9 ms·

Just in case someone finds the examples in the article all acceptable censorship, here's a few more off the top of my head: Evergreen professor forced to resig

Just in case someone finds the examples in the article all acceptable censorship, here's a few more off the top of my head: Evergreen professor forced to resign for opposing day of white absence: https://blog.usejournal.com/the-controversy-of-bret-weinstein-explained-the-evergreen-scandal-f3dfe07b1d70 https://blog.usejournal.com/the-controversy-of-bret-weinstei... UCLA professor placed under investigation for reading MLK's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail": https://freebeacon.com/issues/university-to-investigate-lecturer-for-reading-mlks-letter-from-birmingham-jail/ https://freebeacon.com/issues/university-to-investigate-lect... Data scientist fired for retweeting study showing non-violent protests are more effective: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/case-for-liberalism-tom-cotton-new-york-times-james-bennet.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/case-for-liberalism-...

harryh 6y ago
The last one about the data scientist tweet got even crazier: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/white-fragility-racism-racism-progressive-progressphiles-david-shor.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/white-fragility-raci...
- rajup 6y ago
  Wow. That was an eye-opening read.
- graton 6y ago
  That link was posted here on HN and then got flagged. You can find it if you paste the URL into HN's search.
- coffeeling 6y ago
  O_o
ChristianBundy 6y ago
> Data scientist fired for retweeting study showing non-violent protests are more effective This is a blatant misrepresentation. The tweet talked about "race riots" and Democrat election results. Many people would argue that the point of direct action is not to sway electoral votes toward the Democratic party.
- monocasa 6y ago
  And particularly, that election was in the middle of the southern strategy switch, and the Democratic party didn't define itself as the left wing of acceptable politics in the nation as it does today. Particularly the Southern Democrats hadn't overwhelmingly converted over to Republicans yet. It was only after the Civil Rights Act was passed (which was six days into the race riots mentioned, so real actionable change that came from them) that the Dixiecrats really started switching, and that took time (a few elections worth).
  - zeveb 6y ago
    > It was only after the Civil Rights Act was passed (which was six days into the race riots mentioned, so real actionable change that came from them) The Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law on the second of July 1964, had been in the works since before Mr. Kennedy's (unrelated) assassination in 1963; it passed the House 290–130 and the Senate 73–27: I really doubt that six days' rioting can be credited with passing it.
    - monocasa 6y ago
      A lot of bills of all had been in the works for years and were only passed after some swell of public opinion. For instance the Patriot act didn't come out of nowhere, but it's provisions had been shopped around for years prior. With 9/11, they had the votes necessary to move forward with it.
  - burfog 6y ago
    There was no switch. Go look up members of congress who switched political party during that era. Wikipedia has a list. You'll find two, one in the house and one in the senate. Had there been an actual switch, you'd expect to see numerous members of congress switching sides. The "party switch" narrative is a lie. It's to cover for the fact that the republicans kept voting for civil rights until they were finally able to pass it. Today, being the party in opposition to civil rights wouldn't be seen as OK, so a false version of history is pushed to cover up the truth. A better explanation for the change in voting is that party preferences changed once the issue of civil rights was no longer under consideration. With that gone, other political goals were able to determine party preference.
gguevaraa 6y ago
This one[0] gets the noggin' joggin'. Cambridge defends one of their profs saying "White Lives Don't Matter" yet were quick to rescind their invitation for Jordan Peterson for "controversial" comments [1]. [0]: https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/19539 https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/19539 [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/20/cambridge-university-rescinds-jordan-peterson-invitation https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/20/cambridge-...
- im3w1l 6y ago
  And on the other hand, saying "White Lives Matter" got not only the man saying it fired. His girlfriend was found to be guilty by association and also fired. https://tribuna.com/en/chelsea/news/2020-06-25-burnley-fan-behind-white-lives-matter-banner-and-his-girlfriend-sacked-from-their-jobs/ https://tribuna.com/en/chelsea/news/2020-06-25-burnley-fan-b...
  - _Wintermute 6y ago
    That's not true. His girlfriend was fired previously for posting racist messages on Facebook and then refusing to go on a sensitivity training course offered by her employer. That article is a summary of a daily mail article, so it's bad journalism squared.
    - im3w1l 6y ago
      Ah, that's new information to me. Still she was fired immediately after this statement of her boyfriend, so there is obviously a connection to that, in addition to what she said herself in the past.
newacct583 6y ago
Your first example isn't about speech. The school had a policy of a white absence day (which is batshit, but whatever) and he expressly violated that as an act of protest and got fired for breaking the rules. He'd been clearly opposed to it from the start and not censored. Be very careful with that second link, that story was spun like crazy in conservative circles, and even weeks later it's impossible to find an account of what happened from anything other than the lecturer's perspective. I mean, that Free Beacon story is one of the worst examples: find me anywhere in that story that quotes a student or explains what they were upset about. The go to Google News and search for the guy's name, and you find a giant list of stories from conservative outlets (and none from mainstream sources) all with the same odd skew to the reporting. I think the jury is still out about what exactly was offensive, I'm guessing it wasn't just because he read an MLK speech. UCLA has not said anything yet. The David Shor one is a good example though. Something crazy happened there and no one understands why he was fired.
- dx87 6y ago
  The first example says the school didn't make it mandatory for white people to stay home, it was just highly recommended. It doesn't look like he broke any rules, the school had just hoped everyone would fall in line and he was fired for not agreeing with them.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    I had to go look that up again. It wasn't about this one incident. He wasn't even fired, he resigned after becoming the center of a huge protest movement on campus directed specifically at him (a self-described member of the conservative "Intellectual Dark Web"), then after suing the college for failing to protect him, and the resignation was part of the resulting settlement. Then he did the FOX tour and wrote an op-ed for the Journal and settled into his life as a conservative martyr. Yeah, he wasn't fired to keep him from complaining about white absence day.
    - marliechiller 6y ago
      He, and most of the rest of the IDW would not consider themselves conservative at all. In fact, only JPeterson considers himself conservative out of the commonly touted members. Dont misrepresent people because they dont fit your narrative
gentleman11 6y ago
In mainstream news (ap, CBC, bbc, others), increasingly people and groups are being labelled as racist without any discretion. Eg, people out protecting Churchill statues in the UK are labelled as racists in several stories[1]. Surely, there is at least one racist in the group, but increasingly every single person who doesn’t tow the line is being called out - entire police departments, mayors, city councils, schools, news organizations - everyone is either supporting the cause or else is a racist, with no evidence or scrutiny being applied. How can entire police departments be racist? Entire companies? [1] to be fair, Churchill was a racist and a colonialist. He opposed Ghandi. He also helped defeat fascism and naziism and is an important historical figure. Defending a Churchill statue does not automatically make everybody in the vicinity a nazi.
- SllX 6y ago
  At some point a word becomes so overused it loses all meaning. The guy who created the word genocide also created the word vandalism. He intended for both actions these words described to be looked at with abject horror and thus applied as infrequently as possible so that they would retain their meaning. When everyone is racist, effectively no one is.
- DanBC 6y ago
  > Eg, people out protecting Churchill statues in the UK are labelled as racists in several stories You missed out the bit where some of them were doing Nazi salutes or carrying EDL / Britain First etc flags.
  - gentleman11 6y ago
    If you’re in a group with people you don’t know very well and some of them say or do something utterly stupid, you are not automatically one of them. Eg, some people were looting during the protests but it would be ridiculous to say the entire protest is just a bunch of thugs
    - DanBC 6y ago
      If you're in a large group, and many members of that group are by any definition racist, you're going to be called part of a racist group.

harryh 6y ago

The last one about the data scientist tweet got even crazier: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/white-fragility-racism-racism-progressive-progressphiles-david-shor.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/white-fragility-raci...

rajup 6y ago
Wow. That was an eye-opening read.
graton 6y ago
That link was posted here on HN and then got flagged. You can find it if you paste the URL into HN's search.
coffeeling 6y ago
O_o

ChristianBundy 6y ago

> Data scientist fired for retweeting study showing non-violent protests are more effective This is a blatant misrepresentation. The tweet talked about "race riots" and Democrat election results. Many people would argue that the point of direct action is not to sway electoral votes toward the Democratic party.

monocasa 6y ago
And particularly, that election was in the middle of the southern strategy switch, and the Democratic party didn't define itself as the left wing of acceptable politics in the nation as it does today. Particularly the Southern Democrats hadn't overwhelmingly converted over to Republicans yet. It was only after the Civil Rights Act was passed (which was six days into the race riots mentioned, so real actionable change that came from them) that the Dixiecrats really started switching, and that took time (a few elections worth).
- zeveb 6y ago
  > It was only after the Civil Rights Act was passed (which was six days into the race riots mentioned, so real actionable change that came from them) The Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law on the second of July 1964, had been in the works since before Mr. Kennedy's (unrelated) assassination in 1963; it passed the House 290–130 and the Senate 73–27: I really doubt that six days' rioting can be credited with passing it.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    A lot of bills of all had been in the works for years and were only passed after some swell of public opinion. For instance the Patriot act didn't come out of nowhere, but it's provisions had been shopped around for years prior. With 9/11, they had the votes necessary to move forward with it.
- burfog 6y ago
  There was no switch. Go look up members of congress who switched political party during that era. Wikipedia has a list. You'll find two, one in the house and one in the senate. Had there been an actual switch, you'd expect to see numerous members of congress switching sides. The "party switch" narrative is a lie. It's to cover for the fact that the republicans kept voting for civil rights until they were finally able to pass it. Today, being the party in opposition to civil rights wouldn't be seen as OK, so a false version of history is pushed to cover up the truth. A better explanation for the change in voting is that party preferences changed once the issue of civil rights was no longer under consideration. With that gone, other political goals were able to determine party preference.

gguevaraa 6y ago

This one[0] gets the noggin' joggin'. Cambridge defends one of their profs saying "White Lives Don't Matter" yet were quick to rescind their invitation for Jordan Peterson for "controversial" comments [1]. [0]: https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/19539 https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/19539 [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/20/cambridge-university-rescinds-jordan-peterson-invitation https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/20/cambridge-...

im3w1l 6y ago
And on the other hand, saying "White Lives Matter" got not only the man saying it fired. His girlfriend was found to be guilty by association and also fired. https://tribuna.com/en/chelsea/news/2020-06-25-burnley-fan-behind-white-lives-matter-banner-and-his-girlfriend-sacked-from-their-jobs/ https://tribuna.com/en/chelsea/news/2020-06-25-burnley-fan-b...
- _Wintermute 6y ago
  That's not true. His girlfriend was fired previously for posting racist messages on Facebook and then refusing to go on a sensitivity training course offered by her employer. That article is a summary of a daily mail article, so it's bad journalism squared.
  - im3w1l 6y ago
    Ah, that's new information to me. Still she was fired immediately after this statement of her boyfriend, so there is obviously a connection to that, in addition to what she said herself in the past.

newacct583 6y ago

Your first example isn't about speech. The school had a policy of a white absence day (which is batshit, but whatever) and he expressly violated that as an act of protest and got fired for breaking the rules. He'd been clearly opposed to it from the start and not censored. Be very careful with that second link, that story was spun like crazy in conservative circles, and even weeks later it's impossible to find an account of what happened from anything other than the lecturer's perspective. I mean, that Free Beacon story is one of the worst examples: find me anywhere in that story that quotes a student or explains what they were upset about. The go to Google News and search for the guy's name, and you find a giant list of stories from conservative outlets (and none from mainstream sources) all with the same odd skew to the reporting. I think the jury is still out about what exactly was offensive, I'm guessing it wasn't just because he read an MLK speech. UCLA has not said anything yet. The David Shor one is a good example though. Something crazy happened there and no one understands why he was fired.

dx87 6y ago
The first example says the school didn't make it mandatory for white people to stay home, it was just highly recommended. It doesn't look like he broke any rules, the school had just hoped everyone would fall in line and he was fired for not agreeing with them.
- newacct583 6y ago
  I had to go look that up again. It wasn't about this one incident. He wasn't even fired, he resigned after becoming the center of a huge protest movement on campus directed specifically at him (a self-described member of the conservative "Intellectual Dark Web"), then after suing the college for failing to protect him, and the resignation was part of the resulting settlement. Then he did the FOX tour and wrote an op-ed for the Journal and settled into his life as a conservative martyr. Yeah, he wasn't fired to keep him from complaining about white absence day.
  - marliechiller 6y ago
    He, and most of the rest of the IDW would not consider themselves conservative at all. In fact, only JPeterson considers himself conservative out of the commonly touted members. Dont misrepresent people because they dont fit your narrative

gentleman11 6y ago

In mainstream news (ap, CBC, bbc, others), increasingly people and groups are being labelled as racist without any discretion. Eg, people out protecting Churchill statues in the UK are labelled as racists in several stories[1]. Surely, there is at least one racist in the group, but increasingly every single person who doesn’t tow the line is being called out - entire police departments, mayors, city councils, schools, news organizations - everyone is either supporting the cause or else is a racist, with no evidence or scrutiny being applied. How can entire police departments be racist? Entire companies? [1] to be fair, Churchill was a racist and a colonialist. He opposed Ghandi. He also helped defeat fascism and naziism and is an important historical figure. Defending a Churchill statue does not automatically make everybody in the vicinity a nazi.

SllX 6y ago
At some point a word becomes so overused it loses all meaning. The guy who created the word genocide also created the word vandalism. He intended for both actions these words described to be looked at with abject horror and thus applied as infrequently as possible so that they would retain their meaning. When everyone is racist, effectively no one is.
DanBC 6y ago
> Eg, people out protecting Churchill statues in the UK are labelled as racists in several stories You missed out the bit where some of them were doing Nazi salutes or carrying EDL / Britain First etc flags.
- gentleman11 6y ago
  If you’re in a group with people you don’t know very well and some of them say or do something utterly stupid, you are not automatically one of them. Eg, some people were looting during the protests but it would be ridiculous to say the entire protest is just a bunch of thugs
  - DanBC 6y ago
    If you're in a large group, and many members of that group are by any definition racist, you're going to be called part of a racist group.