Georgetown Law Professor: Student Edition

[Sun_Worshiper]

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.

I'm tired of going back and forth as well, so we will have to agree to disagree on a few things: (1) You say nobody should be offended, while I can easily see why people are offended and I think that what she said was problematic and could easily be interpreted as racist. (2) You say that she was making an observation on the basis of her experiences, while I think that if a professor plans on making a generalization about their black students then they better have some tangible evidence to back it up - and yes that means actual data, not her recollections.

We also agree on at least one thing, which is that there should not have been a knee-jerk firing. I would like to have seen some kind of due process for the faculty members and I assume you think the same thing.

As for the bolded, I already shared peer reviewed articles showing that there are racial biases in academia that negatively affect people of color. Perhaps you prefer salacious anecdotes to systematic data analysis, so here are a few incidents of overt racism for you (pretty sure you could have found these yourself, with a simple google search):

• https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/professor-alleges-racial-discrimination-after-university-forced-him-teach-math-n703531
• https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2021/01/08/lawsuit-accuses-um-professor-of-racist-misogynistic-behavior
• https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/education/story/2020-11-30/new-lawsuit-alleges-years-of-anti-black-discrimination-at-southwestern-college

[mahagonny]

We also agree on at least one thing, which is that there should not have been a knee-jerk firing. I would like to have seen some kind of due process for the faculty members and I assume you think the same thing.

If you really have guts you can do what these 40 Black scholars are doing: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/black-intellectuals-demand-smith-college-apologize-to-smeared-workers-end-anti-bias-training/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=top-stories&utm_term=first

[financeguy]

I am so tired of hearing that these are generalizations when the data has not been publicly made available on this more so than in nearly any other field.

Let's use bar pass rates. My state (like all) collects very detailed bar pass rates for the general pool, first time takers, repeaters, those from ABA schools, rate by specific school, rate by gender, rate by race, rate by non-aba accredited school, etc. You could not ask for more transparency. This is done for each specific exam, not as a moving average, so you get a result every six months. What is consistently seen is that the gap in white/black passing is usually at least in the low double digits and in some terms quite high. Asians and Latinos are usually in between most administrations of the bar. If you want to be underwhelmed with the amount of variation, just go to a state (CA or NY who always have a diverse body of many takers so there's a large sample.) and you'll see exactly these results time and time again. Your numbers will vary since each state administers the bar differently, but all those with a reasonable sample size show similar results, over and over...

So what gets us here? Well, if you look at the beginning rather than the end, you'll look at the incoming scores as measured by the LSAT, which show pretty much the same situation. The LSAT is the same nationally so you only have to look at the results as collected by LSAC, the Law School Admissions Council. A black/white gap in scoring exists as well. More LSAT takers who are white are male and more African American takers are female, but the black/white gap can not be explained exclusively to the heavily "male weighted" results for whites since the differences in gender performance are slight while the differences in race are material and consistent. 

The numbers are what they are, like it or not. It's extremely unlikely to explain away these results with a "biased" system that includes 50 different state bars plus DC and PR, in addition to a national exam. This is one heck of a conspiracy if it exists. The numbers are just not that great, so why would anyone expect the performance at large between groups to not vary? Add to the mix that affirmative action increases the likelihood that someone will be "mismatched" with a school that's a stretch for their abilities rather than matched with a school consistent with their abilities.

[marshwiggle]

The numbers are what they are, like it or not. It's extremely unlikely to explain away these results with a "biased" system that includes 50 different state bars plus DC and PR, in addition to a national exam. This is one heck of a conspiracy if it exists. The numbers are just not that great, so why would anyone expect the performance at large between groups to not vary? Add to the mix that affirmative action increases the likelihood that someone will be "mismatched" with a school that's a stretch for their abilities rather than matched with a school consistent with their abilities.

This past "year of covid" should also provide an interesting natural experiment. I've done all of my remote teaching asynchronously, so I haven't seen the vast majority of my students*. Gathering statistics from all over from people who taught asynchronously should be a way to see how big (or small) the effect of implicit bias is. If implicit bias is a thing under normal circumstances, it should be drastically reduced under these conditions.

*Even the TAs I hired during this time, I wouldn't know if I bumped into them on the street since I have no idea what they look like. I communicate with them by email, not Zoom.

[mahagonny]

This past "year of covid" should also provide an interesting natural experiment. I've done all of my remote teaching asynchronously, so I haven't seen the vast majority of my students*. Gathering statistics from all over from people who taught asynchronously should be a way to see how big (or small) the effect of implicit bias is. If implicit bias is a thing under normal circumstances, it should be drastically reduced under these conditions.

*Even the TAs I hired during this time, I wouldn't know if I bumped into them on the street since I have no idea what they look like. I communicate with them by email, not Zoom.

What if a student's name is DeShawn Carter?

[financeguy]

If a student can be identified by name, this would only be relevant once they had already arrived at a program that may not have been a fit based on entrance scores. You can't fix whatever led to a lagging preparation in a graduate or professional program. You can ignore it, which is exactly what Georgetown has attempted to do, as if this faculty member were referencing a non-existent phenomenon, but that's an entirely different thing.

[Wahoo Redux]

As for the bolded, I already shared peer reviewed articles showing that there are racial biases in academia that negatively affect people of color.

Indeed.  I am aware of the research.  I am not so philistine that I will dismiss outright any peer-review work...but I am extremely dubious of "implicit" or "unconscious bias."  I wonder about the whole concept of "microaggressions" as being an exercise in hysteria---or perhaps that is too melodramatic word.   However, I do notice that a lot of microaggression is essentially inference:

https://sph.umn.edu/site/docs/hewg/microaggressions.pdf

So, if we absorb this stuff uncritically, we would see racism virtually anywhere.  At some point you lectured me that racism was more than N-bombs and that racism is present even when the N-bombs don't fall.  Sure.  Of course.  Always.  But that does leave a lot to interpretation, so we might be a little critical so we are fair to everyone and due-process is followed with evidence.

Perhaps you prefer salacious anecdotes to systematic data analysis, so here are a few incidents of overt racism for you (pretty sure you could have found these yourself, with a simple google search):

Yeah, I read these.  And I already posted three examples of "overt racism"----and I've never said anything about preferring anything over "systematic data"; your frustration makes you strawman.  My point was that "systematic data" was not part of the context of this whole case.

I do not know any of the people nor have I even been on any of these campuses, but these might be supporting my contentions as well as they support yours. 

I notice a lot of accusations and allegations, little corroborating evidence, and universities uncritically capitulating.

For instance, this guy...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/professor-alleges-racial-discrimination-after-university-forced-him-teach-math-n703531

...claims that

According to the complaint, dated Dec. 27, Choi was fired from a tenure-track position in 2010, and then reinstated more than a year later after bringing a discrimination charge against the school with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The reason for Choi's termination wasn't immediately clear from the lawsuit.

Choi now works for UIC:
https://pols.uic.edu/profiles/choi-seung-whan/

In other words, Choi was fire, alleged racism, received headlines (please, tell me again how there is no worry about publicizing tenure denial and race) and then got  his job back after mediation.
One of his complaints was...

In one instance, Choi said he was forced to teach an undergraduate course last Spring in Korean politics because he was born and lived in South Korea, the complaint reads.

I was not there, I do not know, but this seems crazy to me.  In other words, you might be convinced, but I am not.  Someone who lived in SK and presumably is a native speaker of Korean would be a good choice for a poly-sci instructor involving Korea, no?

For this one...

https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2021/01/08/lawsuit-accuses-um-professor-of-racist-misogynistic-behavior

I put the claimant's name (Layla Fakhr El-Din El-Sawy) into Google and found

a much more detailed article on the lawsuit. 

El-Sawy claims that her abuser said to her:

"I am a white guy in the United States and I can do whatever the hell I want and nobody will believe you," [her research partner and defendant] Day once told her, according to the suit.

Okay.  Sure, somebody could say that.  But it also sounds like dialog from a first-time screenwriter.  One of the problems is that victims are all too often not believed----but it is also a problem to uncritically believe any allegations because we want to be sympathetic to the presumptive victims-----the GA Law School case is a good example.

The Detroit News article summarizes and excerpts some of the actual evidence involving a lost commercial contract involving the two scientists which reads:

"Layla!!!!!!" Day texted. "Everything is off the table ... I will also invalidate the whole project with your ministry of health in Egypt!"

By 8 p.m., Day had called El-Sawy 10 times.

Two minutes after he called, he sent her another text.

"Layla you had better (expletive) f...... call me or you and I are done as friends !!!!!!" Day texted.
By 9 p.m., he texted her another three times and called her three more times.

"Layla you did this! You showed them the article and trashed my reputation," Day allegedly wrote. "I am sooo mad at you! You have stabbed me in the back!"

By 11 p.m., Day had called El-Sawy a 14th time, and texted her another five times.
"You had better answer your phone!!" Day said. "If i have to i will fly over there and address this personally with you guys! And it won't be pretty!"

By the end of the day, Day allegedly called  El-Sawy 14 times, sent 15 texts and eight emails, according to the lawsuit.

Over the next few days, the lawsuit claims Day continued to send numerous emails to UM and EEPI officials, and texts to El-Sawy, including:

"You know I am mad but I am calming down," Day wrote. "Now I am very worried about your scientific reputation. If u call and talk to me I will protect you as much as I can ... I don't think u understand how bad this is going to get ...

This sounds very much like a scientist behaving like a spoiled adolescent; he deserves to be sued for harassment and intimidation, but it doesn't sound racist to me.  There is no smoking gun.  Day should no doubt be censured at the very least, or friggin' fired, but it does make me wonder about charges of racism.

Again, I was not there, I do not know, but his alleged racist comments seem very convenient.

Then there is this one...

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/education/story/2020-11-30/new-lawsuit-alleges-years-of-anti-black-discrimination-at-southwestern-college

USC's report highlighted individual instances, such as Latino custodial staff making monkey sounds at Black coworkers through walkie-talkies and a Black employee being relocated from the main campus because a White female coworker was afraid of him, that collectively painted a damning picture of institutional anti-Black racism on campus.

I don't know what to make of "monkey sounds"...guess you would have to be there.

If a female worker feels unsecure with a male coworker, and admin ignores her concerns, is the admin guilty of gender bias?  Is that proof of "racism"?  Wouldn't you, as an administrator, be worried about a female who was afraid of a male worker?  Could there be other reasons that a female worker was uncomfortable with a male worker than race?  Working as a campus night janitor at my undergrad institution many years ago we were told to make sure that female coworkers were comfortable working alone with we male workers in an empty building.  I don't remember how we were supposed to do that (although we I do remember we weren't supposed to get on elevators alone with a female coworker at night) so this is not anything unusual.

Then there was this:

The report ended with a list of 12 recommendations for the college, which enrolls 19,000 students, 72 percent of whom are Latino, 10 percent Asian, 7 percent White and 4 percent Black. Recommendations included things such as issuing a formal apology to Black employees, creating leadership pipelines for minority candidates, and changing the hiring process to make it more inclusive.

Which sounds very familiar. Charges of "racism" emerge and the university uncritically pledges all sorts of cosmetic changes and the allegations are uncritically accepted.
Then there is this:

Another Black employee who is suing Southwestern, Veronica Burton, has worked in the counseling department since 1998. As one of the most senior employees, she applied for the role of acting dean in 2018, the role that eventually went to Dean Aragoza.
"Despite being the most qualified candidate on paper, having had the most relevant experience, including specific experience to SWCCD, Burton was again passed over for the promotion," the lawsuit states. "Burton believes that her race played the most important role in her being denied the Interim Dean position."

What then follows are more of the extraordinarily fraught accusations of racism.
I've lost track of all the jobs I feel I should have gotten.  It actually makes me a little angry in my current situation considering what I, a 5/5 lecturer, look like "on paper" in comparison to the tenure track faculty I work with.  Does that mean that Veronica Burton is lying to retaliate for a job she thought she should have?  I don't know.

Burton's qualifications on the USC website list

Veronica Burton
Counselor
B.S. New Jersey City University
M.S. San Diego State University

Aragoza's qualifications are listed as:

Dean Aragoza
Counselor
B.A., M.S. San Diego State University

So, I guess we have to find other evidence that one minority person faces discrimination while another does not face discrimination based on academic pedigree alone.

I do know that the USC English, Math, Political Science, Music, and Engineering departments have multiple minority candidates. I didn't look further because my search was largely a rhetorical exercise. Are there enough minority faculty to prove USC is not essentially a racist working environment?  Somebody else will have to answer that.

So fine, SW, I will concede that you found allegations.  Since there is so little actual examination or challenge in these sorts of scenarios, I am not sure you have proof.  I do have to note that you, along with a lot of people, seem to equate the allegation with proof even when the charges are uncorroborated and undocumented.

We'd better start thinking about this, because the forces that really, honestly represent bigotry and reactionary politics (think Trump) are in ascendancy.

[Sun_Worshiper]

As for the bolded, I already shared peer reviewed articles showing that there are racial biases in academia that negatively affect people of color.

Indeed.  I am aware of the research.  I am not so philistine that I will dismiss outright any peer-review work...but I am extremely dubious of "implicit" or "unconscious bias."  I wonder about the whole concept of "microaggressions" as being an exercise in hysteria---or perhaps that is too melodramatic word.   However, I do notice that a lot of microaggression is essentially inference:

https://sph.umn.edu/site/docs/hewg/microaggressions.pdf

So, if we absorb this stuff uncritically, we would see racism virtually anywhere.  At some point you lectured me that racism was more than N-bombs and that racism is present even when the N-bombs don't fall.  Sure.  Of course.  Always.  But that does leave a lot to interpretation, so we might be a little critical so we are fair to everyone and due-process is followed with evidence.

Perhaps you prefer salacious anecdotes to systematic data analysis, so here are a few incidents of overt racism for you (pretty sure you could have found these yourself, with a simple google search):

Yeah, I read these.  And I already posted three examples of "overt racism"----and I've never said anything about preferring anything over "systematic data"; your frustration makes you strawman.  My point was that "systematic data" was not part of the context of this whole case.

I do not know any of the people nor have I even been on any of these campuses, but these might be supporting my contentions as well as they support yours. 

I notice a lot of accusations and allegations, little corroborating evidence, and universities uncritically capitulating.

For instance, this guy...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/professor-alleges-racial-discrimination-after-university-forced-him-teach-math-n703531

...claims that

According to the complaint, dated Dec. 27, Choi was fired from a tenure-track position in 2010, and then reinstated more than a year later after bringing a discrimination charge against the school with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The reason for Choi's termination wasn't immediately clear from the lawsuit.

Choi now works for UIC:
https://pols.uic.edu/profiles/choi-seung-whan/

In other words, Choi was fire, alleged racism, received headlines (please, tell me again how there is no worry about publicizing tenure denial and race) and then got  his job back after mediation.
One of his complaints was...

In one instance, Choi said he was forced to teach an undergraduate course last Spring in Korean politics because he was born and lived in South Korea, the complaint reads.

I was not there, I do not know, but this seems crazy to me.  In other words, you might be convinced, but I am not.  Someone who lived in SK and presumably is a native speaker of Korean would be a good choice for a poly-sci instructor involving Korea, no?

For this one...

https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2021/01/08/lawsuit-accuses-um-professor-of-racist-misogynistic-behavior

I put the claimant's name (Layla Fakhr El-Din El-Sawy) into Google and found

a much more detailed article on the lawsuit. 

El-Sawy claims that her abuser said to her:

"I am a white guy in the United States and I can do whatever the hell I want and nobody will believe you," [her research partner and defendant] Day once told her, according to the suit.

Okay.  Sure, somebody could say that.  But it also sounds like dialog from a first-time screenwriter.  One of the problems is that victims are all too often not believed----but it is also a problem to uncritically believe any allegations because we want to be sympathetic to the presumptive victims-----the GA Law School case is a good example.

The Detroit News article summarizes and excerpts some of the actual evidence involving a lost commercial contract involving the two scientists which reads:

"Layla!!!!!!" Day texted. "Everything is off the table ... I will also invalidate the whole project with your ministry of health in Egypt!"

By 8 p.m., Day had called El-Sawy 10 times.

Two minutes after he called, he sent her another text.

"Layla you had better (expletive) f...... call me or you and I are done as friends !!!!!!" Day texted.
By 9 p.m., he texted her another three times and called her three more times.

"Layla you did this! You showed them the article and trashed my reputation," Day allegedly wrote. "I am sooo mad at you! You have stabbed me in the back!"

By 11 p.m., Day had called El-Sawy a 14th time, and texted her another five times.
"You had better answer your phone!!" Day said. "If i have to i will fly over there and address this personally with you guys! And it won't be pretty!"

By the end of the day, Day allegedly called  El-Sawy 14 times, sent 15 texts and eight emails, according to the lawsuit.

Over the next few days, the lawsuit claims Day continued to send numerous emails to UM and EEPI officials, and texts to El-Sawy, including:

"You know I am mad but I am calming down," Day wrote. "Now I am very worried about your scientific reputation. If u call and talk to me I will protect you as much as I can ... I don't think u understand how bad this is going to get ...

This sounds very much like a scientist behaving like a spoiled adolescent; he deserves to be sued for harassment and intimidation, but it doesn't sound racist to me.  There is no smoking gun.  Day should no doubt be censured at the very least, or friggin' fired, but it does make me wonder about charges of racism.

Again, I was not there, I do not know, but his alleged racist comments seem very convenient.

Then there is this one...

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/education/story/2020-11-30/new-lawsuit-alleges-years-of-anti-black-discrimination-at-southwestern-college

USC's report highlighted individual instances, such as Latino custodial staff making monkey sounds at Black coworkers through walkie-talkies and a Black employee being relocated from the main campus because a White female coworker was afraid of him, that collectively painted a damning picture of institutional anti-Black racism on campus.

I don't know what to make of "monkey sounds"...guess you would have to be there.

If a female worker feels unsecure with a male coworker, and admin ignores her concerns, is the admin guilty of gender bias?  Is that proof of "racism"?  Wouldn't you, as an administrator, be worried about a female who was afraid of a male worker?  Could there be other reasons that a female worker was uncomfortable with a male worker than race?  Working as a campus night janitor at my undergrad institution many years ago we were told to make sure that female coworkers were comfortable working alone with we male workers in an empty building.  I don't remember how we were supposed to do that (although we I do remember we weren't supposed to get on elevators alone with a female coworker at night) so this is not anything unusual.

Then there was this:

The report ended with a list of 12 recommendations for the college, which enrolls 19,000 students, 72 percent of whom are Latino, 10 percent Asian, 7 percent White and 4 percent Black. Recommendations included things such as issuing a formal apology to Black employees, creating leadership pipelines for minority candidates, and changing the hiring process to make it more inclusive.

Which sounds very familiar. Charges of "racism" emerge and the university uncritically pledges all sorts of cosmetic changes and the allegations are uncritically accepted.
Then there is this:

Another Black employee who is suing Southwestern, Veronica Burton, has worked in the counseling department since 1998. As one of the most senior employees, she applied for the role of acting dean in 2018, the role that eventually went to Dean Aragoza.
"Despite being the most qualified candidate on paper, having had the most relevant experience, including specific experience to SWCCD, Burton was again passed over for the promotion," the lawsuit states. "Burton believes that her race played the most important role in her being denied the Interim Dean position."

What then follows are more of the extraordinarily fraught accusations of racism.
I've lost track of all the jobs I feel I should have gotten.  It actually makes me a little angry in my current situation considering what I, a 5/5 lecturer, look like "on paper" in comparison to the tenure track faculty I work with.  Does that mean that Veronica Burton is lying to retaliate for a job she thought she should have?  I don't know.

Burton's qualifications on the USC website list

Veronica Burton
Counselor
B.S. New Jersey City University
M.S. San Diego State University

Aragoza's qualifications are listed as:

Dean Aragoza
Counselor
B.A., M.S. San Diego State University

So, I guess we have to find other evidence that one minority person faces discrimination while another does not face discrimination based on academic pedigree alone.

I do know that the USC English, Math, Political Science, Music, and Engineering departments have multiple minority candidates. I didn't look further because my search was largely a rhetorical exercise. Are there enough minority faculty to prove USC is not essentially a racist working environment?  Somebody else will have to answer that.

So fine, SW, I will concede that you found allegations.  Since there is so little actual examination or challenge in these sorts of scenarios, I am not sure you have proof.  I do have to note that you, along with a lot of people, seem to equate the allegation with proof even when the charges are uncorroborated and undocumented.

We'd better start thinking about this, because the forces that really, honestly represent bigotry and reactionary politics (think Trump) are in ascendancy.

Just glancing over this post exhausts me (I'm fried from teaching all day). I've made whatever points I wanted to make throughout the thread, and you are welcome to agree or disagree.

The one point I will make before signing off is that the evidence on this topic that I find convincing (and which I cited) doesn't rely on references to micro-aggressions or to implicit or unconscious bias, it shows correlations between race and outcomes, when holding other potentially confounding factors constant. That is exactly the sort of data that should inform discussions of race in the academy, not anecdotes such as the ones that get constant attention on this board.

[Wahoo Redux]

Fair enough.  I agree.  Let's see some stats.

And my point is not that racism et al. doesn't exist----which we know it does----but that our own reaction to it is ill-advised, particularly in academia.

For instance, differences in outcome might not be evidence of "racism" but evidence of the effects of history.  And accusing people of making note of this history does no good.

[mahagonny]

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.

As for academics, they aren't necessarily hysterical. They could be just dishonest and self serving. Promoting race hysteria would be a good way to promote their publications, their promotions and big salaries, and the reinforcing of the cheap contingent labor exploitation in academia, the need to change the way people teach, as demonstrated by the shocking impact of the research.

[marshwiggle]

Fair enough.  I agree.  Let's see some stats.

And my point is not that racism et al. doesn't exist----which we know it does----but that our own reaction to it is ill-advised, particularly in academia.

For instance, differences in outcome might not be evidence of "racism" but evidence of the effects of history. And accusing people of making note of this history does no good.

This is why, as you've noted, I have a bee in my bonnet about "activism" in academia. As the history of learning has repeatedly shown, people very easily and often make incorrect conclusions based on what they observe. Improvements in research, in science and other areas, requires that people work very hard to avoid being seduced by their own preconceptions.  Activists in academia turn this on its head; they take their preconceptions about things like "systemic racism" and then proceed to find it everywhere. Instead of trying to look for more complex, nuanced, (and therefore realistic), explanations for results, they reduce everything to vague and untestable things like "systemic bias" and "microagressions"*.

This is regressive in the expanding of human knowledge, and antithetical to the mission of academia.


*One of the few scientifically valid investigations into "unconscious bias" that I've seen is where they have changed the names of applicants for jobs. This actually shows a causal link between identity and outcome. Much of what gets presented as "evidence" is just based on correlation, without any proof of causation.

[mahagonny]

As I said, the subject makes people hysterical.

As for academics, they aren't necessarily hysterical. They could be just dishonest and self serving. Promoting race hysteria would be a good way to promote their publications, their promotions and big salaries, and the reinforcing of the cheap contingent labor exploitation in academia, the need to change the way people teach, as demonstrated by the shocking impact of the research.

This might be useful to think about; whereas, if a person is hysterical, he/she might eventually see you as a trusted helper, but if they are just hyping themselves and/or their friends for profit and fame...forget it.

[Wahoo Redux]

An obliquely similar situation.  We do not lose our right to free speech once we walk away from the confines of wherever we are supposed to be.

Teen Cheerleader Suspended for Snapchat.

The court in a famous 1969 decision said that students don't surrender their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate, but that educators can limit speech on school property when it's materially disruptive. It has not addressed how school-related speech expressed off-campus can be handled.

"This case is so important because it has implications, not just for school leaders in Pennsylvania, but across the nation to be able to provide for the safety and welfare of students in their schools," said Paul Healy, executive director of the Pennsylvania Principals Association, which is backing the Mahanoy Area School District in the case.

Two lower federal courts sided with Levy in the dispute, ordering her returned to the team in 2017 and allowed her to continue her cheerleading career. Later, in a sweeping decision, a federal appeals court affirmed the decision, saying a school's authority to enforce the rules "does not apply off-campus."

[marshwiggle]

An obliquely similar situation.  We do not lose our right to free speech once we walk away from the confines of wherever we are supposed to be.

Teen Cheerleader Suspended for Snapchat.

The court in a famous 1969 decision said that students don't surrender their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate, but that educators can limit speech on school property when it's materially disruptive. It has not addressed how school-related speech expressed off-campus can be handled.

"This case is so important because it has implications, not just for school leaders in Pennsylvania, but across the nation to be able to provide for the safety and welfare of students in their schools," said Paul Healy, executive director of the Pennsylvania Principals Association, which is backing the Mahanoy Area School District in the case.

Two lower federal courts sided with Levy in the dispute, ordering her returned to the team in 2017 and allowed her to continue her cheerleading career. Later, in a sweeping decision, a federal appeals court affirmed the decision, saying a school's authority to enforce the rules "does not apply off-campus."

I don't understand something. From the article:

When 14-year-old Brandi Levy didn't make the varsity cut as a freshman cheerleader for the Mahanoy Golden Bears, she sounded off on social media, as teenagers are known to do.

I would read that to mean she was already off the team before she made the postings. Can someone enlighten me on this?

[Wahoo Redux]

Probably she would be able to practice with the team and might cheer JV matches but would not perform at the big games or school assemblies.