• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Cancel culture & Wingate Hall

Why would you investigate something that the perpetrator admitted to and apologized for?

You can admit and show contrition for things that aren't fireable offenses (for example, how do you know what a person's intent was behind an overheard statement)? As someone else pointed out, in the moment she was expressing regret at the observation. The fact that she showed contrition for any offense caused is a good thing, isn't it?

In life and in law, there is a guilt versus innocence phase and there is the separate matter of sentencing. If the University wants to fire her, they can surely do so. What's the harm in finding out what actually happened? What's the harm in telling the Twitter mob that "No, that's not how we undertake career terminating activities." This is a teachable moment at a school. Why not use it?
 
WokeandBroke, what are your thoughts on pre-trial detention?
 
You can admit and show contrition for things that aren't fireable offenses (for example, how do you know what a person's intent was behind an overheard statement)? As someone else pointed out, in the moment she was expressing regret at the observation. The fact that she showed contrition for any offense caused is a good thing, isn't it?

In life and in law, there is a guilt versus innocence phase and there is the separate matter of sentencing. If the University wants to fire her, they can surely do so. What's the harm in finding out what actually happened? What's the harm in telling the Twitter mob that "No, that's not how we undertake career terminating activities." This is a teachable moment at a school. Why not use it?

Really? I learned in this very thread that law school adjuncts are usually gainfully employed as full time lawyers doing this teaching thing on the side as a matter of prestige for both the teacher and the law school. Which, actually makes this whole thing more important for both parties to end quickly. The law school does not want to be known as the school that employed that maybe racist professor, and the maybe racist professor wants to move on and just get back to lawyering. The Mean Wokies sure are mean, but rapid resolution to this problem was super important to all parties involved. Think of it as settling out of court.
 
Why would you investigate something that the perpetrator admitted to and apologized for?

When the mean woke mob comes, it can be overwhelming. Apologizing for offending people is different than admitting that you are a racist, or that you treated black students differently, which her apology does not indicate.
 
When the mean woke mob comes, it can be overwhelming. Apologizing for offending people is different than admitting that you are a racist, or that you treated black students differently, which her apology does not indicate.

Yeah, but this is really about perception and image. This was a really weak case for you to latch onto as a criticism of the mean wokies, because both sides wanted this story to die as soon as possible, so it was best to part ways and move on.
 
It's crazy how seemingly normal people just adopt whatever terms the extreme right is currently using to excuse racism. It really works for them -- it's pretty much what the entire party is based on at this point! Cancel culture, woke mob, etc. It's just the same old shit repackaged, gobbled up, and spit out. Anyone is is actually woke can see it for what it really is.
 
It's crazy how seemingly normal people just adopt whatever terms the extreme right is currently using to excuse racism. It really works for them -- it's pretty much what the entire party is based on at this point! Cancel culture, woke mob, etc. It's just the same old shit repackaged, gobbled up, and spit out. Anyone is is actually woke can see it for what it really is.

Similar to use of “cultural Marxism.”
 
The professors apology was not a "if I offended you I'm sorry" type of mean wokie inspired non-apology. I was pretty thorough and self admonishing:

"In her resignation letter, seen by NBC Washington, Sellers said: "I am deeply sorry for my hurtful and misdirected remarks.


"While the video of this incident is an excerpt from a longer discussion about class participation patterns, not overall grades, it doesn't diminish the insensitivity I have demonstrated. I would never do anything to intentionally hurt my students or Georgetown Law and wish I could take back my words.

"Regardless of my intent, I have done irreparable harm and I am truly sorry for this. For that reason, I am immediately and voluntarily resigning my position as an adjunct professor."
 
Yeah, but this is really about perception and image. This was a really weak case for you to latch onto as a criticism of the mean wokies, because both sides wanted this story to die as soon as possible, so it was best to part ways and move on.

Right, she knew she was never going to teach there again when she was hot mic'ed referring to some black people as the "good ones" and others as the "lower ones". That's game over - there's no coming back from that. You apologize, you get fired or you resign and you move on -- she's intelligent enough to know that. It should be shocking that some here don't get that, but it's not. It's why Fox News exists.
 
Right, she knew she was never going to teach there again when she was hot mic'ed referring to some black people as the "good ones" and others as the "lower ones". That's game over - there's no coming back from that. You apologize, you get fired or you resign and you move on -- she's intelligent enough to know that. It should be shocking that some here don't get that, but it's not. It's why Fox News exists.

Yeah, this is really the most problematic part. Even though she may have been talking about apparent patterns in the grading data, once you start saying that some of the "blacks" are "good ones" you can't escape the undercurrent that she thinks all of them are bad with a few exceptions.
 
I mean that investigation takes about 4 minutes 30 seconds.

step 1: Watch the video up to the point where she refers to some "blacks" as "really good ones." (~2 minutes)
step 2: pause the video, rub your eyes, make sure your not sleeping (~30 seconds)
step 3: rewind the video a minute or so and re-watch it (~1 minute 20 seconds)
step 4: deep sigh (~30 seconds)
step 5: tap your fingers on the desk (~ 10 seconds)
Step 6: Call the professor and tell them they are fired (~1 minute)
 
Yeah, but this is really about perception and image. This was a really weak case for you to latch onto as a criticism of the mean wokies, because both sides wanted this story to die as soon as possible, so it was best to part ways and move on.

This entire debate began when I was asked by BBD "Who gets to decide that the comments are not racist?" I responded that "the person making the accusation has the burden of proof." Ph and BBD had great difficulty grasping that concept, so I provided an example where I thought the accusers had the burden of proving that the accused's actions were racist. I used the Georgetown Law example, as an example of where I think the burden was on the students (including the group calling for termination without investigation) and the school to demonstrate that what occurred was, in fact, racist. And my position has been that I do not believe that the evidence available to all of us establishes that the professors acted in a racist manner. That's it.

Along the way, I was accused of "not operating in good faith" by Ph, who ironically misstated my opinion in the same post. (#95) I corrected him as to what my entire point was: "My opinion is that if someone accuses another person of making racist speech, the accuser bears responsibility for establishing that it was actually racist. I don't mean literally in a court of law. I mean in a private interaction, to an employer, to a school board, whatever. It's not a controversial opinion. The accuser can always choose to think and gather information before making the accusation." Of course, that was after he asked me if I was suggesting that "racism isn't harmful?" (#69 #notnice)

So, I'm going to have to disagree with your statement that this was a "really weak case," when the case was brought up as an example of how burden of proof should work. Naturally, the discussion evolved from there, but that was its genesis.
 
When the mean woke mob comes, it can be overwhelming. Apologizing for offending people is different than admitting that you are a racist, or that you treated black students differently, which her apology does not indicate.

Ask Haven Monahan. He made the cover of Rolling Stone for assaulting that girl at Virginia. The only problem is that that party didn't occur and he doesn't exist. Process: who needs it? If the Woke Mob is ready, let's roll! They're never wrong about anything!
 
I mean that investigation takes about 4 minutes 30 seconds.

step 1: Watch the video up to the point where she refers to some "blacks" as "really good ones." (~2 minutes)
step 2: pause the video, rub your eyes, make sure your not sleeping (~30 seconds)
step 3: rewind the video a minute or so and re-watch it (~1 minute 20 seconds)
step 4: deep sigh (~30 seconds)
step 5: tap your fingers on the desk (~ 10 seconds)
Step 6: Call the professor and tell them they are fired (~1 minute)

So you agree that no matter how perfunctory, there should be some investigation (and in so doing, you disagree with the Student Association who called for her to be fired without an investigation)?
 
This entire debate began when I was asked by BBD "Who gets to decide that the comments are not racist?" I responded that "the person making the accusation has the burden of proof." Ph and BBD had great difficulty grasping that concept, so I provided an example where I thought the accusers had the burden of proving that the accused's actions were racist. I used the Georgetown Law example, as an example of where I think the burden was on the students (including the group calling for termination without investigation) and the school to demonstrate that what occurred was, in fact, racist. And my position has been that I do not believe that the evidence available to all of us establishes that the professors acted in a racist manner. That's it.

Along the way, I was accused of "not operating in good faith" by Ph, who ironically misstated my opinion in the same post. (#95) I corrected him as to what my entire point was: "My opinion is that if someone accuses another person of making racist speech, the accuser bears responsibility for establishing that it was actually racist. I don't mean literally in a court of law. I mean in a private interaction, to an employer, to a school board, whatever. It's not a controversial opinion. The accuser can always choose to think and gather information before making the accusation." Of course, that was after he asked me if I was suggesting that "racism isn't harmful?" (#69 #notnice)

So, I'm going to have to disagree with your statement that this was a "really weak case," when the case was brought up as an example of how burden of proof should work. Naturally, the discussion evolved from there, but that was its genesis.

It's weak. This lady said some racist sounding stuff ('some blacks are really good ones') on a video intended for the whole class to watch. It was not a leaked private video, it was shared with the entire class. She'll never be trusted by any black student again and therefore can't be retained to teach the class. Woke meanie mob or not, as soon as she said that on a video recording the burden of proof switched to her. She has to show the universe of future possible students that she doesn't think blacks are bad students with a few exceptions....and from the perspective of the two parties, neither of them want to drag this out with an investigation, she resigned before they could fire her and before an "investigation" could be conducted. With or without a woke meanie mob, this lady was done at Georgetown as soon as she said it, and she knew it, admitted it, and bailed asap.

I think you're right that the burden of proof should be on the accuser, and I definitely agree that twitter mobs can mindlessly rush from accusation to verdict before any information can be ascertained, but this is not one of those cases. The lady said it on tape, she knew it was bad and she apologized and quit.
 
So you agree that no matter how perfunctory, there should be some investigation (and in so doing, you disagree with the Student Association who called for her to be fired without an investigation)?

Sure, watch the video, rewind and watching a second time, then immediately fire her. If that's all you meant by "investigating" then fine I am all for it spend a couple minutes watching the video. But that's disingenuous, the student group was calling for the admin to dismiss the professor without a weeks long drawn out investigation into what she really meant by 'some of them are really good ones' because it was not needed and would only serve to delay a decision until the issue had passed.
 
Back
Top