• 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

I’m sure that happens a lot, and those are the cases we never hear about. I was thinking more along the lines of where the person has been accused and a large group is calling for their head, like what recently happened at Georgetown Law. So in that context, where the accusers are seeking professional consequences including termination, my response is that the accuser should have the burden of proving that wrongdoing occurred. I understand the difference between being a racist and using racist language. Either way, burden is on the accuser.

You literally asked me who gets to decide the comments are not racist. My answer is that the person alleging that they were racist should have the responsibility of supporting their allegation.
 
wakelaw13, think about it like a conversation.

Person A: "Please stop. You're hurting me."

Person B: "No I'm not. I'm not a person who hurts people."

A: "Well you're hurting me. I feel hurt."

B: "No I'm not. Prove it."

A: "This is how you're hurting me. [Explains]"

B: "Well now you're hurting me by calling me someone who hurts people. I'm the victim now."

End conversation.
 
But Ph, that doesn’t have to be how the conversation goes. The script doesn’t have to be cold and defensive. It can be “allow me to explain or share the data/experience that I was referencing.”
 
I’m sure that happens a lot, and those are the cases we never hear about. I was thinking more along the lines of where the person has been accused and a large group is calling for their head, like what recently happened at Georgetown Law. So in that context, where the accusers are seeking professional consequences including termination, my response is that the accuser should have the burden of proving that wrongdoing occurred. I understand the difference between being a racist and using racist language. Either way, burden is on the accuser.

You literally asked me who gets to decide the comments are not racist. My answer is that the person alleging that they were racist should have the responsibility of supporting their allegation.

Do you feel like in the Georgetown law examples that there was not adequate proof that wrongdoing occurred?
 
Do you feel like in the Georgetown law examples that there was not adequate proof that wrongdoing occurred?

Yes. I do not understand why two professors discussing a trend that they have noticed, and most importantly that they are bothered by, is a bad thing. To me, ignoring it would be more problematic. But not the language I would have used, and I have questions about other aspects of it.
 
What else could the accusers have done in that situation to “prove” they were harmed by that speech?
 
Good question. In calling for the termination of these professors, the allegedly aggrieved students asked Georgetown Law to be the arbiters of this dispute. In my opinion, the school should have investigated rather than cave immediately. And the professors should have explained themselves rather than immediately issue the boilerplate apology, which is one aspect of this that I question.

I did not interpret either professor to say that black law students aren’t equally good students. Rather, they were questioning why they see an imbalance AT GEORGETOWN. As others have pointed out, this phenomenon has been studied and researched and theorized on. Why shouldn’t the professors question it? And isn’t not questioning it, and accepting it as normal, much worse?
 
Also, I never said that they had to prove harm. Rather, they have the burden of proving that the language used was in fact racist.
 
Also, I never said that they had to prove harm. Rather, they have the burden of proving that the language used was in fact racist.

What’s the difference? Are you arguing racism isn’t harmful?
 
What’s the difference? Are you arguing racism isn’t harmful?

Are you serious? How am I supposed to assume we’re having a discussion in good faith when you make a comment like that. Of course racism is harmful, and it is a problem.

There is a difference between proving that a student was directly harmed by a racist professor, for example a lower grade being received, and demonstrating that the language said professor used was racist. Here’s a mind blowing hypothetical: a professor could say something racist about black people, and a white student could make an accusation that it was racist. In that circumstance, the white student wasn’t directly harmed, but is still the accuser.
 
But why does the accuser have to harmed for it to be racism?

You’re thinking about this as a legal proceeding when I’m talking about everyday experience.
 
That is unequivocally not what I said. I was responding to BBD asking what accusers could have done to prove that they were harmed, and I responded that they didn’t need to prove that they were harmed. Racist speech is enough to warrant consequences, whether direct harm is proven or not.
 
Are you arguing racism isn’t harmful?

For those playing fallacy bingo, I think this qualifies as an (actual) "strawman" and perhaps also as an ad hominem.

Need TKory ruling
 
I read Ph’s post as since racist speech is inherently harmful, if you prove racist speech then you have proved harm. wakelaw was separating the two in his post, saying he hadn’t asked that they prove harm, only that they prove the speech was racist. If you think racist speech is harmful, then there is no need to separate the two.
 
I read Ph’s post as since racist speech is inherently harmful, if you prove racist speech then you have proved harm. wakelaw was separating the two in his post, saying he hadn’t asked that they prove harm, only that they prove the speech was racist. If you think racist speech is harmful, then there is no need to separate the two.

This is correct.

Let’s keep in mind that “prove racist speech” is impossible to someone who believes they can’t do be “racist.” So all that does is allow people to deny accountability for their actions while putting more emotional labor on the “accuser.”

I don’t know the name of the fallacy phan committed above.

This a ridiculous conversation.
 
Jesus Christ. It’s definitely not impossible to prove something that someone said qualifies as racist. But you couldn’t possibly be wrong.
 
Cancel culture & Wingate Hall

I had to go back and remember that this started with “mean woke.”

So who are you saying gets to make the final decision about what is racist? The accuser has to make the case but who makes the final decision?

This whole time I’ve been saying the accused is making the decision. That means someone who uses the term “mean woke” isn’t likely going to be convinced that what they did was “racist.” So it’s just a whole exercise in futility that drains the accuser.

But it seems like you have a different judge/jury in mind. Can you explain who?
 
I watched two versions of the video. Unless there’s some other part of the video that I havent seen, it’s clear to me that she’s just expressing frustration that black students are consistently underperforming in her class. I’m honestly struggling with this one. I only see good intentions, as she’s looking for some way to help fix this issue that she’s noticed over the years. If it’s just a question of semantics or not expressing herself with the most sensitive language, that’s no reason for a resignation.
 
The decision is made by a host of people/institutions. It could be an employer, the media, even the public. We should encourage speaking honestly and thinking critically, but that’s not really compatible with safe spaces.

In this case, the institution is making the decision as to whether the statement was racist. I think Georgetown Law looks fucking stupid. I’m not sure how you can charge $60,000 to teach concepts like Due Process and then fire two professors for being upset at a thing they noticed, just because it isn’t smiles and rainbows. Like I said, I would have used different language, and I question why they apologized.
 
Back
Top