Academic Freedom and Cancel Culture

[marshwiggle]

2a) The article reports some statements from former students of this prof. Some say they aren't particularly surprised to learn he has misogynistic opinions (except perhaps at just how extreme they are). Some say they are surprised as they personally didn't notice any discriminatory behavior.

.
.
.
I recall reading an article once about a parent who stopped hiring their regular babysitter for jobs after finding the babysitter's personal blog in which she wrote about how much she loathed the kids she looked after and made lots of insulting remarks about them. She had always acted kind and friendly with the families she sat for, but the parent was too uncomfortable after reading the blog to ever hire her again. Was the parent being unfair? If the sitter had been with an agency, would they have been out of line reprimanding or even firing her?

One difference between the babysitter and the prof is the contract. Firing someone, when there haven't been any complaints about their behaviour, is different than choosing to not re-hire someone.  Now, once people are aware of the blog, is the prof were still employed people would be hyper-sensitive, and so the odds of complaints would go up a lot, but the fact that there were none to date is fascinating.

Number 1 rule of online posting: Don't say anything you can't "own" if/when it gets discovered.

[smallcleanrat]

2a) The article reports some statements from former students of this prof. Some say they aren't particularly surprised to learn he has misogynistic opinions (except perhaps at just how extreme they are). Some say they are surprised as they personally didn't notice any discriminatory behavior.

.
.
.
I recall reading an article once about a parent who stopped hiring their regular babysitter for jobs after finding the babysitter's personal blog in which she wrote about how much she loathed the kids she looked after and made lots of insulting remarks about them. She had always acted kind and friendly with the families she sat for, but the parent was too uncomfortable after reading the blog to ever hire her again. Was the parent being unfair? If the sitter had been with an agency, would they have been out of line reprimanding or even firing her?

One difference between the babysitter and the prof is the contract. Firing someone, when there haven't been any complaints about their behaviour, is different than choosing to not re-hire someone.  Now, once people are aware of the blog, is the prof were still employed people would be hyper-sensitive, and so the odds of complaints would go up a lot, but the fact that there were none to date is fascinating.

Number 1 rule of online posting: Don't say anything you can't "own" if/when it gets discovered.

The events as reported in the story about the prof are that he resigned mid-investigation, not that he was dismissed. Maybe that happened behind-the-scenes and he got some kind of 'it's either resign or be fired' ultimatum, but at this point that would be speculating (unless you've seen an update on this story?)

[marshwiggle]

2a) The article reports some statements from former students of this prof. Some say they aren't particularly surprised to learn he has misogynistic opinions (except perhaps at just how extreme they are). Some say they are surprised as they personally didn't notice any discriminatory behavior.

.
.
.
I recall reading an article once about a parent who stopped hiring their regular babysitter for jobs after finding the babysitter's personal blog in which she wrote about how much she loathed the kids she looked after and made lots of insulting remarks about them. She had always acted kind and friendly with the families she sat for, but the parent was too uncomfortable after reading the blog to ever hire her again. Was the parent being unfair? If the sitter had been with an agency, would they have been out of line reprimanding or even firing her?

One difference between the babysitter and the prof is the contract. Firing someone, when there haven't been any complaints about their behaviour, is different than choosing to not re-hire someone.  Now, once people are aware of the blog, is the prof were still employed people would be hyper-sensitive, and so the odds of complaints would go up a lot, but the fact that there were none to date is fascinating.

Number 1 rule of online posting: Don't say anything you can't "own" if/when it gets discovered.

The events as reported in the story about the prof are that he resigned mid-investigation, not that he was dismissed. Maybe that happened behind-the-scenes and he got some kind of 'it's either resign or be fired' ultimatum, but at this point that would be speculating (unless you've seen an update on this story?)

I don't have any more news on the story, but sometimes there are legal differences, like regarding pensions, etc. between resigning and getting fired. In many cases people choose the former over the latter for these reasons. No matter how the investigation turned out, he'd probably be a pariah with little chance of life ever going back to "normal".

[smallcleanrat]

2a) The article reports some statements from former students of this prof. Some say they aren't particularly surprised to learn he has misogynistic opinions (except perhaps at just how extreme they are). Some say they are surprised as they personally didn't notice any discriminatory behavior.

.
.
.
I recall reading an article once about a parent who stopped hiring their regular babysitter for jobs after finding the babysitter's personal blog in which she wrote about how much she loathed the kids she looked after and made lots of insulting remarks about them. She had always acted kind and friendly with the families she sat for, but the parent was too uncomfortable after reading the blog to ever hire her again. Was the parent being unfair? If the sitter had been with an agency, would they have been out of line reprimanding or even firing her?

One difference between the babysitter and the prof is the contract. Firing someone, when there haven't been any complaints about their behaviour, is different than choosing to not re-hire someone.  Now, once people are aware of the blog, is the prof were still employed people would be hyper-sensitive, and so the odds of complaints would go up a lot, but the fact that there were none to date is fascinating.

Number 1 rule of online posting: Don't say anything you can't "own" if/when it gets discovered.

I'm also not sure how 'fascinating' it is that there haven't been formal complaints about Title IX violations.

I'm not saying it's fair to fire someone without good evidence of wrongdoing (obtained and evaluated with due process), but going through a formal complaint process can be an ordeal. A lack of formal complaints can mean there haven't been any problems. But it can also be the result of people choosing not to rock the boat or who have become targets of negative attention themselves and/or been pressured to drop their complaint.

Is it also fascinating that some students are saying they already had the impression the prof was misogynistic before learning about his blog? It could just be that these students were reading too much into innocuous comments and actions; they might have formed these impressions from their own biases about men. Or it could be that some of the prof's behavior has been inappropriate, even if it wasn't officially reported.

All hypotheticals here since no details were given in the article as to why some students thought he was a misogynist.

If I had to guess, I would suspect the students' negative impressions were based on subtle behaviors and small incidents, not egregious acts of discrimination. It would surprise me if the investigation had turned up an offense severe enough to warrant termination (but I'm not exactly well-versed in what constitutes such an offense).

Something like cutting off female students in discussion sessions more quickly and more often than he does with male students can contribute to an impression of misogyny, but seems like it would be hard to prove (and even if you could prove it, I'm not sure how far you could argue it merits much of an institutional response).

There might also have been little comments, asides, or 'jokes' that some found off-putting (e.g. "intelligent woman - how's that for an oxymoron? haha, I kid, I kid...") but not worth the rigmarole of filing a formal complaint. From my experience, this is by far a more common way to get glimpses of someone's potential biases than outright illegal discrimination.

[mamselle]

+1^

There's also the example of people like Larry Nassar, whose flagrant violations all occurred in private or semi-private settings where no-one was there to corroborate....until the sheer number of people coming forward finally tipped the scales in terms of bringing an enaction of accountability into play.

Both the aggregated microagressions you mention, and the macroaggressions secretly made, like Nassar's, are often hard to track.

Which, of course, is why they're so attractive to the aggressors--their stay-out-of-jail-free cards, as it were.

And why they have to be brought to light.

M.

[marshwiggle]

I'm also not sure how 'fascinating' it is that there haven't been formal complaints about Title IX violations.

I'm not saying it's fair to fire someone without good evidence of wrongdoing (obtained and evaluated with due process), but going through a formal complaint process can be an ordeal. A lack of formal complaints can mean there haven't been any problems. But it can also be the result of people choosing not to rock the boat or who have become targets of negative attention themselves and/or been pressured to drop their complaint.

As always, the way to approach the issue is to imagine it were reversed. Suppose this was a progressive prof in a very conservative (possibly religious) institution. If his blog said pro-lifers were idiots, and gun owners were terrorists, etc., should he be fired when it comes to light and students who are pro-life and/or pro-gun are upset?

[smallcleanrat]

I'm also not sure how 'fascinating' it is that there haven't been formal complaints about Title IX violations.

I'm not saying it's fair to fire someone without good evidence of wrongdoing (obtained and evaluated with due process), but going through a formal complaint process can be an ordeal. A lack of formal complaints can mean there haven't been any problems. But it can also be the result of people choosing not to rock the boat or who have become targets of negative attention themselves and/or been pressured to drop their complaint.

As always, the way to approach the issue is to imagine it were reversed. Suppose this was a progressive prof in a very conservative (possibly religious) institution. If his blog said pro-lifers were idiots, and gun owners were terrorists, etc., should he be fired when it comes to light and students who are pro-life and/or pro-gun are upset?

No, and I wasn't advocating for this prof to be fired either since there wasn't proof of a fireable offense.

Is that the message you thought I was trying to get across? Why? What did I say that implied I think someone should be fired entirely based on students disliking the contents of their personal blog?

RE: your "reversed" example:
I would be interested in hearing from pro-life/pro-gun students he had taught as to their experiences with him as an instructor. I would understand a university being concerned as to whether his vitriolic attitudes towards people with such views ever bleeds over into how he treats his students.

But again, I was questioning whether or not the investigation into wrongdoing should have been triggered by the blog in the first place, legally or ethically.

And I was questioning the implication that 'no formal complaints' = 'no problems; nothing to see here.' Which can be considered separately from the issue of whether or not the university did the right thing by starting an investigation.

[marshwiggle]

I'm also not sure how 'fascinating' it is that there haven't been formal complaints about Title IX violations.

I'm not saying it's fair to fire someone without good evidence of wrongdoing (obtained and evaluated with due process), but going through a formal complaint process can be an ordeal. A lack of formal complaints can mean there haven't been any problems. But it can also be the result of people choosing not to rock the boat or who have become targets of negative attention themselves and/or been pressured to drop their complaint.

As always, the way to approach the issue is to imagine it were reversed. Suppose this was a progressive prof in a very conservative (possibly religious) institution. If his blog said pro-lifers were idiots, and gun owners were terrorists, etc., should he be fired when it comes to light and students who are pro-life and/or pro-gun are upset?

No, and I wasn't advocating for this prof to be fired either since there wasn't proof of a fireable offense.

Is that the message you thought I was trying to get across? Why? What did I say that implied I think someone should be fired entirely based on students disliking the contents of their personal blog?

Actually, my impression was that you were asking the question honestly, so I didn't think you were saying he should be fired. Given that most people on here are probably fairly progressive, I thought reversing the example might get a different response from some of them.

RE: your "reversed" example:
I would be interested in hearing from pro-life/pro-gun students he had taught as to their experiences with him as an instructor. I would understand a university being concerned as to whether his vitriolic attitudes towards people with such views ever bleeds over into how he treats his students.

But again, I was questioning whether or not the investigation into wrongdoing should have been triggered by the blog in the first place, legally or ethically.

And I agree, that's one important question on its own. Especially now, as more and more people are getting hassled, fired, etc. over things they said or did, in many cases decades ago, the odds are that many ( a majority?) people have something that if it came to light could get them in hot water, regardless of how their performance in recent memory is perceived.

And I was questioning the implication that 'no formal complaints' = 'no problems; nothing to see here.' Which can be considered separately from the issue of whether or not the university did the right thing by starting an investigation.

Again, that is a very good question. My point in saying it was "interesting" was not that 'no formal complaints' = 'no problems; nothing to see here', but rather, like stuff in peoples' pasts mentioned above, most people probably have had various informal criticisms. How much informal criticism should be taken to suggest there's probably some deeper problem to be investigated?

[history_grrrl]

As always, the way to approach the issue is to imagine it were reversed. Suppose this was a progressive prof in a very conservative (possibly religious) institution. If his blog said pro-lifers were idiots, and gun owners were terrorists, etc., should he be fired when it comes to light and students who are pro-life and/or pro-gun are upset?

Hi, all! I haven't been around for ages but wandered in to see if anyone was discussing the Kathleen Stock (Sussex) or Bright Sheng (Michigan) cases.

Some cases on this thread raise important questions about the relationship between faculty members' beliefs and treatment of others. I tend to agree with Mamselle that strongly held views likely will come out in actions. But I'm not sure this is a given. In the Stock case, I understand why some students and faculty are angry about her views, but I haven't seen any evidence – or indeed any accusations – that she treated anyone badly, evaluated them unfairly, etc., on the basis of gender identity. Perhaps she did, but then I would have expected to see that included in the complaints against her.

The Sheng case – while instigated by students angry about not being appropriately prepared for a film they were about to see – seems to have veered into accusations of racist action made by some students and even colleagues. I don't think Sheng has been accused of either holding racist views or treating others badly, evaluating them unfairly, etc., on the basis of race. I think it would have been a good idea to contextualize the film ahead of time, but the university's response is pretty egregious. I wonder if there's some personal or professional animus driving the colleagues who have spoken out; it's hard to imagine faculty members publicly attacking a colleague in their own department in this manner. But perhaps I'm naïve – and actually, some of Stock's departmental colleagues may have participated publicly in the campaign against her.

As to Marshwiggle's question: one major difference between the Montana case and this hypothetical one is that the Montana prof said women shouldn't receive the same education as men. This to me goes beyond saying crappy things about women and girls. To be clear, that's not okay either – but given his specific assertion about education, how can he be trusted to treat women students equally with men? If the progressive prof said "pro-lifers" (now there's an oxymoron!) and gun owners shouldn't have equal access to education, treated them badly, evaluated them unfairly, etc., that's a serious problem. But then, that prof is more likely to be removed by irate right-wing legislators or university trustees.

We'd had a few similar cases on my campus, and I see a lot of people leaping to judgment (I've done it myself sometimes) and some faculty calling for censure or firing while forgetting that our union protections apply even to colleagues who are jerks. I wish there were less shouting and more space for reflection and genuine discussion.

[Parasaurolophus]

It's too bad Stock felt she had to resign, but it's understandable given the pressure against her. I think it was probably the right decision, purely where her own interests were concerned. Her academic work was (is) quite good, apart from its intersection with trans issues.

Her cusade against trans women was astonishingly ill-informed and poorly-argued, however. I expected much more from her. And it's not surprising that she ultimately resigned, given how prominent she made herself in the crusade against trans women. She decided to become a lightning rod, and lightning struck (along with an OBE...).

At least it's a genuine resignation for good reason, unlike that weasel Boghossian. And at least, unlike most other anti-trans folks, she has genuine feminist credentials. (Which makes it all the more surprising how awful her anti-trans advocacy was. But, well. There's precedent for that.)

[mahagonny]

As to Marshwiggle's question: one major difference between the Montana case and this hypothetical one is that the Montana prof said women shouldn't receive the same education as men. This to me goes beyond saying crappy things about women and girls. To be clear, that's not okay either – but given his specific assertion about education, how can he be trusted to treat women students equally with men?

So boys shouldn't be taught that they are oppressors? OK, when do we start?

What's being promoted now is teaching people to accept ideas of inherent identity-group based differences and think of them throughout your day. And some of them are condemnation. It's too late to use 'women should get the same education as men' to advocate for women's rights unless you intend to repudiate the academic left and the push for woke ideology in public school. Which would be an excellent idea.

[downer]

It's too bad Stock felt she had to resign, but it's understandable given the pressure against her. I think it was probably the right decision, purely where her own interests were concerned. Her academic work was (is) quite good, apart from its intersection with trans issues.

Her cusade against trans women was astonishingly ill-informed and poorly-argued, however. I expected much more from her. And it's not surprising that she ultimately resigned, given how prominent she made herself in the crusade against trans women. She decided to become a lightning rod, and lightning struck (along with an OBE...).

At least it's a genuine resignation for good reason, unlike that weasel Boghossian. And at least, unlike most other anti-trans folks, she has genuine feminist credentials. (Which makes it all the more surprising how awful her anti-trans advocacy was. But, well. There's precedent for that.)

Have you read Material Girls?

Me neither.

So maybe we can't actually say.

I have noticed many people casually drop the claim that KS's arguments are bad, with no evidence. It reflects badly on those who make the claim.

I have read a good amount of argument in the topic, and so far, my main impression is that the evidential base for most for of the positive claims regarding trans issues about both what disputed medical interventions work and what disputed policies work is unimpressive.

Is KS genuine in her reaction to the recent campaign against her, or crying wolf? As a matter of interpreting the evidence available (such as radio and online interviews) I'm inclined to believe her. But she is also angry and will continue her mission. She may well find ways to monetize that.

I wish there were less shouting and more space for reflection and genuine discussion.

That's not how things go.

I know people know people on both sides and the passions run high. People feel the need to make confident assertions rather than tentative claims. They want to support their friends.

[Parasaurolophus]

I've read most of the articles, but not the book. What I read was not good, and not up yo the standard I expect from a philosopher of her calibre.

I don't think she's crying wolf, however. She's absolutely backed herselfninto a corner from which she couldn't continue to do her job.

[Wahoo Redux]

I read a single article about the threat to the idea of the feminine if we accept trans-women as "women."

I do not know much about the philosophic method, but I was really unimpressed.  Had I not known the backstory I would have assumed Stock to be a reactionary right-wing bigot, kind of like the people who claim that if we allow gay marriage then soon we will be marrying horses and cars and whatnot.

I just cannot figure out why that would be a legitimate commentary.  There is no legitimate, quantifiable proof that the concept of trans-women harms women.

I don't even know why other people's orientations bothers anyone in the first place.

Nevertheless, her story epitomizes the sort of reactionary left-wing politics that worries me about the academy (I posted an article about her a while back which I think was overlooked because of another bruhaha)----and I'm a lefty for sure.

Stock built her own pyre, but she should have the right to build it.

Tangentially, anybody feel like shoplifting from a bakery next to the Oberlin campus?

[dismalist]

...

I don't even know why other people's orientations bothers anyone in the first place.

'''

Tangentially, anybody feel like shoplifting from a bakery next to the Oberlin campus?

Completely agreed.