6 ms·

Did you read the article? From what I understand there’s not enough evidence to make this conclusion.

imgabe 8y ago
To make what conclusion? That some students believe that they are being harmed? That language exactly is what is used in the article. Why do you think it's not supported?
- Ragnarork 8y ago
  Because you're stating that the "harm" that was reported is just "hearing something they disagree with" when there's no evidence hinting at what the "harm" actually was.
  - imgabe 8y ago
    What do we suppose it was? That he physically assaulted the students? That he was verbally abusive and screamed at and belittled them? Neither of those are consistent with him being a highly regarded professor for 20 years with overwhelmingly positive student reviews. Neither of those would make any sense in the context of one of the reviews from a student in the same class quoted in the article: > As a woman of color, I write to bring attention to an aspect of Charney’s teaching that will be as missed as much as it is needed in today’s political climate…The climate at Duke reflects the polarization of the country at large. Conversations are halted before they can even begin. Instead of listening, instead of understanding or trying to understand, people on both sides are combative and dismissive…Charney taught us how to have those conversations, how to navigate race relations, how to empathize. So, there is ample evidence suggesting that the students who complained merely heard something they found disagreeable and construed that as harm. Other definitions of harm are not consistent with the evidence available.
  - rdtsc 8y ago
    > there's no evidence hinting at what the "harm" actually was. The article says it started from a "discussion" in a classroom settings --- First, the complaint of a handful of students concerning the events of a single class in which we discussed racism at Duke --- I guess it could have a been a visual display, a movie, soundbite? "Hearing" might not have been precise but not sure if splitting hairs helps the topic here. "Exposed to" maybe would be more general... Also note that the harm was also "alleged" harm. They don't actually assert the student was harmed: > Professor Charney’s tendency to provoke negative reactions, and perhaps harm, among some But maybe that's enough. Overall I think it's a private school so they can have a lot of leeway in who they hire and fire. So barring some negative PR, which they can probably get around, they are free to fire him. Speaking of PR though, they probably learned a valuable lesson of not including the real reason for firing in any written form in the future. It should be something like "cultural incompatibility" or "restructuring".
- scruple 8y ago
  Why don't people fight fire with fire? If grievance culture is the name of the game then surely this is where we're headed.
rdtsc 8y ago
The final conclusion is he was fired on the basis that someone _said_ they were harmed. It's interesting to discuss wither they were actually harmed and felt that way and what kind of upbringing or circumstances might lead to that. Or, that they saw an opportunity to get a ahead and exert power over someone by pretending they were harmed. It can be a gray area as well. They might have felt uncomfortable say a 5 on a 1-10 scale. But then also realized they could turn it around and fire this person. I tried expound on that a bit in another comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19745288 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19745288

To make what conclusion? That some students believe that they are being harmed? That language exactly is what is used in the article. Why do you think it's not supported?

Ragnarork 8y ago
Because you're stating that the "harm" that was reported is just "hearing something they disagree with" when there's no evidence hinting at what the "harm" actually was.
- imgabe 8y ago
  What do we suppose it was? That he physically assaulted the students? That he was verbally abusive and screamed at and belittled them? Neither of those are consistent with him being a highly regarded professor for 20 years with overwhelmingly positive student reviews. Neither of those would make any sense in the context of one of the reviews from a student in the same class quoted in the article: > As a woman of color, I write to bring attention to an aspect of Charney’s teaching that will be as missed as much as it is needed in today’s political climate…The climate at Duke reflects the polarization of the country at large. Conversations are halted before they can even begin. Instead of listening, instead of understanding or trying to understand, people on both sides are combative and dismissive…Charney taught us how to have those conversations, how to navigate race relations, how to empathize. So, there is ample evidence suggesting that the students who complained merely heard something they found disagreeable and construed that as harm. Other definitions of harm are not consistent with the evidence available.
- rdtsc 8y ago
  > there's no evidence hinting at what the "harm" actually was. The article says it started from a "discussion" in a classroom settings --- First, the complaint of a handful of students concerning the events of a single class in which we discussed racism at Duke --- I guess it could have a been a visual display, a movie, soundbite? "Hearing" might not have been precise but not sure if splitting hairs helps the topic here. "Exposed to" maybe would be more general... Also note that the harm was also "alleged" harm. They don't actually assert the student was harmed: > Professor Charney’s tendency to provoke negative reactions, and perhaps harm, among some But maybe that's enough. Overall I think it's a private school so they can have a lot of leeway in who they hire and fire. So barring some negative PR, which they can probably get around, they are free to fire him. Speaking of PR though, they probably learned a valuable lesson of not including the real reason for firing in any written form in the future. It should be something like "cultural incompatibility" or "restructuring".
scruple 8y ago
Why don't people fight fire with fire? If grievance culture is the name of the game then surely this is where we're headed.

rdtsc 8y ago

The final conclusion is he was fired on the basis that someone _said_ they were harmed. It's interesting to discuss wither they were actually harmed and felt that way and what kind of upbringing or circumstances might lead to that. Or, that they saw an opportunity to get a ahead and exert power over someone by pretending they were harmed. It can be a gray area as well. They might have felt uncomfortable say a 5 on a 1-10 scale. But then also realized they could turn it around and fire this person. I tried expound on that a bit in another comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19745288 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19745288