3 ms·
There is no way you'd had faced formal repercussions for just discussing it in the late 90s. While I can't prove this, I would be stunned if you got much more
by ponow 4y ago
There is no way you'd had faced formal repercussions for just discussing it in the late 90s. While I can't prove this, I would be stunned if you got much more than a few eye rolls and the like, essentially all in private. It is conceivable that some faculty member may decline writing a letter of recommendation, which could be significant. I am speaking about good Canadian schools and American ivies.
The suppression today involves professionally disasterous public things like firings, censures, formal censorship, pressure to sign petitions, reputational destruction, doxing, physically threatening pressure and screaming and possibly violence, etc. If only it were eye rolls.
- jrm4 4y agoYou are correct that it wouldn't be formal. You are WAY OFF in thinking that informal isn't just as, if not more important. Specifically, you're missing how then, e.g. white conservative majority power didn't need formality to suppress. That's how majority power works. It can just good-ol-boy network its way to suppression. (And note how it doesn't need to be precise when it's like that. It doesn't have to "make an argument," it can, e.g. just deny tenure to the loud black lady on some random grounds.) Formality is usually what the WEAKER side must resort to. Now I think there's a reasonable argument that that process is much stronger in a negative way today -- but context.