Faculty Policing Each Other

[smallcleanrat]

It's also worth remembering that for some people, those interactions happen every day. You'd be crabby too if you had to deal with it that often. (And, frankly, I think it says something not altogether flattering about one's society when that's the case, even if the infraction itself, in isolation, is relatively minor.)

I'm curious how many people deal with so many new people each day, and interact sufficiently, to experience "those interactions" every day. Many (most?) people tend to interact mostly with the same people every day, and others who deal with lots of new people every day do so on a very superficial and/or task-related level. It's hard to imagine someone getting comments on their appearance, speech, etc. every day.

The same people over and over again, either because you don't want to seem hypersensitive by asking them to stop or they don't see any reason to change if you do ask them to stop (e.g. "oh, lighten up").

[Parasaurolophus]

It's also worth remembering that for some people, those interactions happen every day. You'd be crabby too if you had to deal with it that often. (And, frankly, I think it says something not altogether flattering about one's society when that's the case, even if the infraction itself, in isolation, is relatively minor.)

I'm curious how many people deal with so many new people each day, and interact sufficiently, to experience "those interactions" every day. Many (most?) people tend to interact mostly with the same people every day, and others who deal with lots of new people every day do so on a very superficial and/or task-related level. It's hard to imagine someone getting comments on their appearance, speech, etc. every day.

My first name is French. It's a common French first name. Since everyone in this country gets about a decade of French language instruction, it's not a big ask for people to get it right. Or even close to right.

Pre-pandemic, it got mangled orally or in writing at least once a day (including by colleagues who have been corrected any number of times). Now, it's every two or three days.

Mostly, the mistakes reveal a confusion about my name's gendering. And it's clearly pervasive--but it shouldn't really be, given all the French you learn in school. You should be able to recognize it as a French name and accept it as such, rather than Anglicize it to a different name altogether or misgender it.

I've lived in five provinces, and it's the worst here. Even Alberta was better. I am really tired of being told that something "isn't for me" or that I'm "not the registered owner" or that I "was called (on the PA) several times" just because someone can't be bothered to figure out gendered names which aren't English. I'm also really tired of correcting people, and of having my name translated to one of several English approximations (which are completely different).

And that's my first name. You wouldn't believe the number of times I've been told my last name is Chinese, or the things I've been told on the assumption that it is Chinese.

Nobody ever means to be hurtful when they mangle my name. But they do it so often, so persistently, so pervasively, and so consistently that the cumulative effect is to make it feel like I don't belong here. Sometimes, I give a false name just to avoid the interaction altogether.

And that's just me: a totally cis white man. Others have it much worse.

[mahagonny]

Perhaps some people are too sensitive and self-centered.  Lighten up, folks.  Not everyone is ignorant, malicious, racist, with bad motives.  Many are well-meaning.  Not every statement uttered by someone else must be perfectly aligned with one's preferences.

IMO, the true test for whether someone is well-meaning is how they react when told that their statement was hurtful or damaging to someone else.

If they were well meaning, they often apologize and keep it in mind for future interactions.

When someone becomes defensive and responds by telling someone to "lighten up" or be less sensitive, then it's a lot harder to infer good intent behind the statements.

For example I could tell Robin D-Angelo that her lecture and book make me uncomfortable, and she should be compelled to knock it off? Or would she tell me to be less sensitive, and stop being silent around discussions of racism, because my silence would reinforce the status quo, and that is unacceptable? And take 192 pages to say it?

https://www.amazon.com/White-Fragility-People-About-Racism/dp/0807047414

[smallcleanrat]

Perhaps some people are too sensitive and self-centered.  Lighten up, folks.  Not everyone is ignorant, malicious, racist, with bad motives.  Many are well-meaning.  Not every statement uttered by someone else must be perfectly aligned with one's preferences.

IMO, the true test for whether someone is well-meaning is how they react when told that their statement was hurtful or damaging to someone else.

If they were well meaning, they often apologize and keep it in mind for future interactions.

When someone becomes defensive and responds by telling someone to "lighten up" or be less sensitive, then it's a lot harder to infer good intent behind the statements.

For example I could tell Robin D-Angelo that her lecture and book make me uncomfortable, and she should be compelled to knock it off? Or would she tell me to be less sensitive, and stop being silent around discussions of racism, because my silence would reinforce the status quo, and that is unacceptable? And take 192 pages to say it?

https://www.amazon.com/White-Fragility-People-About-Racism/dp/0807047414

That's not quite the same context as personal interactions, I think. I mean, I do think an author should be willing to consider criticism of their work, but I never have expectations for anyone to stop writing books, even if I think their views are obnoxious.

But, if someone you interact with socially were making you uncomfortable with sweeping generalizations about white people or men or what-have-you, then yes, IMO the decent thing to do would be to knock it off (even if they think you are overreacting).

I see it as falling under a general principle in which I don't have to understand or agree with someone's discomfort in order to accommodate it (speaking still for personal interactions).

I know people who don't like nicknames, and it irritates them if someone changes "Robert" to "Rob" or "Robbie". Some people think it's silly to care about such a thing, saying the nickname is a sign of affection or friendliness, that he should lighten up. I'll stick to "Robert" anyway, because why would I deliberately call him a name he's told me he dislikes?

But that's me. People have different individual thresholds for this sort of thing.

[mahagonny]

Perhaps some people are too sensitive and self-centered.  Lighten up, folks.  Not everyone is ignorant, malicious, racist, with bad motives.  Many are well-meaning.  Not every statement uttered by someone else must be perfectly aligned with one's preferences.

IMO, the true test for whether someone is well-meaning is how they react when told that their statement was hurtful or damaging to someone else.

If they were well meaning, they often apologize and keep it in mind for future interactions.

When someone becomes defensive and responds by telling someone to "lighten up" or be less sensitive, then it's a lot harder to infer good intent behind the statements.

For example I could tell Robin D-Angelo that her lecture and book make me uncomfortable, and she should be compelled to knock it off? Or would she tell me to be less sensitive, and stop being silent around discussions of racism, because my silence would reinforce the status quo, and that is unacceptable? And take 192 pages to say it?

https://www.amazon.com/White-Fragility-People-About-Racism/dp/0807047414

That's not quite the same context as personal interactions, I think. I mean, I do think an author should be willing to consider criticism of their work, but I never have expectations for anyone to stop writing books, even if I think their views are obnoxious.

Except her book is not just a book. It's a movement (and some would say, a religious dogma requiring you to confess your whiteness regularly, and I would wholeheartedly agree) which has infiltrated my workplace and community and is gathering momentum. And whereas we work at a government maintained university, a step toward the religion-state.

[smallcleanrat]

Perhaps some people are too sensitive and self-centered.  Lighten up, folks.  Not everyone is ignorant, malicious, racist, with bad motives.  Many are well-meaning.  Not every statement uttered by someone else must be perfectly aligned with one's preferences.

IMO, the true test for whether someone is well-meaning is how they react when told that their statement was hurtful or damaging to someone else.

If they were well meaning, they often apologize and keep it in mind for future interactions.

When someone becomes defensive and responds by telling someone to "lighten up" or be less sensitive, then it's a lot harder to infer good intent behind the statements.

For example I could tell Robin D-Angelo that her lecture and book make me uncomfortable, and she should be compelled to knock it off? Or would she tell me to be less sensitive, and stop being silent around discussions of racism, because my silence would reinforce the status quo, and that is unacceptable? And take 192 pages to say it?

https://www.amazon.com/White-Fragility-People-About-Racism/dp/0807047414

That's not quite the same context as personal interactions, I think. I mean, I do think an author should be willing to consider criticism of their work, but I never have expectations for anyone to stop writing books, even if I think their views are obnoxious.

Except her book is not just a book. It's a movement (and some would say, a religious dogma requiring you to confess your whiteness regularly, and I would wholeheartedly agree) which has infiltrated my workplace and community and is gathering momentum. And whereas we work at a government maintained university, a step toward the religion-state.

I get your point, but the approach to combating that isn't the same as the approach to dealing with day-to-day personal interactions (which is what a lot of this thread has focused on). That's all I was pointing out.

I mean, I wouldn't expect you to stop posting your opinions here, even if I disagree or feel upset with some of them. Or if you wrote a blog post airing your criticisms of the excesses of "anti-racism" I wouldn't expect you to shut it down just because people said they felt uncomfortable reading it.

But if someone is interacting with me face-to-face (especially on a regular basis), then I might feel justified in asking them to stop certain behaviors (e.g. "Conversation-starters" like "So did your parents beat you if you got an A-?" or "Was your mom a mail-order bride?").

[mahagonny]

But if someone is interacting with me face-to-face (especially on a regular basis), then I might feel justified in asking them to stop certain behaviors (e.g. "Conversation-starters" like "So did your parents beat you if you got an A-?" or "Was your mom a mail-order bride?").

If you asked me to stop complimenting you on your fluent language skill or something else I would do it, but if you wrote an article stating that no white person may compliment a co-worker on their fluent language skills, because they don't like it, I would have questions.

[smallcleanrat]

But if someone is interacting with me face-to-face (especially on a regular basis), then I might feel justified in asking them to stop certain behaviors (e.g. "Conversation-starters" like "So did your parents beat you if you got an A-?" or "Was your mom a mail-order bride?").

If you asked me to stop complimenting you on your fluent language skill or something else I would do it, but if you wrote an article stating that no white person may compliment a co-worker on their fluent language skills, because they don't like it, I would have questions.

Then I think we're pretty much in agreement.

Honestly, this is the first time I've heard the argument that you shouldn't compliment someone who's learned English as a second (or third or fourth) language (about whom you *know* this to be the case) because it might make people with less proficient English skills feel bad. I guess that probably happens sometimes, but I don't see the obvious connection to racism. I'm open to the possibility I'm missing something, but that's my opinion at this moment.

I sometimes compliment students on how well-organized their notes are when they bring them to office hours. My note-taking organization leaves a lot to be desired, and I would probably feel a twinge of embarrassment thinking of that if I heard someone else's notes being praised, but I wouldn't put that at the door of whoever was paying the compliment. It's not as though a compliment to someone else is equivalent to an insult to me.

I had always heard the objection in the context of complimenting someone on their English skills *even though English is their native language*. It's the assumption that someone must be a foreigner based on how they look.

I had a teacher who consistently spoke to me in a slow, over-enunciated manner that he didn't use with the other students, even though i told him several times English is my first language and I can understand him just fine when he speaks at his regular pace. That's the sort of thing I might ask someone to stop, because it does make a person feel singled out.

[marshwiggle]

I'm curious how many people deal with so many new people each day, and interact sufficiently, to experience "those interactions" every day. Many (most?) people tend to interact mostly with the same people every day, and others who deal with lots of new people every day do so on a very superficial and/or task-related level. It's hard to imagine someone getting comments on their appearance, speech, etc. every day.

Nobody ever means to be hurtful when they mangle my name. But they do it so often, so persistently, so pervasively, and so consistently that the cumulative effect is to make it feel like I don't belong here. Sometimes, I give a false name just to avoid the interaction altogether.

And what possible remedy is there for society because of your name being mispronounced? (My last name is frequently mispronounced, while some people just freeze up instead of trying.) As you say, in Canada a French first name or surname shouldn't be a problem for anyone educated here, but if education hasn't achieved that, no amount of campaigning, or legislation, or scolding is going to change it.

The one thing you can do is to give your kids names that won't be so problematic. (I made sure my kids don't have first names which are difficult to pronounce or spell.)

[Parasaurolophus]

And what possible remedy is there for society because of your name being mispronounced? (My last name is frequently mispronounced, while some people just freeze up instead of trying.) As you say, in Canada a French first name or surname shouldn't be a problem for anyone educated here, but if education hasn't achieved that, no amount of campaigning, or legislation, or scolding is going to change it.

The one thing you can do is to give your kids names that won't be so problematic. (I made sure my kids don't have first names which are difficult to pronounce or spell.)

The problem is basically equivalent to calling someone whose name is 'Parminder' by the name 'Parmesan'. Or, perhaps less ludicrously, calling a 'Jean' by the name 'John' (and then insisting that the car isn't registered in his name because 'Jean' is a woman's name and his name is obviously 'John', etc.).

The 'possible remedy' is simply being more careful. When it's written in front of you, read what's written. When you're contacting me, or replying to my email, be careful to make sure your salutation matches what's written in my email address. When I tell you my name, say it like I say it, and don't add or change syllables (seriously, it's not a hard one for Anglos--there's a female equivalent in English that sounds exactly the same!). When I spell it out for you, spell it the way I tell you to. And for fuck's sake, don't tell me that something doesn't belong to me just because you think the name I gave you is a woman's name and I'm clearly a man.

These are basic courtesies we regularly extend to others. And it's every bloody day. I am so tired of it.

It also goes hand in hand with a really nasty attitude towards French and Francophones. You'd be surprised what people tell me because I don't have any detectable accent in English. That's somewhat par for the course out west, but still. The problem was nothing like this pronounced when I lived in Alberta.

Anyway, I'm not prescribing remedies. I'm explaining how awful and alienating this kind of thing can be, even if your interlocutor doesn't have bad intentions (which, in my case, they almost never do).

[mahagonny]

Honestly, this is the first time I've heard the argument that you shouldn't compliment someone who's learned English as a second (or third or fourth) language (about whom you *know* this to be the case) because it might make people with less proficient English skills feel bad. I guess that probably happens sometimes, but I don't see the obvious connection to racism. I'm open to the possibility I'm missing something, but that's my opinion at this moment.

There are an increasing number of things that are becoming forbidden to say because of where you fall on the natural-unearned-privilege scale. The white 'cisgender' heterosexual male is purported to have so many things in his favor that he is unaware of that the number of things that are acceptable for him to say is reduced and steadily shrinking. The obnoxious part of this mindset is not so much that you would never think of something like that, but more who are the people who get to make the pronouncements about what is proper for a particular group to say, and why do we trust them? Who's checking out their balls, keeping them honest? When was it established that all white 'cisgender' heterosexual males have similar lives, for one thing.

I'm old enough to remember Ann Landers and Emily Post, who said 'it is rude to correct someone on their manners.' Those days were not perfect but they were better in lots of ways.

[apl68]

And what possible remedy is there for society because of your name being mispronounced? (My last name is frequently mispronounced, while some people just freeze up instead of trying.) As you say, in Canada a French first name or surname shouldn't be a problem for anyone educated here, but if education hasn't achieved that, no amount of campaigning, or legislation, or scolding is going to change it.

The one thing you can do is to give your kids names that won't be so problematic. (I made sure my kids don't have first names which are difficult to pronounce or spell.)

The problem is basically equivalent to calling someone whose name is 'Parminder' by the name 'Parmesan'. Or, perhaps less ludicrously, calling a 'Jean' by the name 'John' (and then insisting that the car isn't registered in his name because 'Jean' is a woman's name and his name is obviously 'John', etc.).

The 'possible remedy' is simply being more careful. When it's written in front of you, read what's written. When you're contacting me, or replying to my email, be careful to make sure your salutation matches what's written in my email address. When I tell you my name, say it like I say it, and don't add or change syllables (seriously, it's not a hard one for Anglos--there's a female equivalent in English that sounds exactly the same!). When I spell it out for you, spell it the way I tell you to. And for fuck's sake, don't tell me that something doesn't belong to me just because you think the name I gave you is a woman's name and I'm clearly a man.

These are basic courtesies we regularly extend to others. And it's every bloody day. I am so tired of it.

It also goes hand in hand with a really nasty attitude towards French and Francophones. You'd be surprised what people tell me because I don't have any detectable accent in English. That's somewhat par for the course out west, but still. The problem was nothing like this pronounced when I lived in Alberta.

Anyway, I'm not prescribing remedies. I'm explaining how awful and alienating this kind of thing can be, even if your interlocutor doesn't have bad intentions (which, in my case, they almost never do).

That does sound awfully annoying. 

[smallcleanrat]

Honestly, this is the first time I've heard the argument that you shouldn't compliment someone who's learned English as a second (or third or fourth) language (about whom you *know* this to be the case) because it might make people with less proficient English skills feel bad. I guess that probably happens sometimes, but I don't see the obvious connection to racism. I'm open to the possibility I'm missing something, but that's my opinion at this moment.

There are an increasing number of things that are becoming forbidden to say because of where you fall on the natural-unearned-privilege scale. The white 'cisgender' heterosexual male is purported to have so many things in his favor that he is unaware of that the number of things that are acceptable for him to say is reduced and steadily shrinking. The obnoxious part of this mindset is not so much that you would never think of something like that, but more who are the people who get to make the pronouncements about what is proper for a particular group to say, and why do we trust them? Who's checking out their balls, keeping them honest? When was it established that all white 'cisgender' heterosexual males have similar lives, for one thing.

I'm old enough to remember Ann Landers and Emily Post, who said 'it is rude to correct someone on their manners.' Those days were not perfect but they were better in lots of ways.

Well, if you follow the rule of never correcting other people's manners you'd never be able to say anything when people come at you with, "Hey, mahagonny, you really need to stop complimenting people on their language skills."

I mean, is there no point at which it is ok for someone to speak up for themselves? Hasn't that question of "who gets to decide what's acceptable and why does everyone else have to either agree or shut up?" always been there?

When I was in college, a male student (who told me he preferred Asian women because "those cultures understand that a woman should be submissive to her man") pursued me for several months. He sent me copious emails and texts, learned my class schedule so he could be waiting to talk to me at the right time and place, and his requests to go out eventually turned into assertions ("You *will* go out with me, whether you know it yet or not.")

I finally told him he was making me very uncomfortable and asked him to leave me alone. His response was "All women play that game, but secretly they like a man with confidence who goes after what he wants." I ended up hiding in my dorm, staying longer in the building after class, or finding alternate round-about routes until he finally lost interest.

The male friends I confided in told me I'd been too harsh with the guy. One lamented that women "should be flattered" when someone pays them that much attention. Another said it's not fair to reject someone without going on at least *one* date, "Otherwise you haven't really given him a fair chance." They both told me to have more sympathy because dating is hard at our (majority-male) school.

I met with similar attitudes regarding guys groping me ("they were just playing around") or slipping pornography under my door ("it was just a joke"). Would it have been rude of *me* to tell them to knock it off?

[mahagonny]

Honestly, this is the first time I've heard the argument that you shouldn't compliment someone who's learned English as a second (or third or fourth) language (about whom you *know* this to be the case) because it might make people with less proficient English skills feel bad. I guess that probably happens sometimes, but I don't see the obvious connection to racism. I'm open to the possibility I'm missing something, but that's my opinion at this moment.

There are an increasing number of things that are becoming forbidden to say because of where you fall on the natural-unearned-privilege scale. The white 'cisgender' heterosexual male is purported to have so many things in his favor that he is unaware of that the number of things that are acceptable for him to say is reduced and steadily shrinking. The obnoxious part of this mindset is not so much that you would never think of something like that, but more who are the people who get to make the pronouncements about what is proper for a particular group to say, and why do we trust them? Who's checking out their balls, keeping them honest? When was it established that all white 'cisgender' heterosexual males have similar lives, for one thing.

I'm old enough to remember Ann Landers and Emily Post, who said 'it is rude to correct someone on their manners.' Those days were not perfect but they were better in lots of ways.

Well, if you follow the rule of never correcting other people's manners you'd never be able to say anything when people come at you with, "Hey, mahagonny, you really need to stop complimenting people on their language skills."

I mean, is there no point at which it is ok for someone to speak up for themselves? Hasn't that question of "who gets to decide what's acceptable and why does everyone else have to either agree or shut up?" always been there?

When I was in college, a male student (who told me he preferred Asian women because "those cultures understand that a woman should be submissive to her man") pursued me for several months. He sent me copious emails and texts, learned my class schedule so he could be waiting to talk to me at the right time and place, and his requests to go out eventually turned into assertions ("You *will* go out with me, whether you know it yet or not.")

I finally told him he was making me very uncomfortable and asked him to leave me alone. His response was "All women play that game, but secretly they like a man with confidence who goes after what he wants." I ended up hiding in my dorm, staying longer in the building after class, or finding alternate round-about routes until he finally lost interest.

The male friends I confided in told me I'd been too harsh with the guy. One lamented that women "should be flattered" when someone pays them that much attention. Another said it's not fair to reject someone without going on at least *one* date, "Otherwise you haven't really given him a fair chance." They both told me to have more sympathy because dating is hard at our (majority-male) school.

I met with similar attitudes regarding guys groping me ("they were just playing around") or slipping pornography under my door ("it was just a joke"). Would it have been rude of *me* to tell them to knock it off?

I have no experience with anything like this. I have been talking about the practice of sorting people into categories by immutable characteristics and then promoting different rules of behavior for different groups. I consider it a form of tyranny. I treat everyone the same at work and use the Golden Rule.
on edit: The most obnoxious of these are people in positions of authority, like diversity staff, who can control your access to grants or inflict 'training' sessions. The tenured people mostly mingle among themselves and can be pretty much ignored. They have a problem I don't have. What they're really doing is working out a problem of optics. The tenure track is so populated with white people, they get on the extra-sensitive-to-feelings-of POC bit to atone for their success. Whereas, being an adjunct, I'm not considered successful as an academic, so no one cares much what the racial composition of our tier is.

[smallcleanrat]

I have no experience with anything like this. I have been talking about the practice of sorting people into categories by immutable characteristics and then promoting different rules of behavior for different groups. I consider it a form of tyranny. I treat everyone the same at work and use the Golden Rule.

But not everyone is doing that when they bring up issues related to race or gender.

And I know that the rhetoric from some people seems to split the world into only two factions: woke people and white supremacists, but I don't see that in this specific article. I'm not sure I agree with every suggestion on the list, but the emphasis does seem to be on making people aware of behaviors that can contribute to feelings of alienation. That doesn't have to assume malicious intent, just lack of awareness.

But even assuming they are not intentionally promulgating that view their blind spot is failing to see that being told by the media and others that America is full of white supremacists is an obvious reason for non-whites to feel alienated, and it is the wokesters who are doing it. So, while they might think they are doing good, they are not doing what they think they are doing.

I'm not clear on what you're saying here.

It sounds like you acknowledge that there are people who *don't* endorse extremist rhetoric, but because *other people* do it doesn't matter?

Or is it that you're saying pointing out ways certain behaviors can negatively affect specific groups is what's making non-white people feel alienated (not the actual behaviors themselves)? Because those feelings of alienation existed long before media coverage of the "woke" movement became dominant.

I was pointing out that the article you linked to (regardless of whether you think the individual actions mentioned within it are trivial or not) is *not* an example of the viewpoint that cis-het white males are the cause of all the world's ills. But some of your comments seem to imply you think it is (or at least that it's in the same vein).

RE: the experiences I mentioned in my previous post.
It's not uncommon to hear people complain "I'm sick and tired of all men being demonized as evil" in response to discussion of any sort of action or awareness campaign related to stopping some of these types of harassing behaviors I mentioned. It doesn't seem to matter that no one in that particular discussion espouses the view that "all men are evil"; the fact that people who promote this view exist at all is enough to dismiss all discussions as examples of tyrannical liberals run amuck.

Say you think people should speak out against an attitude that a woman "owes" a man a date just because he wants one and the response is "Oh, *everything* is considered harassment these days. Did you hear about the 7-year old who was suspended from school for 'harassment' because he kissed a classmate? The world's gone insane."

Isn't this similar to the sort of guilt-by-association you criticize "anti-racist" movements for indulging in?

Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding your point here, but that's the impression I'm getting from your posts.