6 ms·

It certainly seems that the mere accusation of racism (or not even racism -- just not making race your primary focus and language of discussion) is career-dest

by wfo 11y ago

It certainly seems that the mere accusation of racism (or not even racism -- just not making race your primary focus and language of discussion) is career-destroying. What I got from reading the article was the notion that the head of an academic institution should not sit by and let a frothing mob that argues by fear and destroying careers and screaming and swearing run any and all discussion at the college; rather try to enforce a more cordial and respectful mode of communication, be brave in his or her rejection of this attitude and stand as an example to others that respect and dialogue are the cornerstone of the mission of education. The only "protection" they need is to be secure in the knowledge that the enormous amount of abuse and harassment and attempts to attack their livelihoods will be met with a firm defense of their ability to have opinions by those in power, not a request for their resignation.

tptacek 11y ago
The idea that some forms of speech are "career-destroying" and must be suppressed is isomorphic to the idea that, for instance, an email about Halloween costumes can be insensitive enough to cost a faculty member their job.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  I have no problem with the idea that certain forms of speech should end your career. If someone starts yelling slurs at people, they shouldn't have a job that involves interacting with people anymore. That doesn't infringe upon their free speech rights; they can say anything they like, and others can respond accordingly, which includes firing them or choosing not to hire them. The question then becomes where to draw the line: what speech deserves that level of response? And that seems like a topic people can vigorously disagree about. In particular, any conflict of fundamental values generates heated debate. It's "easy" to evaluate a conflict between a fundamental value and something that isn't: the fundamental value tends to win. That's part of why people rarely change their minds about fundamental values; not necessarily a feature. But when a conflict arises between two fundamental values (say, "free speech" and "non-discrimination") that many people hold simultaneously, people have to actually think to resolve the issue. You'll get some people taking sides (such as declaring "free speech" absolute and telling people to grow a thicker skin), but you'll also get people learning to define their values more precisely (e.g. your right to speak doesn't require others to listen without reaction, or to give you a platform from which to speak).
  - bmelton 11y ago
    > And that seems like a topic people can vigorously disagree about. Thankfully, most industries don't have blacklists, so each "career-ending" moment can be evaluated independently by people who do hiring in that respective field. Speech that mocks a Jeb Bush might disqualify you from work at Fox News, or (if any exist) conservative-leaning universities, but might actually be viewed as favorable to others. It is because we so vigorously disagree on those levels that, for the most part, even though there may be some job losses in the present, except where they are universally disagreed with, should not necessarily be career-ending. Or, at least that's how it works in theory. Gary Webb's career never rebounded from having printed a generally true series of articles, but then again, it might eventually have righted itself had he not died in 2004.
  - tedunangst 11y ago
    Should they get their job back when they stop yelling slurs?
    - ddingus 11y ago
      Depends. They will have demonstrated a basic lack of consideration important for that sort of work. It is on them to make the case they now will demonstrate that consideration. A very common thought will be, "they do, until they don't" and their case will center in on that risk. If successful, they will improve on that basic dynamic over time spent demonstrating that consideration.
      - progressive_dad 11y ago
        "I don't want to spend my life not having good food going into my pie hole. That hole was made for pies." -Paula Deen
        ddingus 11y ago
        Case in point, yes?
- ddingus 11y ago
  There is no shield in the First Amendmemt.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
__derek__ 11y ago
> It certainly seems that the mere accusation of racism ... is career-destroying. Examples?
- wfo 11y ago
  The article we are currently discussing is a good place to start though there are certainly others if you care to look (in academia at least).
  - __derek__ 11y ago
    Maybe I'm taking your use of "career-destroying" too literally. This dean will surely have no trouble finding another job.
    - wfo 11y ago
      I hope so and I think it's certainly possible, but 'publicly forced to resign for being a racist' being the first thing that shows up when a university official googles your name might make it a rough hire. These positions are high-publicity and the student body is the same everywhere. But I'm encouraged by your optimism -- perhaps I should have said 'job-destroying' instead, because it is inarguably that.
      - __derek__ 11y ago
        I mean, yes, it may invite some uncomfortable conversations in the future. This isn't the first time that someone has been forced to resign for problematic statements, and I honestly can't think of anyone who has been totally shut-out because of them. Once you reach the higher levels (e.g., dean of a very prestigious liberal arts college), the landings become quite soft (even when they ought to be hard). Anyway, I'm on-board with your suggestion of "job-destroying."
        belovedeagle 11y ago
        This is the same argument that's used by people advocating expelling ten [white, straight, cis, male] students for the same purported crime. "It's okay to leverage overwhelming power to commit outrageous acts of injustice toward so-called privileged persons because they'll just wave the magic priviledge wand to make everything better." This argument only serves to dehumanize the out-group which has been labeled as "priviledged"; it's a modern witch-hunt.
calibraxis 11y ago
Racism's supporters try to have their cake and eat it too. They claim to defend free speech — but "the mere accusation of racism is career-destroying." So speech from the "frothing mob" (college students getting rid of backwards bureaucrats) is dangerous: > "... destroy the lives of anyone who dares step outside the social justice orthodoxy even for a moment." Whereas racism, in a country where being black can get you killed by the state? Attacked by whites, jailed, unemployed...? Oh, racism's just words, let's not get carried away...

by wfo 11y ago

tptacek 11y ago

The idea that some forms of speech are "career-destroying" and must be suppressed is isomorphic to the idea that, for instance, an email about Halloween costumes can be insensitive enough to cost a faculty member their job.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
JoshTriplett 11y ago
I have no problem with the idea that certain forms of speech should end your career. If someone starts yelling slurs at people, they shouldn't have a job that involves interacting with people anymore. That doesn't infringe upon their free speech rights; they can say anything they like, and others can respond accordingly, which includes firing them or choosing not to hire them. The question then becomes where to draw the line: what speech deserves that level of response? And that seems like a topic people can vigorously disagree about. In particular, any conflict of fundamental values generates heated debate. It's "easy" to evaluate a conflict between a fundamental value and something that isn't: the fundamental value tends to win. That's part of why people rarely change their minds about fundamental values; not necessarily a feature. But when a conflict arises between two fundamental values (say, "free speech" and "non-discrimination") that many people hold simultaneously, people have to actually think to resolve the issue. You'll get some people taking sides (such as declaring "free speech" absolute and telling people to grow a thicker skin), but you'll also get people learning to define their values more precisely (e.g. your right to speak doesn't require others to listen without reaction, or to give you a platform from which to speak).
- bmelton 11y ago
  > And that seems like a topic people can vigorously disagree about. Thankfully, most industries don't have blacklists, so each "career-ending" moment can be evaluated independently by people who do hiring in that respective field. Speech that mocks a Jeb Bush might disqualify you from work at Fox News, or (if any exist) conservative-leaning universities, but might actually be viewed as favorable to others. It is because we so vigorously disagree on those levels that, for the most part, even though there may be some job losses in the present, except where they are universally disagreed with, should not necessarily be career-ending. Or, at least that's how it works in theory. Gary Webb's career never rebounded from having printed a generally true series of articles, but then again, it might eventually have righted itself had he not died in 2004.
- tedunangst 11y ago
  Should they get their job back when they stop yelling slurs?
  - ddingus 11y ago
    Depends. They will have demonstrated a basic lack of consideration important for that sort of work. It is on them to make the case they now will demonstrate that consideration. A very common thought will be, "they do, until they don't" and their case will center in on that risk. If successful, they will improve on that basic dynamic over time spent demonstrating that consideration.
    - progressive_dad 11y ago
      "I don't want to spend my life not having good food going into my pie hole. That hole was made for pies." -Paula Deen
      - ddingus 11y ago
        Case in point, yes?
ddingus 11y ago
There is no shield in the First Amendmemt.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

__derek__ 11y ago

> It certainly seems that the mere accusation of racism ... is career-destroying. Examples?

wfo 11y ago
The article we are currently discussing is a good place to start though there are certainly others if you care to look (in academia at least).
- __derek__ 11y ago
  Maybe I'm taking your use of "career-destroying" too literally. This dean will surely have no trouble finding another job.
  - wfo 11y ago
    I hope so and I think it's certainly possible, but 'publicly forced to resign for being a racist' being the first thing that shows up when a university official googles your name might make it a rough hire. These positions are high-publicity and the student body is the same everywhere. But I'm encouraged by your optimism -- perhaps I should have said 'job-destroying' instead, because it is inarguably that.
    - __derek__ 11y ago
      I mean, yes, it may invite some uncomfortable conversations in the future. This isn't the first time that someone has been forced to resign for problematic statements, and I honestly can't think of anyone who has been totally shut-out because of them. Once you reach the higher levels (e.g., dean of a very prestigious liberal arts college), the landings become quite soft (even when they ought to be hard). Anyway, I'm on-board with your suggestion of "job-destroying."
      - belovedeagle 11y ago
        This is the same argument that's used by people advocating expelling ten [white, straight, cis, male] students for the same purported crime. "It's okay to leverage overwhelming power to commit outrageous acts of injustice toward so-called privileged persons because they'll just wave the magic priviledge wand to make everything better." This argument only serves to dehumanize the out-group which has been labeled as "priviledged"; it's a modern witch-hunt.

calibraxis 11y ago

Racism's supporters try to have their cake and eat it too. They claim to defend free speech — but "the mere accusation of racism is career-destroying." So speech from the "frothing mob" (college students getting rid of backwards bureaucrats) is dangerous: > "... destroy the lives of anyone who dares step outside the social justice orthodoxy even for a moment." Whereas racism, in a country where being black can get you killed by the state? Attacked by whites, jailed, unemployed...? Oh, racism's just words, let's not get carried away...