3 ms·

> After a zoombombing that included both racist and antisemitic images, Albucher and Levin were informed that only the racism, not antisemitism, was worth addre

> After a zoombombing that included both racist and antisemitic images, Albucher and Levin were informed that only the racism, not antisemitism, was worth addressing. > Even when antisemitic graffiti appeared on campus, their requests to discuss antisemitism were denied. I might agree with some of the stuff in this article, but I like to some earnest feedback about the use of the passive voice in this article. After reading and re-reading the previous sentences (including their context), I still did not know who denied their requests, who informed them that the antisemitism ought not to be discussed. Interesting article nonetheless, thanks for sharing.

tablespoon 5y ago
> but I like to some earnest feedback about the use of the passive voice in this article. After reading and re-reading the previous sentences (including their context), I still did not know who denied their requests, who informed them that the antisemitism ought not to be discussed. There might be more explicit details in the lawsuit, but from context I think the who is some authority in: > When CAPS [Stanford University’s Counseling and Psychological Services] initiated a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion program, White Fragility was the chosen book, and personnel were segregated into “affinity groups,” each of which met separately. Though that authority could probably range from the leader of CAPS, to some diversity and inclusion bureaucrat, to some outside consultant they hired and empowered (e.g. https://www.ykhong.com/ https://www.ykhong.com/).