Georgetown Law Professor: Student Edition

[marshwiggle]

I'm saying that when people make assertions in the absence of evidence, that assertion has come from a place of ignorance. If down the line that ignorant statement is shown to line up with actual data that the speaker was unaware of, then the speaker nevertheless has still made a statement from a place of ignorance.

"I had pizza last week".

"It's been a year since we've had classes in person".

"Today's a sunny day".

Virtually everything anyone says in casual conversation will be "in the absence of evidence" by that standard. (And again, it was a casual conversation that was recorded and disseminated.)

And this assumes that the professors statement actually lines up with some data, and nobody has provided evidence that it does.

So is anything uttered by anyone while technically "at work" subject to that level of legal analysis? Lunch time and coffee break will decimate any organization, or at least open them to an endless string of lawsuits.

[Wahoo Redux]

Re: Bolded. Great, then you know that there actually is quantifiable evidence of racism in academics, contrary to what you said in your last post. 

I will give you that, but I was thinking more of the faculty and the workplace.

We have a wide swath of students in our thousands of institutions and I am sure racism is as rampant in the student ranks as it is in many sections of American life. Even here, however, among the neophytes, I have yet to run into any overt racism.  I am sure the racists were front and center sometime, somewhere in my classes, but they never spoke up.

I'll say it again: I have seen a rage among professional academics to stomp out racism that sometimes borders on hysteria.  To do so we, and our students, pounce on each other whenever the slightest implication occurs, as in this case.

Re: Your question. The possibility that evidence could ultimately emerge that supports this professor's statement does not exonerate them from having made an ignorant and ill advised comment.

Agreed. Although that was not what I asked.  Obnoxious and poorly worded statements are a human specialty.  But does that make her a "racist" or the professor who simply remained silent as she uttered her gaff a "racist?" 

waterboy had it right.  Sellers is only a "racist" if she says something like:

ndocumented immigrants are flooding our cities with crime, despite having no credible evidence to back this up

The thing was that, again, Sellers had direct experience she was referencing.  She was speaking about what she had seen.  Was it a quantifiable scientific statement?  NOOOOOOOOOO it was not.  It as an off-the-cuff comment.  Off-the-cuff PRIVATE comment, no less.  We cannot expect her to have "data or evidence" that we "would consider credible" when she is casually chatting with a colleague. You keep returning to that----and it is an observation that is not germane.

To this the school----admin and students----hangs the "racist" label on a fellow academic in a very public forum.  There are some labels in society which carry a great deal of weight----"rapist," "murderer," "pedophile," even "seditionist" now, and "racist"----which will hang forever in a national spotlight on the Internet.  All because of an OFF-THE-CUFF comment. 

Do we leap to her defense? 
Do we defend her right for freedom of expression?

The reason I posted articles on tenure denial and race was not to suggest "reverse discrimination" (which deserves a measuring conversation, if we could have one) but to point out that a routine issue in academia receives national coverage when you add race into the equation.  And adding race into the equation equates to the worst kind of accusations.

You think Sellers will not get death threats?

[jimbogumbo]

I will repeat that it was NOT private. It was a recording for class. The fact that she might have thought it was private does not make it so.

[dismalist]

Professoressa says words to the effect that many Black students in her classes have gotten poor grades. Gets fired for uttering true factoid in public, by the Dean of the Law School at Georgetown. A racist.
Galileo says in public that Earth goes around Sun. Gets house arrest for uttering the truth, by the Holy Inquisitor. A heliocentrist.

Of course, Galileo was a moron. The Holy Inquisitor gave him the chance to claim that his discoveries were aids in calculation of planetary position and such. That would have been acceptable to the Inquisition. He was merely not allowed to claim that his discoveries were "truth". So, we pull a stunt like the Inquisitor's: Black students may have had poor grades becasue their's weren't measured properly; because the students went to poor schools; because we're all racists. Had the professoressa said any of these things on Zoom, she would have been absolved.

Mother Church -- the Inquisition at Rome and the Dean at Georgetown in DC. But it points to another way we won't face the same end as Galileo: By keeping our mouths shut! :-)

[Wahoo Redux]

I will repeat that it was NOT private. It was a recording for class. The fact that she might have thought it was private does not make it so.

The fact that she made a mistake and accidentally recorded her conversation is important to remember.

[mahagonny]

Prof. Sellers' apology clearly shows she understands the remarks would be hurtful to hear, and she considered it a tragic blunder that they were heard. But she never backed off her claim that the black students were underperforming. instead she simply took all the blame herself and left without whining. You can't get more classy than that. Tenured elites, watch and learn.

[jimbogumbo]

I don't think she said anything racist, and I don't think she should have been fired. I also don't blame the students for interpreting the remarks as racist. IMO, anyone who thinks there are no issues with systemic racism in higher ed and our culture at large is a fool.

I think what happened to her colleague was much more egregious. What clearly happened was that Georgetown took the easy way out from an administrative standpoint, and I find that reprehensible. From a higher ed standpoint the bigger issue (not channeling mahogany) is the mistreatment of adjuncts.

[Wahoo Redux]

IMO, anyone who thinks there are no issues with systemic racism in higher ed and our culture at large is a fool.

Well, here the frustration boils over.  I will rein my response.

I've read a lot about "implicit bias" and "unconscious bias."  I am very, very dubious about these studies and their findings and about the concepts they represent.  Where is evidence of "systemic racism?"  Jackasses such as Ben Shapiro have made a career of challenging academics to prove "systemic racism" over and over again, often to their faces.  You want to empower the jackasses?

I have acknowledged racism at large on this very page. 

As I said, the subject makes people hysterical.

[mahagonny]

I don't think she said anything racist, and I don't think she should have been fired. I also don't blame the students for interpreting the remarks as racist. IMO, anyone who thinks there are no issues with systemic racism in higher ed and our culture at large is a fool.

I think what happened to her colleague was much more egregious. What clearly happened was that Georgetown took the easy way out from an administrative standpoint, and I find that reprehensible. From a higher ed standpoint the bigger issue (not channeling mahogany) is the mistreatment of adjuncts.

We finally agree on something. Students don't really seem to have a concept of grown up professionals teaching in college at dog doo jobs.
The administration was counting on the tenured faculty not giving them any pushback. They never do, so that was not unintelligent behavior.

[jimbogumbo]

IMO, anyone who thinks there are no issues with systemic racism in higher ed and our culture at large is a fool.

Well, here the frustration boils over.  I will rein my response.

I've read a lot about "implicit bias" and "unconscious bias."  I am very, very dubious about these studies and their findings and about the concepts they represent.  Where is evidence of "systemic racism?"  Jackasses such as Ben Shapiro have made a career of challenging academics to prove "systemic racism" over and over again, often to their faces.  You want to empower the jackasses?

I have acknowledged racism at large on this very page. 

As I said, the subject makes people hysterical.

No, I don't want to empower jackasses, and I'm not hysterical. And I did not use either of your terms. There are plenty of studies indicating, for example, that blacks who meet qualifications for loans for example are not granted them proportionately. The effects of redlining are still being felt in minority communities. The differentiated treatment of blacks by physicians has been documented.  Freeways constructed through minority communities, lack of infrastructure maintenance in poor communities, more water and air pollution in predominately black communities. Just because Shapiro and other jackasses have careers (which will exist regardless of the data and how it is presented) is a side effect.

Are you seriously trying to argue that as a society we have erased those baked in inequities?

[Wahoo Redux]

Are you seriously trying to argue that as a society we have erased those baked in inequities?

For the second time I am going to rein it in, my friend.

This subject makes people strawman.

I will not repost and quote myself a second time...actually, because this makes me a little mad, I will:

And just to be clear, [the disparity in student performances in the classroom observable at my current employer] has nothing to do with the amount of melatonin in the first microns in our students' skins and everything to do with the history of white privilege, red-lining, systematic racism, and the resulting inequities in family income, location, and public schooling.  Nor, to be clear, does any one demographic or group have the market on poor performance. 

That is me talking on The Fora on this very thread already, now for the third time.  When people hear something they don't like they either ad hom or strawman.  Don't empower jackasses!!!!

I asked for proof of systemic racism in academia.

[jimbogumbo]

Are you seriously trying to argue that as a society we have erased those baked in inequities?

For the second time I am going to rein it in, my friend.

This subject makes people strawman.

I will not repost and quote myself a second time...actually, because this makes me a little mad, I will:

And just to be clear, [the disparity in student performances in the classroom observable at my current employer] has nothing to do with the amount of melatonin in the first microns in our students' skins and everything to do with the history of white privilege, red-lining, systematic racism, and the resulting inequities in family income, location, and public schooling.  Nor, to be clear, does any one demographic or group have the market on poor performance. 

That is me talking on The Fora on this very thread already, now for the third time.  When people hear something they don't like they either ad hom or strawman.  Don't empower jackasses!!!!

I asked for proof of systemic racism in academia.

Sorry, I'll bow out. To me the "history of white privilege" and other things you stated in your is part of the issue with higher ed, especially as public universities are part and parcel of our system of public education. I certainly meant no disrespect, and nothing I posted was ad hominem or given what I just said a straw man.

[mahagonny]

IMO, anyone who thinks there are no issues with systemic racism in higher ed and our culture at large is a fool.

I don't care to argue about that; if it's true it's not the most sordid thing about higher education culture. But it does get good press.

[Sun_Worshiper]

I'm saying that when people make assertions in the absence of evidence, that assertion has come from a place of ignorance. If down the line that ignorant statement is shown to line up with actual data that the speaker was unaware of, then the speaker nevertheless has still made a statement from a place of ignorance.

"I had pizza last week".

"It's been a year since we've had classes in person".

"Today's a sunny day".

Virtually everything anyone says in casual conversation will be "in the absence of evidence" by that standard. (And again, it was a casual conversation that was recorded and disseminated.)

And this assumes that the professors statement actually lines up with some data, and nobody has provided evidence that it does.

So is anything uttered by anyone while technically "at work" subject to that level of legal analysis? Lunch time and coffee break will decimate any organization, or at least open them to an endless string of lawsuits.

This was not "the sky is blue" it was "black students in general underperform." And yes, making racial generalizations at work can get a person in trouble. This was also not a lunch or coffee break, it was on the clock (so to speak) in a zoom meeting that automatically goes to students enrolled in the class.

Look, I'm happy to agree that this was not an offense that she needed to be fired over (as I've said multiple times), but the comparisons and arguments you are making are just ridiculous. It is like you don't see the difference between generalizing about blacks and ordering a coffee.

Re: Bolded. Great, then you know that there actually is quantifiable evidence of racism in academics, contrary to what you said in your last post. 

I will give you that, but I was thinking more of the faculty and the workplace.

We have a wide swath of students in our thousands of institutions and I am sure racism is as rampant in the student ranks as it is in many sections of American life. Even here, however, among the neophytes, I have yet to run into any overt racism.  I am sure the racists were front and center sometime, somewhere in my classes, but they never spoke up.

I'll say it again: I have seen a rage among professional academics to stomp out racism that sometimes borders on hysteria.  To do so we, and our students, pounce on each other whenever the slightest implication occurs, as in this case.

Re: Your question. The possibility that evidence could ultimately emerge that supports this professor's statement does not exonerate them from having made an ignorant and ill advised comment.

Agreed. Although that was not what I asked.  Obnoxious and poorly worded statements are a human specialty.  But does that make her a "racist" or the professor who simply remained silent as she uttered her gaff a "racist?" 

waterboy had it right.  Sellers is only a "racist" if she says something like:

ndocumented immigrants are flooding our cities with crime, despite having no credible evidence to back this up

The thing was that, again, Sellers had direct experience she was referencing.  She was speaking about what she had seen.  Was it a quantifiable scientific statement?  NOOOOOOOOOO it was not.  It as an off-the-cuff comment.  Off-the-cuff PRIVATE comment, no less.  We cannot expect her to have "data or evidence" that we "would consider credible" when she is casually chatting with a colleague. You keep returning to that----and it is an observation that is not germane.

To this the school----admin and students----hangs the "racist" label on a fellow academic in a very public forum.  There are some labels in society which carry a great deal of weight----"rapist," "murderer," "pedophile," even "seditionist" now, and "racist"----which will hang forever in a national spotlight on the Internet.  All because of an OFF-THE-CUFF comment. 

Do we leap to her defense? 
Do we defend her right for freedom of expression?

The reason I posted articles on tenure denial and race was not to suggest "reverse discrimination" (which deserves a measuring conversation, if we could have one) but to point out that a routine issue in academia receives national coverage when you add race into the equation.  And adding race into the equation equates to the worst kind of accusations.

You think Sellers will not get death threats?

I never said she was racist. But she said things that could easily be interpreted that way. You seem to think she said nothing at all that any reasonable person could find objectionable, and there we disagree.

And the issue of evidence is important, because having it is the difference between baselessly generalizing about blacks and making an informed observation. The former is unacceptable at the workplace, even if you say it without realizing that others might hear you.

And the issue of overt racism vs. structural racism is one that requires a more in-depth conversation (personally I'm about burned out on this topic), but just because you don't see people dropping the n-word at work doesn't mean that there aren't racial biases that affect people of color.

[Wahoo Redux]

I never said she was racist. But she said things that could easily be interpreted that way. You seem to think she said nothing at all that any reasonable person could find objectionable, and there we disagree.

It must be very difficult to have these conversations with strawmanning or misinterpreting what one says.

I do see why one might be offended.  Her phraseology is egregious.

At the same time, I do not see why one should be offended.  I've said so many times that she was in a work conversation about work.  Should a doctor be fired because she says while at work, "The blacks are not being vaccinated and it is a bad idea?"

The other thing that bothers me is the strength of the reaction, the label, and the public shaming which I do not think she deserves based on what was said. 

And the issue of evidence is important, because having it is the difference between baselessly generalizing about blacks and making an informed observation. The former is unacceptable at the workplace, even if you say it without realizing that others might hear you.

How many times do we ring around the rosie on this one?

Geeze.  She was not "baselessly generalizing" but talking about her own experience as an instructor.  Those were NOT generalized comments.  I suspect, SG, that you cling to the idea that she was speaking without "data" because otherwise it is very hard to condemn her.

She. Was. Talking. About. Her. Own. Observations. At. Work.

And the issue of overt racism vs. structural racism is one that requires a more in-depth conversation (personally I'm about burned out on this topic), but just because you don't see people dropping the n-word at work doesn't mean that there aren't racial biases that affect people of color.

Perhaps.  I just wanted some specific examples of racism in academia.