Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[mahagonny]

None of us get to be immune to what other people think of our speech.

Not always true anymore, by a long shot. Black rap artists and comedians are immune from what other people think about their use of 'the N-word.' If that were not true, white people would be able to say, en masse, or at least in majority, 'cut it out.' They have special identity-derived rights to passive-aggression.

[pepsi_alum]

Totally agree, Caracal. I find the whole idea of "cancel culture" frustratingly imprecise. NBC can cancel a television show because of low ratings. I can cancel an Amazon.com shopping order that I made at 2am. The associate vice chancellor of Southern North Dakota State University at Hoople East River campus can cancel a planned speech to alumni donors because he tests positive for Covid. But I can't "cancel" another person or text I don't like. I can withdraw my support or choose to boycott them, but I can't compel other people to do the same against their will, nor should I be able to.

What they are really cancelling is your opportunity to think differently from the new liberal orthodoxy, unless you're going to deftly keep it to yourself. By adopting a black lives matter agenda a public school effectively becomes a religious school.
on edit: the student, Esther, recalled that her experience in the classroom with Hostetter was acceptably free of racism as Hostetter taught the kids to be racially colorblind. But she can't do that anymore because the school has signed on with BLM, or they're on the verge of it. So she's now officially a racist. So why would it surprise us if she feels like acting like one here and there? She's branded. The colorblind ethic of MLK is being scrapped.

Mahagonny: it's clear we're not going to reach agreement in this thread, and that's fine with me. I don't have any desire to pick a personal fight with you over deeply-held personal beliefs. I have just three quick points that I would make in response. Feel free to interpret them as you will:

1) On the point about freedom of thought, I agree in principle that we can't actively force people to believe things they don't. As a social scientist who self-identifies as politically progressive, I don't identify with a critical pedagogy approach to teaching, and when I mention things like critical race theory, I'm always careful to present it as one possible academic perspective rather than absolute truth. No one has ever accused me of being ideologically biased in my teaching evaluations.

2) I think the crux of our disagreement is about whether it's epistemically possible to cancel someone in the first place. You say in your reply that "what they are really canceling is your opportunity to think differently from the new liberal orthodoxy." I would maintain that I cannot forcibly compel anyone to change their own political beliefs against their will. But if Person 1 chooses to say "I am no longer associating with Person 2 because I find their beliefs abhorrent," I don't see that as canceling. I see that as the marketplace of ideas in action. Other people are still free to form their beliefs about whether or not Person 1's reactions are justified. 

3) Finally—and I realize I'm getting into the weeds here—I would not characterize MLK Jr.'s vision of race relations as color-blind. Sections of "I Have a Dream" sound color-blind, but that notion isn't there in later speeches like "A Time to Break Silence" or "I've Been to the Mountaintop." I'm not aware of any serious work claiming that King personally endorsed color-blindness. (The two of white biographers who wrote the most detailed accounts of his life—Taylor Branch and David Garrow—certainly didn't believe he was, and Branch isn't even an academic).

[Caracal]

None of us get to be immune to what other people think of our speech.

Not always true anymore, by a long shot. Black rap artists and comedians are immune from what other people think about their use of 'the N-word.' If that were not true, white people would be able to say, en masse, or at least in majority, 'cut it out.' They have special identity-derived rights to passive-aggression.

This is what I mean about the incoherence.

There's nothing unusual about groups using terms to refer to themselves that are derogatory when used by other people. Its so common as to be almost universal. You seem to oddly view it as about fairness, as if using the N word is some great privilege that's being denied to you even though others get to use it.

[marshwiggle]

None of us get to be immune to what other people think of our speech.

Not always true anymore, by a long shot. Black rap artists and comedians are immune from what other people think about their use of 'the N-word.' If that were not true, white people would be able to say, en masse, or at least in majority, 'cut it out.' They have special identity-derived rights to passive-aggression.

This is what I mean about the incoherence.

There's nothing unusual about groups using terms to refer to themselves that are derogatory when used by other people. Its so common as to be almost universal. You seem to oddly view it as about fairness, as if using the N word is some great privilege that's being denied to you even though others get to use it.

The big problem with this in in classes. If a class is studying a text, piece of music, etc., which contains those kinds of words written by someone within one of those groups, the current cultural trend is that even in that context anyone not from that group* can't use the word, even in discussing the work. And yet, those same people who would criticize anyone else using the word would be offended if the work were removed from discussion in the first place.


*Including the instructor.

[mahagonny]

None of us get to be immune to what other people think of our speech.

Not always true anymore, by a long shot. Black rap artists and comedians are immune from what other people think about their use of 'the N-word.' If that were not true, white people would be able to say, en masse, or at least in majority, 'cut it out.' They have special identity-derived rights to passive-aggression.

This is what I mean about the incoherence.

There's nothing unusual about groups using terms to refer to themselves that are derogatory when used by other people. Its so common as to be almost universal. You seem to oddly view it as about fairness, as if using the N word is some great privilege that's being denied to you even though others get to use it.

Sorry; wrong.
I don't want to say it. I want everyone to stop saying it.
'The N-word' is considered the worst word in the English language. Look at all the words I can type: Lymey. Kike. Faggot. Polak. Cunt. etc. Can't do that one though. And that's why certain people love to use it. It's a white guilt inducer. Taunting.
This all ties in with the common practice of denying black animosity towards whites. And whites being too cowed to make living space for ourselves.
I don't use those words. But I don't have to listen to them either. Not very often. Whereas 'the N-word' is as common in some genres of sonic recorded entertainment (I won't say 'music') as 'love' is in an old-fashioned musical play.
John Mulaney explains....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg0UWxhJkfk
It's unhealthy for POC to be saying the word too. It's not good for them. Richard Pryor talked about that candidly, later in his career.

on edit: If I can get fired for uttering a certain word, even once, and then apologizing, I don't want to hear anyone using that word. I don't want it on the airwaves. As a courtesy. I don't want it on my brain. It's a fair request, I believe. Of course, I am crazy.

[Wahoo Redux]

Cypress College Professor suspended for comments regarding police

Faculty union defends her

[Caracal]

Cypress College Professor suspended for comments regarding police

Faculty union defends her

Unless I'm missing something here, it isn't a thing that should get anyone in trouble. I can't say I really understand what she's doing. Interrupting students in the middle of presentations could be fine if its about teaching them to respond to questions on their feet, but if you're going to do it with some students, you'd better do it with all of them, not just ones whose projects you disagree with.

The whole thing seems to be doing a poor job of modeling academic discourse. When students say something I think is wrong, poorly thought out and offensive, I focus on the poorly thought out part. Who cares what my opinions are, and what I'm offended by? My role in class is to insist that we need to back up assertions with evidence and clear arguments.

[marshwiggle]

Cypress College Professor suspended for comments regarding police

Faculty union defends her

Unless I'm missing something here, it isn't a thing that should get anyone in trouble. I can't say I really understand what she's doing. Interrupting students in the middle of presentations could be fine if its about teaching them to respond to questions on their feet, but if you're going to do it with some students, you'd better do it with all of them, not just ones whose projects you disagree with.

That's right. If instead it were a student talking in favour of BLM, and a prof kept interrupting to talk about riots, financial concerns, and so on, I doubt that the people supporting this prof would be equally supportive.

[mahagonny]

Cypress College Professor suspended for comments regarding police

Faculty union defends her

Unless I'm missing something here, it isn't a thing that should get anyone in trouble. I can't say I really understand what she's doing. Interrupting students in the middle of presentations could be fine if its about teaching them to respond to questions on their feet, but if you're going to do it with some students, you'd better do it with all of them, not just ones whose projects you disagree with.

That's right. If instead it were a student talking in favour of BLM, and a prof kept interrupting to talk about riots, financial concerns, and so on, I doubt that the people supporting this prof would be equally supportive.

They're getting shown the door for asking people to think practically and avoid danger, even in red states.  https://nypost.com/2021/05/06/alaska-teacher-on-leave-after-racially-insensitive-george-floyd-comments/

A lot of it now is not what is being said but who as doing the talking. If a white teacher says 'don't go out dressing a certain way. Dress neatly and grown-up. Don't walk around looking like heap of laundry. You arouse suspicion.' She's considered racist. If a black teacher said 'what a pathetic country this is! Police pick on people just because of the way they're dressed but only when they are POC.' She's speaking 'truth to power.'
Whereas they are almost saying the same thing, for the standpoint of practical decision making and looking out for the students' safety.

Cypress College Professor suspended for comments regarding police

Faculty union defends her

Unless I'm missing something here, it isn't a thing that should get anyone in trouble. I can't say I really understand what she's doing. Interrupting students in the middle of presentations could be fine if its about teaching them to respond to questions on their feet, but if you're going to do it with some students, you'd better do it with all of them, not just ones whose projects you disagree with.

The whole thing seems to be doing a poor job of modeling academic discourse. When students say something I think is wrong, poorly thought out and offensive, I focus on the poorly thought out part. Who cares what my opinions are, and what I'm offended by? My role in class is to insist that we need to back up assertions with evidence and clear arguments.

As an aside, the question 'who cares what Professor Caracal's opinions are?' is already answered. They are the acceptable ones. They don't need reinforcing.

[Caracal]

As an aside, the question 'who cares what Professor Caracal's opinions are?' is already answered. They are the acceptable ones. They don't need reinforcing.

What a strange thing to write.

[Wahoo Redux]

As an aside, the question 'who cares what Professor Caracal's opinions are?' is already answered. They are the acceptable ones. They don't need reinforcing.

What a strange thing to write.

I think he just means that your views are standard for us "liberals" and so will not be challenged, and only be reinforced, in the academe. 

[mahagonny]

As an aside, the question 'who cares what Professor Caracal's opinions are?' is already answered. They are the acceptable ones. They don't need reinforcing.

What a strange thing to write.

I think he just means that your views are standard for us "liberals" and so will not be challenged, and only be reinforced, in the academe.

Thank you.

[Caracal]

As an aside, the question 'who cares what Professor Caracal's opinions are?' is already answered. They are the acceptable ones. They don't need reinforcing.

What a strange thing to write.

I think he just means that your views are standard for us "liberals" and so will not be challenged, and only be reinforced, in the academe.

Thank you.

Except we were talking about something totally different, and whatever he thinks about my views, the larger point is that they aren't particularly interesting or important to students. When I teach, I'm trying to show students how they can think with more context, perspective and rigor. I'm not sure why weird remarks about my supposedly conventional political views are appropriate...Seems like that kind of thing violates rules...

[mahagonny]

More...https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/05/10/cypress-college-faces-threats-and-allegations-failing-be-antiracist

This confrontation and fallout are heating up. Perhaps this warrants its own thread, but I won't start one, because then it will dead in the water.  Trust your instincts, forumites.

The adjunct union is faulting the administration for not being sufficiently anti-racist. Also not protecting the most vulnerable, which is (three guesses)

"District faculty members of color or those belonging to other minority groups have been disproportionately affected, the union said, as they are "more likely to become targets of white supremacist organizations, news outlets, and individuals." Ultimately, "the failure to issue a clear and strong statement of support for faculty under the existing circumstances is a failure to be anti-racist. It is a failure to protect our most vulnerable faculty."

[marshwiggle]

More...https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/05/10/cypress-college-faces-threats-and-allegations-failing-be-antiracist

The prof's claim is that this exchange was during the Q and A after the student's presentation. I hope someone can confirm or deny that. Also, I'd like to see how the prof responded to other presentations, to see whether that degree of confrontation was unique to this student.

If the prof's actions were consistent with how all other students were treated, then it's different than if this one was singled out.