local library to have them banned when I was growing up are now the people decrying "cancel culture" attacking J.K. Rowling.

This is the point; the two sides have switched places. Now the people who derided the people burning Harry Potter books want to prevent people buying them, seeing the movies, etc.

The point isn't that this is worse, just that the hypocrisy is on both sides of the political spectrum. And this is why freedom speech as a principle is important, because a given person will quite likely find themselves on different sides of the issue during their lifetime.

See, that's the thing. Freedom of speech goes both ways: burning the Harry Potter books and boycotting the library for having them is, in fact, free speech. Calling out the author because you disagree with them and want to highlight to others why you think they are wrong is, in fact, free speech. Organizing boycots of something is both free speech and free association.

"cancel culture" is the work of the free market (people applying pressure by voting with their wallets), the result of people using their right to free speech, the result of employers exercising a right to freedom of association, and the right of someone to not have forced speech.

The Seuss family estate deciding it no longer wants to publish books is a decision enshrined in their right to free speech. People who would force them to keep printing the books fall on the side of forced speech, which is not free speech.

[mahagonny]

I just wanted to toss in here that I think it's amazingly ironic that the same people I grew up with who hosted book burnings of the Harry Potter books and boycotted the local library to have them banned when I was growing up are now the people decrying "cancel culture" attacking J.K. Rowling.

This is the point; the two sides have switched places. Now the people who derided the people burning Harry Potter books want to prevent people buying them, seeing the movies, etc.

The point isn't that this is worse, just that the hypocrisy is on both sides of the political spectrum. And this is why freedom speech as a principle is important, because a given person will quite likely find themselves on different sides of the issue during their lifetime.

The thought process though is if one has tenure one is only on the winning side, always.

It is really tiring that you beat this horse in every. single. thread. no matter whether it's related to the topic or not.

Sincere question, eigen: What do you think was the reason Professor Sellers hated to say this?

'"And you know what, I hate to say this, I end up having this angst every semester that a lot of my lower ones are Blacks. Happens almost every semester," Sellers said. "And it's like, 'Oh, come on.' You get some really good ones, but there are also usually some that are just plain at the bottom. It drives me crazy."'

link, again, for those not yet up to speed: https://abcnews.go.com/US/georgetown-law-professor-terminated-remarks-black-students/story?id=76413267

[Wahoo Redux]

"cancel culture" is the work of the free market (people applying pressure by voting with their wallets), the result of people using their right to free speech

The Seuss family estate deciding it no longer wants to publish books is a decision enshrined in their right to free speech. People who would force them to keep printing the books fall on the side of forced speech, which is not free speech.

Which are different from corporate entities telling us what we can say by threatening our livelihoods.

[eigen]

"cancel culture" is the work of the free market (people applying pressure by voting with their wallets), the result of people using their right to free speech

The Seuss family estate deciding it no longer wants to publish books is a decision enshrined in their right to free speech. People who would force them to keep printing the books fall on the side of forced speech, which is not free speech.

Which are different from corporate entities telling us what we can say by threatening our livelihoods.

I touched on the issue with corporate entities in my post, I'm not sure why you edited that part out and then brought it up?

[eigen]

I just wanted to toss in here that I think it's amazingly ironic that the same people I grew up with who hosted book burnings of the Harry Potter books and boycotted the local library to have them banned when I was growing up are now the people decrying "cancel culture" attacking J.K. Rowling.

This is the point; the two sides have switched places. Now the people who derided the people burning Harry Potter books want to prevent people buying them, seeing the movies, etc.

The point isn't that this is worse, just that the hypocrisy is on both sides of the political spectrum. And this is why freedom speech as a principle is important, because a given person will quite likely find themselves on different sides of the issue during their lifetime.

The thought process though is if one has tenure one is only on the winning side, always.

It is really tiring that you beat this horse in every. single. thread. no matter whether it's related to the topic or not.

Sincere question, eigen: What do you think was the reason Professor Sellers hated to say this?

'"And you know what, I hate to say this, I end up having this angst every semester that a lot of my lower ones are Blacks. Happens almost every semester," Sellers said. "And it's like, 'Oh, come on.' You get some really good ones, but there are also usually some that are just plain at the bottom. It drives me crazy."'

link, again, for those not yet up to speed: https://abcnews.go.com/US/georgetown-law-professor-terminated-remarks-black-students/story?id=76413267

I am unsure how your question relates to my comment. I also tend to try to avoid speculating on people's motivations for doing things.