4 ms·

Professors punished – this month – for 2014 Halloween costumes

6 points by jseliger 4y ago

bell-cot 4y ago
Sounds like the photos of their "poor Halloween costume judgement in 2014" - at an official, public University event - didn't find the spotlight until 2021. Considering the trouble that a certain British Prince or two got into, back in 2005, due to similarly poor costume judgement...I don't have much sympathy. (The story even notes that one of the two professors is British.) You had fun throwing rocks at the PC hornet's nest, at one of your employer's official, public events? That's the sort of stupid that can get a CEO canned. Don't expect more forgiveness if you're a ways down the org chart.
conradfr 4y ago
It's not exactly clear from the article who is "offended".
- orionion 4y ago
  Up to about age 11 or 12, the costumes are cute and fun for kids. Why adults do this is beyond me. Ands don't get me started on that clown thing.
eesmith 4y ago
Both of the professors say it was not appropriate: Wood: ".. I ask forgiveness for this error in judgment. I regret my decision and I understand the hurtful nature of these symbols. ..." Sharland: "In retrospect, I can see why someone might find the image hurtful, and I regret this attempt at humor that clearly failed. It was not my intent to hurt or be offensive, and if anyone is offended by this picture I apologize.”" They quoted one person who thinks institutional repercussions are not appropriate. Terr: "the university had no authority to act on calls to sanction the professors" But ... it was at 'faculty, staff, and student Halloween contest held in the Mitchell College of Business'. How does the university not have authority to act on what happens by staff at a university event? Terr: "Punishing one of the professors despite finding his conduct did not violate any university policies highlights how arbitrary and unjust the whole process was," Without a more complete context, that quote doesn't seem meaningful. For example, even if the university guidelines don't explicitly say staff must follow civil rights laws (eg, EEOC guidelines on "hostile work environment" or Title IX issues on sex discrimination), they are still obliged to do so. Terr: "might target them for protected speech they engaged in years" Is Terr really making the argument that the choice of costume by a staff member at a university-hosted Halloween party is protected speech? Because that sounds like a great way for an asshole to choose a provocative costume, just to get a rise out of people, then declare the equivalent of Arjen Rudd's "diplomatic immunity".

6 points by jseliger 4y ago

Sounds like the photos of their "poor Halloween costume judgement in 2014" - at an official, public University event - didn't find the spotlight until 2021. Considering the trouble that a certain British Prince or two got into, back in 2005, due to similarly poor costume judgement...I don't have much sympathy. (The story even notes that one of the two professors is British.) You had fun throwing rocks at the PC hornet's nest, at one of your employer's official, public events? That's the sort of stupid that can get a CEO canned. Don't expect more forgiveness if you're a ways down the org chart.

conradfr 4y ago

It's not exactly clear from the article who is "offended".

orionion 4y ago
Up to about age 11 or 12, the costumes are cute and fun for kids. Why adults do this is beyond me. Ands don't get me started on that clown thing.

eesmith 4y ago

Both of the professors say it was not appropriate: Wood: ".. I ask forgiveness for this error in judgment. I regret my decision and I understand the hurtful nature of these symbols. ..." Sharland: "In retrospect, I can see why someone might find the image hurtful, and I regret this attempt at humor that clearly failed. It was not my intent to hurt or be offensive, and if anyone is offended by this picture I apologize.”" They quoted one person who thinks institutional repercussions are not appropriate. Terr: "the university had no authority to act on calls to sanction the professors" But ... it was at 'faculty, staff, and student Halloween contest held in the Mitchell College of Business'. How does the university not have authority to act on what happens by staff at a university event? Terr: "Punishing one of the professors despite finding his conduct did not violate any university policies highlights how arbitrary and unjust the whole process was," Without a more complete context, that quote doesn't seem meaningful. For example, even if the university guidelines don't explicitly say staff must follow civil rights laws (eg, EEOC guidelines on "hostile work environment" or Title IX issues on sex discrimination), they are still obliged to do so. Terr: "might target them for protected speech they engaged in years" Is Terr really making the argument that the choice of costume by a staff member at a university-hosted Halloween party is protected speech? Because that sounds like a great way for an asshole to choose a provocative costume, just to get a rise out of people, then declare the equivalent of Arjen Rudd's "diplomatic immunity".