Another Seuss Cancellation Thread (Summer 2023)

[ciao_yall]

Should a professor be permitted to call a student group 'idiots', 'twits', etc., IN CLASS?  Why or why not?

Allowed is one thing.

Is it modeling professional behavior, and showing students the proper way to behave when they disagree with someone?

Should we wonder about someone's mental state and/or emotional maturity when they, the adult in the room, can't come up with a more thoughtful response than childish name-calling?

[Wahoo Redux]

Should a professor be permitted to call a student group 'idiots', 'twits', etc., IN CLASS?  Why or why not?

Absolutely not!

But this is a good example illustrating much of the problem we have. Once upon a time one didn't need lawyers to draw the limits of the allowed, one had common courtesy, which amounts to self-restraint. Everybody wants to exercise their right to free speech. Doing so turns the university into a commons of cross purpose yelling.

Since the professor was at work, the real issue is what is acceptable to the employer.

[kaysixteen]

We seem to be forgetting the fundamentally unequal power relationship that professor x has with his students.   College kids, most esp 18yo froshburgers fresh from the loving embrace of helicopter parental units, could be terrified to speak up or complain, when/if professor calls them or their friends/ coreligionists, etc., 'twits and idiots', and this could create a very hostile learning environment for said students.  It would of course also be more or less perfectly reasonable to conclude that it would be at least *possible* to assume that if a student did complain about being the recipient of such verbiage, at professor's hands, and then subsequently received a poor grade in said professor's class, that the prof was punishing him for such speaking up.

[marshwiggle]

Should a professor be permitted to call a student group 'idiots', 'twits', etc., IN CLASS?  Why or why not?

Absolutely not!

But this is a good example illustrating much of the problem we have. Once upon a time one didn't need lawyers to draw the limits of the allowed, one had common courtesy, which amounts to self-restraint. Everybody wants to exercise their right to free speech. Doing so turns the university into a commons of cross purpose yelling.

Since the professor was at work, the real issue is what is acceptable to the employer.

Well, the interesting question that comes from the things dismalist has said is: What is the relationship between "freedom of speech" and "employer codes of conduct"? An academic institution could, in principle, have strong protection for "freedom of speech", but have a very strict "code of conduct" so that the former was essentially meaningless since the employer could claim all kinds of things violated the code of conduct and fire anyone.

[Wahoo Redux]

We seem to be forgetting the fundamentally unequal power relationship that professor x has with his students.   College kids, most esp 18yo froshburgers fresh from the loving embrace of helicopter parental units, could be terrified to speak up or complain, when/if professor calls them or their friends/ coreligionists, etc., 'twits and idiots', and this could create a very hostile learning environment for said students.  It would of course also be more or less perfectly reasonable to conclude that it would be at least *possible* to assume that if a student did complain about being the recipient of such verbiage, at professor's hands, and then subsequently received a poor grade in said professor's class, that the prof was punishing him for such speaking up.

Events here and elsewhere suggest that students are far from powerless when it comes to matters of speech in the classroom.  Nevertheless, it might be inappropriate to single out any student group, particularly in the terms used by the instructor, in the classroom.

What I worry about are the sheer volume of speech issues on our campuses; the extension of these constraints off the campus and into people's private lives; the tremendous fragility of everyone involved; and the severity of the responses from everyone, often ruining people's careers and reputations over a gaff, misstep, inappropriate response, or unpopular opinion.

Our campuses are simply oxymoronic snowflake hotbeds.

So sure, the instructor in this instance probably crossed the line, but give him a talking-to and everyone involved then needs to unclutch their pearls-----whatever he said does not rise to the level of, say, a racist diatribe or sexual harassment. 

[marshwiggle]

What I worry about are the sheer volume of speech issues on our campuses; the extension of these constraints off the campus and into people's private lives; the tremendous fragility of everyone involved; and the severity of the responses from everyone, often ruining people's careers and reputations over a gaff, misstep, inappropriate response, or unpopular opinion.

Our campuses are simply oxymoronic snowflake hotbeds.

So sure, the instructor in this instance probably crossed the line, but give him a talking-to and everyone involved then needs to unclutch their pearls-----whatever he said does not rise to the level of, say, a racist diatribe or sexual harassment. 

One of the things which has contributed to the escalation of these issues is the demands for concrete action. So where in the past a "talking to" would have been seen to be sufficient to prevent this sort of thing in the future, now people don't attach any value to "mere" public recognition and condemnation of the act. (Although, as with many things, there's a double standard. Anything which may even obliquely be considered "shaming" of someone from a marginalized group is considered to be tantamount to physical violence.)

[Langue_doc]

And now, segregated Christmas and other parties held by mayors in the name of equity!

Boston Mayor Michelle Wu proudly shared a photo of the controversial "electeds of color" holiday party she hosted on Wednesday, showcasing all the smiling government officials of minority backgrounds at the "no whites" gathering.

"Last night was my turn to host the annual holiday dinner for Boston's elected officials of color—a special moment to appreciate that our affinity group now includes leadership across city, state, county, and federal offices," Wu wrote in a caption alongside the photo on Instagram.

Wu, 38, came under fire earlier this week when her director of City Council Relations Denise DosSantos emailed the party's exclusive invitation to all members of the City Council instead of only the "electeds of color."

Boston's City Council is comprised of six minority and seven white members, who were not the intended targets of the email.

The aide realized her mistake approximately fifteen minutes after the message and sent a follow-up email to the white council members who received the invitation by mistake.

"I wanted to apologize for my previous email regarding a Holiday Party for tomorrow," DosSantos wrote in her follow-up. "I did send that to everyone by accident, and I apologize if my email may have offended or came across as so. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused."
"Last night was my turn to host the annual holiday dinner for Boston's elected officials of color—a special moment to appreciate that our affinity group now includes leadership across city, state, county, and federal offices," Wu wrote in a caption alongside the photo on Instagram.

Wu, 38, came under fire earlier this week when her director of City Council Relations Denise DosSantos emailed the party's exclusive invitation to all members of the City Council instead of only the "electeds of color."

Boston's City Council is comprised of six minority and seven white members, who were not the intended targets of the email.

The aide realized her mistake approximately fifteen minutes after the message and sent a follow-up email to the white council members who received the invitation by mistake.

"I wanted to apologize for my previous email regarding a Holiday Party for tomorrow," DosSantos wrote in her follow-up. "I did send that to everyone by accident, and I apologize if my email may have offended or came across as so. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused."
"I don't really get offended too easily," Baker, a white Democrat, told the Boston Herald. "To offend me, you're going to have to do much more than not invite me to a party."

"I find it unfortunate that with the temperature the way it is, that we would further that division," he added.

Are we supposed to vote for candidates who share our skin color? religion? gender?

[marshwiggle]

And now, segregated Christmas and other parties held by mayors in the name of equity!

Boston Mayor Michelle Wu proudly shared a photo of the controversial "electeds of color" holiday party she hosted on Wednesday, showcasing all the smiling government officials of minority backgrounds at the "no whites" gathering.

"Last night was my turn to host the annual holiday dinner for Boston's elected officials of color—a special moment to appreciate that our affinity group now includes leadership across city, state, county, and federal offices," Wu wrote in a caption alongside the photo on Instagram.

Wu, 38, came under fire earlier this week when her director of City Council Relations Denise DosSantos emailed the party's exclusive invitation to all members of the City Council instead of only the "electeds of color."

Boston's City Council is comprised of six minority and seven white members, who were not the intended targets of the email.

The aide realized her mistake approximately fifteen minutes after the message and sent a follow-up email to the white council members who received the invitation by mistake.

"I wanted to apologize for my previous email regarding a Holiday Party for tomorrow," DosSantos wrote in her follow-up. "I did send that to everyone by accident, and I apologize if my email may have offended or came across as so. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused."
"Last night was my turn to host the annual holiday dinner for Boston's elected officials of color—a special moment to appreciate that our affinity group now includes leadership across city, state, county, and federal offices," Wu wrote in a caption alongside the photo on Instagram.

Wu, 38, came under fire earlier this week when her director of City Council Relations Denise DosSantos emailed the party's exclusive invitation to all members of the City Council instead of only the "electeds of color."

Boston's City Council is comprised of six minority and seven white members, who were not the intended targets of the email.

The aide realized her mistake approximately fifteen minutes after the message and sent a follow-up email to the white council members who received the invitation by mistake.

"I wanted to apologize for my previous email regarding a Holiday Party for tomorrow," DosSantos wrote in her follow-up. "I did send that to everyone by accident, and I apologize if my email may have offended or came across as so. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused."
"I don't really get offended too easily," Baker, a white Democrat, told the Boston Herald. "To offend me, you're going to have to do much more than not invite me to a party."

"I find it unfortunate that with the temperature the way it is, that we would further that division," he added.

Are we supposed to vote for candidates who share our skin color? religion? gender?

I wonder if the party includes guests? It would be fascinating to see the "colour police" at the door deciding whose spouses/significant others weren't welcome. (This, of course, wouldn't be necessary if people were smart enough to "stay in their lane" romantically. What century are we in???)

[dismalist]

I think Ms. Wu is not evil, just a fool. [She majored in Economics, which is a strike against the discipline, but it was at Harvard. :-)]

Of course people can invite anyone they damned well please to their private social functions!

A minor point is that these peoples are government employees, so they may be violating the Civil rights Act. Let the lawyers figure it out.

A major point is that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If we allow racially segregated functions of any kind, we must also allow social functions for whites alone, too. And how about functions for all races?

How did we get here? [Don't tell me; I know.]

[apl68]

Tempest in a teacup, I guess, but the optics certainly don't look good.  As is often the case with things like this, the principals profess not to be too offended, yet I'm sure others will be eager to be offended on their behalf.

[marshwiggle]

Tempest in a teacup, I guess, but the optics certainly don't look good.  As is often the case with things like this, the principals profess not to be too offended, yet I'm sure others will be eager to be offended on their behalf.

Well, in one way it's not necessarily all pretense. I can't imagine having the remotest interest in attending a "party" where I was specifically not invited because of my skin colour. Sadly, history is full of events of that nature.....

[Langue_doc]

This is more than a tempest in a teacup because the exclusion of individuals based on skin color is to a work-related event. As noted upthread, this might be a violation of state and federal laws. What next? Enrollment in courses based on ethnicity? Cornell tried this to promote "safe spaces":

Cornell Students Defend Racially Segregated Rock Climbing Course

Cornell University students expressed support for racial segregation after the school allowed white students to enroll in a rock climbing class originally restricted to minority students.

Cornell first offered "BIPOC Rock Climbing" in the spring of 2021, exclusively to "people who identify as Black, Indigenous, Latinx, Asian, or other people of color." The school removed the racial enrollment requirement in response to a Campus Reform inquiry.

Students enrolled in the course objected to the move, telling the Cornell Daily Sun that segregating the class "is a small step" toward greater racial equity.

"At the end of the day, there is an issue of inaccessibility for minorities in this white-centric sport and BIPOC rock-climbing is a small step towards desegregating that community," Matthew Gavieta, a junior and BIPOC Rock Climbing class instructor, said.

Instructor Michelle Croen, a senior, claimed it's typically "difficult" for minority students to feel welcomed in rock climbing due to the cost and other "microaggressions," such as course names.

"From larger issues such as cost of entry and accessibility, to smaller microaggressions like the names of some outdoor climbing routes, it's difficult to be a minority and feel welcomed in the outdoors," Croen said. "Just under the surface, the climbing world especially is affected by racism, sexism, and sizeism."

Lwam Asfaw, a senior enrolled in the course, said the "BIPOC" label influenced her choice in the class. Critics of the class should focus "less on why segregation exists and more on why there's a need to segregate," the Sun paraphrased Asfaw as saying.

Safe spaces on college campuses proliferated after the election of Donald Trump in 2016. More recently, universities have begun to create exclusive spaces for students based on race or gender in the name of equity and inclusion.

Marymount University conducted two separate "healing circles" last fall, one for white students and one for black students. Columbia University announced in March it would host six separate graduation ceremonies for minority groups, LGBT students, and first-generation and low-income graduates. Students at New York University and Rice University last summer called on their schools to create black-only dorms and other separated campus spaces.

William Jacobson, a Cornell Law School professor, told the Washington Free Beacon that while the course as modified didn't present any legal challenge, the squabble over the course shows how "identity politics" can clash with laws banning discrimination.

"It appears that the course now explicitly is open to all students. If that is the case, then I don't see a problem with a 'themed' activity," Jacobson, who founded the conservative legal blog Legal Insurrection, said. "The earlier description, which suggested it was open only to students of certain racial and ethnic groups, would have been a significant potential legal problem had it not been corrected. This controversy highlights how identity politics can run into conflict with anti-discrimination laws and Cornell's own university policies against discrimination."

The course was subsequently opened to all students regardless of ethnicity or sexual orientation.

[apl68]

Okay, now a university offering an official course that is only for certain ethnicities is out of line. 

[marshwiggle]

Instructor Michelle Croen, a senior, claimed it's typically "difficult" for minority students to feel welcomed in rock climbing due to the cost and other "microaggressions," such as course names.

"From larger issues such as cost of entry and accessibility, to smaller microaggressions like the names of some outdoor climbing routes, it's difficult to be a minority and feel welcomed in the outdoors," Croen said. "Just under the surface, the climbing world especially is affected by racism, sexism, and sizeism."

I guess that means they need smaller rocks to climb?

[dismalist]

Okay, now a university offering an official course that is only for certain ethnicities is out of line. 

Not really. As usual, I'm pro-choice. The only question is who gets to choose.

We can indeed have courses segregated by race. [Never mind the Civil Rights Act.] So long as there's a section for Whites only, too, and my personal piffle, one open to all races.

And we can have sections according to gender.

Of course, proliferating sections does get a tad expensive. But hell, it's only money.