4 ms·

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" actu

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 7y 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 7y 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".

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 7y 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 7y 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".