8 ms·

Academe is a hotbed of craven snitches

44 points by pleaser 4y ago

pleaser 4y ago
https://archive.ph/3fmc3 https://archive.ph/3fmc3
ars 4y ago
Is this satire or something? Since when is being a snitch a bad thing? Isn't that what people complain about with cops, that they don't report each other? So now what, we want the same thing with academia? That they can do whatever they want, secure in the knowledge no one will report them? And isn't "craven snitch" an oxymoron? To be a snitch you need at least a bit of bravery, even if you are being anonymous, since there's always the chance you'll be found out.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- scandox 4y ago
  > First let us pause to consider our terms: Was Schlissel’s narc a “snitch” or a “whistle-blower”? Whistle-blowers are generally attempting to topple or thwart the powerful, and Schlissel was certainly powerful. But the reported offense was, in the words of a lawyer I spoke with, “a nothingburger.” Let us provisionally define snitching as turning someone in anonymously, for either minor or nonexistent offenses, or pretextually. Also: using institutional mechanisms to kneecap rivals, harass enemies, settle scores and grudges, or advantage oneself. Not to mention squealing on someone for social-media posts and joining online mobs to protest exercises of academic and intellectual freedom. For those who bravely make it to the 3rd paragraph.
  - ars 4y ago
    So if it's a "nothingburger", then why is the administration not just ignoring it? You can't have that kind of harassment without the assistance of those you are reporting to. Being how I'm not there, I'm going to defer to the administrators to decide what's important and what's not.
    - Grancomp 4y ago
    - scandox 4y ago
      I'm just quoting the article which attempts to address the issues of terminology you raised. Without discussing his terms your original comment lacked relevance.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  It's a bad thing in this world where we've created so much bureaucracy, so many rules and so much enforcement discretion spread across so many levels that everyone is always doing something against the rules or could be considered to be at someone's discretion and processes of sorting these things out "fairly" is so onerous as to be something that can be used as a weapon (either by a snitch or by various parties in the enforcement processes) by itself.
- Grancomp 4y ago
- EverywhereTrip 4y ago
  Read the article. This isn't about breaking the law, it is about filing frivolous complaints about expressing opinions you disagree with or reporting people for things which aren't even against the rules. General harassment.
- pengaru 4y ago
  It's complicated. Obviously nobody likes a tattle-tale in childhood, even the teachers/authorities are annoyed. Part of participating in a healthy society is building strong connections and a surprising amount of that occurs surrounding shared shenanigans, keeping little secrets, not betraying your friends. I'm not sure where to draw the line, perhaps it's never really clear.
- drewcoo 4y ago
  Blacklists are bad things. Whisper campaigns where people can't defend themselves are bad things. #metoo is a bad thing. The creeping realization that you're being surveilled by potentially any and certainly some of your peers is a bad thing. The incentive to snitch on others is a bad thing. All of those exhibit cowardice because snitching is attacking someone without allowing that person confront the attacker.
  - seoaeu 4y ago
    The whole premise of #metoo was that if victims had individually attempted to directly confront their abuser they'd have faced serious and potentially career ending retaliation. I have a hard time labeling someone cowardly for preferring an option that didn't have that consequence!
xhkkffbf 4y ago
It's sad but true in my experience. My thesis advisor makes this a sport, apparently. I learned this after I graduated. One friend explained that my advisor would often call up colleagues at other universities and tell them not to hire particular people. He's apparently known for this habit. It's one thing to provide a recommendation when requested. It's another to routinely campaign against others and provide anti-recommendations. But he's thrived himself. He's got a swish appointment just outside of Boston.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  yes, I got one like this too.. and, he wants stock in the companies of his "students" .. which he self-invites
- raincom 4y ago
  Does he do it for those who haven’t asked for his recommendation letter? Or he does it for those who asks for his recommendation letter?
  - xhkkffbf 4y ago
    Both. Of course the letters are full of bogus, positive statements that he can defend if ever caught. But he badmouths people left and right because he thinks that anti-recommendations are just as important as positive ones.
    - raincom 4y ago
      Wow, unbelievably vicious. Usually, a generic recommendation letter without any specifics is negative enough. Many professors don't want to write such recommendation letters.
- a9h74j 4y ago
  I once read that the academic social contract before the 1970s was that an advisor would not accept a graduate student unless they were sure they had a "place" for them lined up, i.e., in another institution. I don't know how that could have worked, but it speaks to the difference in social contract prior to when graduate students were treated as exploitable labor with no actual academic prospects.
giraffe_lady 4y ago
I'm having a serious "Gell-Mann Amnesia effect" moment on this one: I don't think that representation of the Ewell paper is quite accurate, though admittedly it's been over a year since I read it. Despite being Jewish (would have had different significance later than during his time!) Schenker was a proud german nationalist and in his own words considered his method one of the ways german people could assert their superiority over other cultures. The Ewell paper is actually pretty clear that schenkerian analysis is technically valid and quite valuable for many purposes. But also that its origins were in an explicitly racist project, and that applying it without understanding that frame could get you racist results even if you didn't intend them. It's easy to go after this paper because it sincerely uses "critical race theory" vocabulary, but it's a solid contribution to answering the question "why are some fields so incredibly white even if no one intends them to be that way?" The essay both-sides it, but Ewell's paper is researched and professional even with its flaws, while in context Jackson's response was fairly nasty and defensive, basically just accusing Ewell of black antisemitism. I've been following this particular one for years (grew up on schenkerian analysis, in a musical family) and I am definitely not neutral on it. Ewell's moral rigidity on this is unpalatable sometimes and I think you could fairly call him a hothead. But the author's description of the conflict is a lot more "balanced" than the conflict itself really deserves. This is essentially an academic raising a painful point within a field that he clearly loves, and others trying to shut it down because of the embarrassment they feel it exposes them all to. Seeing how the author misrepresents this issue to make their point makes me not really trust the rest of it. I just happen to be somewhat informed on this one.
- oh_sigh 4y ago
  Do you view anything hierarchical as racist via associated Whiteness? I'm confused how the origins were an "explicitly racist project". Was Schenker promoting a race that he didn't even belong to? Is it possible to think American culture is superior over other cultures, without thinking that white people are superior to black people?
  - BlueTemplar 4y ago
    It's probably because German Nationalism (especially of that time) was "Ethnic" Nationalism ? Which I have gotten the impression has been distinctly racist even long before the Nazis ?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
humanistbot 4y ago
If you are the President of a university (or a company) that has an explicit official policy prohibiting romantic relationships between superiors and subordinates, and you have a semi-secret romantic relationship with a subordinate that many people know about, then someone in the know who is upset with one of your management decisions retaliates by telling the truth to HR, then I have zero sympathy for you. Are they a 'snitch'? Sure. But you chose to flagrantly violate the rules, thinking that you were special.
- vvpan 4y ago
  "Rules are meant to be broken" is a great maxim in my opinion. It's the expression of truly democratic attitude towards rules. Something that's "technically wrong" but taken by the majority as not an ethical issue deserves to live because it questions the legitimacy of the rule. How any progress happens.
  - sobkas 4y ago
    In the end how many rules you can break depend on how much money you have and/or how many friends in high places you have. Because in the end it's only illegal if you get caught and find someone willing to prosecute you. And if money is the only penalty, then the law is only against poor, rich will pay and nothing will change.
  - beebmam 4y ago
    The same argument could be made against laws, including plenty of laws that both you and I, and plenty of others, agree should never be broken. So I'm not very persuaded by this argument.
  - humanistbot 4y ago
    But in practice, it is the people at the top who believe they can get away with it, like in this case. Rules for thee, but not me.
  - chrisco255 4y ago
    It's a great way to breed corruption and decay. Turn the other way here and there and before long rules don't matter at all. Even a majority can be on the wrong side of right.
MattGaiser 4y ago
> for either minor or nonexistent offenses On the one hand, society institutes these rules and we supposedly claim to be rule following people. On the other hand, people who try to have the rules enforced are labelled as "snitches." Your answer to why tragedies occur but even when people knew, nobody did anything. Do the rules matter or not?
- msgilligan 4y ago
  If the rules are regularly applied to persecute people over nonexistent offenses, they will very soon cease to matter.
  - MattGaiser 4y ago
    It was severe enough an offense that it cost him his job when found out.
- oh_sigh 4y ago
  Right...if the institutions are over-zealous, then they are at fault. But to complain that someone pointed out to the authorities that they think someone was breaking the rules is a bit silly. I have a hard time taking seriously anyone who uses the word "snitch". I suspect OP is just a little bit salty because of their Title IX complaints and that their partner got reported for making a classless racial joke about children.
- michaelt 4y ago
  > Do the rules matter or not? Go to the cops and try to turn yourself in for that time you ticked a "I have read the terms and conditions" checkbox dishonestly. I suspect you'll find some rules matter more than others.
- otterley 4y ago
  It’s not that black and white. Even rules themselves are subject to interpretation. Rules can matter, but first there needs to be agreement on what they mean: what precise conduct they proscribe — and, equally important — what they don’t.
throwanem 4y ago
> On 20 December 1973, the Wall Street Journal quoted Sayre as: "Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre%27s_law
archhn 4y ago
Any bureaucratic environment turns people into antisocial psychopaths. Too many rules and too much competition. Every single thing, no matter how small, like a policy about removing Keurig pods from the machine after using it, becomes fodder for institutional politics.
bdcravens 4y ago
Can't help but wonder what my ancestors did to earn this last name.
SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
I think this is a clear story where conceptual clarity is both necessary and sorely lacking. It's unfortunate when academic disagreements degrade into accusations of racism, or when social awkwardness gets amped up into harassment charges, or when people file fake complaints in retaliation for writing articles they don't like. But beyond the emotional compulsion of the term "snitch", is there any reason to think that these are all facets of the same problem or that the same strategies would effectively handle all of them?
vector_spaces 4y ago
It might be helpful to know that the author, Laura Kipnis, has made a career out of critiquing sexual harassment policies on American university campuses and the broader #MeToo movement. Her 2017 book titled "Unwanted Advances: Sexual Paranoia Comes to Campus" compared the Title IX process against philosopher Peter Ludlow a "witch trial". The book also offers an anecdote of an undergraduate student woke up next to a male student after blacking out, and then laughing off any suggestions that what happened amounted to rape -- Kipnis frames this as how female students should ideally react in such situations, and argues against the idea that men alone are responsible for rape when it happens, arguing that modern feminism "enables stupidity". Personally, I find these arguments objectionable for various reasons I don't care to get into, but either way I think it's probably a good idea to be aware of where people are coming from when engaging with pieces like this
- lbarrow 4y ago
  Kipnis was also subject to several rounds of retaliatory Title IX investigations simply for publicly objecting to Ludlow's treatment, all of which eventually exonerated her. It's hard to think of someone more qualified to critique the issues with Title IX and the culture of campus inquisitions.
  - manicdee 4y ago
    Surely the issue there is not Title IX but vexatious litigants?
    - blaser-waffle 4y ago
      > vexatious litigants If it's happening only on one or two campuses, perhaps. But these aren't new trends and have popped up all over the US.

44 points by pleaser 4y ago

https://archive.ph/3fmc3 https://archive.ph/3fmc3

ars 4y ago

Is this satire or something? Since when is being a snitch a bad thing? Isn't that what people complain about with cops, that they don't report each other? So now what, we want the same thing with academia? That they can do whatever they want, secure in the knowledge no one will report them? And isn't "craven snitch" an oxymoron? To be a snitch you need at least a bit of bravery, even if you are being anonymous, since there's always the chance you'll be found out.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
scandox 4y ago
> First let us pause to consider our terms: Was Schlissel’s narc a “snitch” or a “whistle-blower”? Whistle-blowers are generally attempting to topple or thwart the powerful, and Schlissel was certainly powerful. But the reported offense was, in the words of a lawyer I spoke with, “a nothingburger.” Let us provisionally define snitching as turning someone in anonymously, for either minor or nonexistent offenses, or pretextually. Also: using institutional mechanisms to kneecap rivals, harass enemies, settle scores and grudges, or advantage oneself. Not to mention squealing on someone for social-media posts and joining online mobs to protest exercises of academic and intellectual freedom. For those who bravely make it to the 3rd paragraph.
- ars 4y ago
  So if it's a "nothingburger", then why is the administration not just ignoring it? You can't have that kind of harassment without the assistance of those you are reporting to. Being how I'm not there, I'm going to defer to the administrators to decide what's important and what's not.
  - Grancomp 4y ago
  - scandox 4y ago
    I'm just quoting the article which attempts to address the issues of terminology you raised. Without discussing his terms your original comment lacked relevance.
throwaway0a5e 4y ago
It's a bad thing in this world where we've created so much bureaucracy, so many rules and so much enforcement discretion spread across so many levels that everyone is always doing something against the rules or could be considered to be at someone's discretion and processes of sorting these things out "fairly" is so onerous as to be something that can be used as a weapon (either by a snitch or by various parties in the enforcement processes) by itself.
Grancomp 4y ago
EverywhereTrip 4y ago
Read the article. This isn't about breaking the law, it is about filing frivolous complaints about expressing opinions you disagree with or reporting people for things which aren't even against the rules. General harassment.
pengaru 4y ago
It's complicated. Obviously nobody likes a tattle-tale in childhood, even the teachers/authorities are annoyed. Part of participating in a healthy society is building strong connections and a surprising amount of that occurs surrounding shared shenanigans, keeping little secrets, not betraying your friends. I'm not sure where to draw the line, perhaps it's never really clear.
drewcoo 4y ago
Blacklists are bad things. Whisper campaigns where people can't defend themselves are bad things. #metoo is a bad thing. The creeping realization that you're being surveilled by potentially any and certainly some of your peers is a bad thing. The incentive to snitch on others is a bad thing. All of those exhibit cowardice because snitching is attacking someone without allowing that person confront the attacker.
- seoaeu 4y ago
  The whole premise of #metoo was that if victims had individually attempted to directly confront their abuser they'd have faced serious and potentially career ending retaliation. I have a hard time labeling someone cowardly for preferring an option that didn't have that consequence!

xhkkffbf 4y ago

It's sad but true in my experience. My thesis advisor makes this a sport, apparently. I learned this after I graduated. One friend explained that my advisor would often call up colleagues at other universities and tell them not to hire particular people. He's apparently known for this habit. It's one thing to provide a recommendation when requested. It's another to routinely campaign against others and provide anti-recommendations. But he's thrived himself. He's got a swish appointment just outside of Boston.

mistrial9 4y ago
yes, I got one like this too.. and, he wants stock in the companies of his "students" .. which he self-invites
raincom 4y ago
Does he do it for those who haven’t asked for his recommendation letter? Or he does it for those who asks for his recommendation letter?
- xhkkffbf 4y ago
  Both. Of course the letters are full of bogus, positive statements that he can defend if ever caught. But he badmouths people left and right because he thinks that anti-recommendations are just as important as positive ones.
  - raincom 4y ago
    Wow, unbelievably vicious. Usually, a generic recommendation letter without any specifics is negative enough. Many professors don't want to write such recommendation letters.
a9h74j 4y ago
I once read that the academic social contract before the 1970s was that an advisor would not accept a graduate student unless they were sure they had a "place" for them lined up, i.e., in another institution. I don't know how that could have worked, but it speaks to the difference in social contract prior to when graduate students were treated as exploitable labor with no actual academic prospects.

giraffe_lady 4y ago

I'm having a serious "Gell-Mann Amnesia effect" moment on this one: I don't think that representation of the Ewell paper is quite accurate, though admittedly it's been over a year since I read it. Despite being Jewish (would have had different significance later than during his time!) Schenker was a proud german nationalist and in his own words considered his method one of the ways german people could assert their superiority over other cultures. The Ewell paper is actually pretty clear that schenkerian analysis is technically valid and quite valuable for many purposes. But also that its origins were in an explicitly racist project, and that applying it without understanding that frame could get you racist results even if you didn't intend them. It's easy to go after this paper because it sincerely uses "critical race theory" vocabulary, but it's a solid contribution to answering the question "why are some fields so incredibly white even if no one intends them to be that way?" The essay both-sides it, but Ewell's paper is researched and professional even with its flaws, while in context Jackson's response was fairly nasty and defensive, basically just accusing Ewell of black antisemitism. I've been following this particular one for years (grew up on schenkerian analysis, in a musical family) and I am definitely not neutral on it. Ewell's moral rigidity on this is unpalatable sometimes and I think you could fairly call him a hothead. But the author's description of the conflict is a lot more "balanced" than the conflict itself really deserves. This is essentially an academic raising a painful point within a field that he clearly loves, and others trying to shut it down because of the embarrassment they feel it exposes them all to. Seeing how the author misrepresents this issue to make their point makes me not really trust the rest of it. I just happen to be somewhat informed on this one.

oh_sigh 4y ago
Do you view anything hierarchical as racist via associated Whiteness? I'm confused how the origins were an "explicitly racist project". Was Schenker promoting a race that he didn't even belong to? Is it possible to think American culture is superior over other cultures, without thinking that white people are superior to black people?
- BlueTemplar 4y ago
  It's probably because German Nationalism (especially of that time) was "Ethnic" Nationalism ? Which I have gotten the impression has been distinctly racist even long before the Nazis ?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

humanistbot 4y ago

If you are the President of a university (or a company) that has an explicit official policy prohibiting romantic relationships between superiors and subordinates, and you have a semi-secret romantic relationship with a subordinate that many people know about, then someone in the know who is upset with one of your management decisions retaliates by telling the truth to HR, then I have zero sympathy for you. Are they a 'snitch'? Sure. But you chose to flagrantly violate the rules, thinking that you were special.

vvpan 4y ago
"Rules are meant to be broken" is a great maxim in my opinion. It's the expression of truly democratic attitude towards rules. Something that's "technically wrong" but taken by the majority as not an ethical issue deserves to live because it questions the legitimacy of the rule. How any progress happens.
- sobkas 4y ago
  In the end how many rules you can break depend on how much money you have and/or how many friends in high places you have. Because in the end it's only illegal if you get caught and find someone willing to prosecute you. And if money is the only penalty, then the law is only against poor, rich will pay and nothing will change.
- beebmam 4y ago
  The same argument could be made against laws, including plenty of laws that both you and I, and plenty of others, agree should never be broken. So I'm not very persuaded by this argument.
- humanistbot 4y ago
  But in practice, it is the people at the top who believe they can get away with it, like in this case. Rules for thee, but not me.
- chrisco255 4y ago
  It's a great way to breed corruption and decay. Turn the other way here and there and before long rules don't matter at all. Even a majority can be on the wrong side of right.

MattGaiser 4y ago

> for either minor or nonexistent offenses On the one hand, society institutes these rules and we supposedly claim to be rule following people. On the other hand, people who try to have the rules enforced are labelled as "snitches." Your answer to why tragedies occur but even when people knew, nobody did anything. Do the rules matter or not?

msgilligan 4y ago
If the rules are regularly applied to persecute people over nonexistent offenses, they will very soon cease to matter.
- MattGaiser 4y ago
  It was severe enough an offense that it cost him his job when found out.
oh_sigh 4y ago
Right...if the institutions are over-zealous, then they are at fault. But to complain that someone pointed out to the authorities that they think someone was breaking the rules is a bit silly. I have a hard time taking seriously anyone who uses the word "snitch". I suspect OP is just a little bit salty because of their Title IX complaints and that their partner got reported for making a classless racial joke about children.
michaelt 4y ago
> Do the rules matter or not? Go to the cops and try to turn yourself in for that time you ticked a "I have read the terms and conditions" checkbox dishonestly. I suspect you'll find some rules matter more than others.
otterley 4y ago
It’s not that black and white. Even rules themselves are subject to interpretation. Rules can matter, but first there needs to be agreement on what they mean: what precise conduct they proscribe — and, equally important — what they don’t.

throwanem 4y ago

> On 20 December 1973, the Wall Street Journal quoted Sayre as: "Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre%27s_law

archhn 4y ago

Any bureaucratic environment turns people into antisocial psychopaths. Too many rules and too much competition. Every single thing, no matter how small, like a policy about removing Keurig pods from the machine after using it, becomes fodder for institutional politics.

bdcravens 4y ago

Can't help but wonder what my ancestors did to earn this last name.

SpicyLemonZest 4y ago

I think this is a clear story where conceptual clarity is both necessary and sorely lacking. It's unfortunate when academic disagreements degrade into accusations of racism, or when social awkwardness gets amped up into harassment charges, or when people file fake complaints in retaliation for writing articles they don't like. But beyond the emotional compulsion of the term "snitch", is there any reason to think that these are all facets of the same problem or that the same strategies would effectively handle all of them?

vector_spaces 4y ago

It might be helpful to know that the author, Laura Kipnis, has made a career out of critiquing sexual harassment policies on American university campuses and the broader #MeToo movement. Her 2017 book titled "Unwanted Advances: Sexual Paranoia Comes to Campus" compared the Title IX process against philosopher Peter Ludlow a "witch trial". The book also offers an anecdote of an undergraduate student woke up next to a male student after blacking out, and then laughing off any suggestions that what happened amounted to rape -- Kipnis frames this as how female students should ideally react in such situations, and argues against the idea that men alone are responsible for rape when it happens, arguing that modern feminism "enables stupidity". Personally, I find these arguments objectionable for various reasons I don't care to get into, but either way I think it's probably a good idea to be aware of where people are coming from when engaging with pieces like this

lbarrow 4y ago
Kipnis was also subject to several rounds of retaliatory Title IX investigations simply for publicly objecting to Ludlow's treatment, all of which eventually exonerated her. It's hard to think of someone more qualified to critique the issues with Title IX and the culture of campus inquisitions.
- manicdee 4y ago
  Surely the issue there is not Title IX but vexatious litigants?
  - blaser-waffle 4y ago
    > vexatious litigants If it's happening only on one or two campuses, perhaps. But these aren't new trends and have popped up all over the US.