• 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

ImTheCaptain said:
i mean, it's probably worth noting McWhorter's views on racism when you bring him in as evidence in your favor
Click to expand...

I'm sincerely interested to hear which of his views you believe are worth noting, for the record.

I did not "bring him in as evidence" in my favor. In post #48, 2&2 said: "I generally think most things done in the name of wokeness are stupid, but this is pretty cool." I referenced McWhorter's point that there is nothing wrong with wokeness, but there is a problem with the mean woke. Then, upon questioning, I referenced the Georgetown Law debacle as an example.

My advice would be to argue actual ideas and refrain from attacking the source, barring a situation where the source is indisputably corrupted.
 
at some level, the speaker matters and I don't care for dudes like McWhorter getting a platform for his ideas, whether or not he's right on a specific issue (in this case I don't even understand the mean woke point, so not saying he's right on the issue)
 
wakelaw13 said:
I'm sincerely interested to hear which of his views you believe are worth noting, for the record.

I did not "bring him in as evidence" in my favor. In post #48, 2&2 said: "I generally think most things done in the name of wokeness are stupid, but this is pretty cool." I referenced McWhorter's point that there is nothing wrong with wokeness, but there is a problem with the mean woke. Then, upon questioning, I referenced the Georgetown Law debacle as an example.

My advice would be to argue actual ideas and refrain from attacking the source, barring a situation where the source is indisputably corrupted.
Click to expand...

uh huh. So re: "mean woke" then, what is your idea of accountability?
 
Last edited:
mako1331 said:
"In 2017, a Harvard study found that over 90% of the major TV news networks’ coverage of the Trump administration’s first 100 days was negative."

From sailor's article. I wonder if there might be a valid, common sense explanation for this phenomenon.
Click to expand...

Yea, I wonder what it could be
 
lol that kentucky derby horse owner who tested positive for too many steroids is crying cancel culture
 
birdman said:
We should also not pretend that adjunct professors are some sacred status in the academic world that are normally treated with the utmost respect and that the university dispensed with norms in letting these people go without due process and irrefutable proof. Adjuncts typically are treated like shit, teaching class that other full faculty don't want to teach, and only get single semester contracts. It was far easier for the university to let these people go than anything else because they were going to let them go within in the next two years anyway when they started asking for more money. The financial hit that the law school would take from a diminished reputation would be far greater than paying out the remainder of the contracts, firing the people, and finding someone else to teach the class. The reality of an increasingly anti-racist generation, is that whether or not it's illegal or specifically causes targeted harm for a specific individuals, institutions and businesses are going to weigh the potential loss in reputation due to tolerating or harboring (or the perception of tolerating) even possibly (no hard proof!) racist employees against the benefit of keeping those people on staff because of loyalty to employees or some undefined standard of proof.
Click to expand...

PhDeac said:
Obviously, birdman is right in that adjunct status plays a huge role here and made the decision easier for the administration.
Click to expand...

Ancillary point of information here, because birdman's argument that adjunct status made made the firing easier it's a good one. (Likewise for corollary about institutional reputation)

Adjunct instructors in law are generally not equivalent to adjunct instructors elsewhere in the academy: as a rule they (almost always) have full-time jobs outside of teaching (hence their desired expertise), and therefore aren't subject to the same shit treatment we see in other fields: no health insurance, professional contingency, low pay, high teaching loads, multi-campus employment, etc.

In fact, adjunct faculty in law often boost the reputation of the institution because they bring with them prestige and knowledge from the private sector or government or wherever.
 
BillBrasky said:
Top response from our Seb Gorka wannabe
Click to expand...

Ah, Victor Davis Hanson, bkf's favorite conservative "intellectual" back in the day. The man who's been lamenting for years about how Mexicans have overrun and ruined his great home state of California.
 
I think my issue with the Georgetown Law professor being fired is this:

“We demand nothing short of the immediate termination of Sandra Sellers as adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center,” the group said in a statement. “Not suspension. Not an investigation. The university must take swift and definitive action in the face of blatant and shameless racism.”

This was based on one clip of a video. Maybe some investigation of the rest of the video to determine if there was any additional context.

This mindset is why the Atlanta police officer was just reinstated. In the rush to appease the public, we are failing to take appropriate steps to ensure we are protecting rights of the accused.
 
Yeah. Like I recognize that many of these cases are “straw that broke the camel’s back” situations where everyone knows that the person has been horrible for years. But if that’s the case, then do a little digging and build some justification. If she’s been unfairly grading black students, it shouldn’t be hard to get some evidence and then base the personnel decision on that, rather than basing it solely on an ambiguous video which is not, by itself, very much proof of anything. (Or just get rid of her quietly, which requires no justification at all.) It’s the rushed, public announcement and condemnation that feels problematic to me.
 
ProfessorDeac said:
Yeah. Like I recognize that many of these cases are “straw that broke the camel’s back” situations where everyone knows that the person has been horrible for years. But if that’s the case, then do a little digging and build some justification. If she’s been unfairly grading black students, it shouldn’t be hard to get some evidence and then base the personnel decision on that, rather than basing it solely on an ambiguous video which is not, by itself, very much proof of anything. (Or just get rid of her quietly, which requires no justification at all.) It’s the rushed, public announcement and condemnation that feels problematic to me.
Click to expand...
True, but fuck wingate though. Way too much shit is named after rich old white dudes.

Would prefer it to be called something like Teagues lookout hall, or some shit to ruffle feathers tho.
 
Hat take, old white dudes that did nothing but be douchey and rich should not have a hall named after themselves.

Fuck new rule, douchey rich people can’t name shit after themselves. You get all the things don’t make
People sit in your building.

See trump as (ass) a example.
 
wakelaw13 said:
Probably a good idea to be suspicious whenever an accuser demands that you not investigate.
Click to expand...

They want the place the teaches courses in due process to fire people without any investigation. Just don't call them mean. They hate that.
 
It was a taped confession. What was there to investigate? What do you think an investigation would find?
 
I could definitely get behind Teague's Lookout Hall. A not so subtle shift from racism to misogyny.
 
WokeandBroke said:
Tell me precisely what they are confessing to.
Click to expand...

Giving Black students lower grades than their peers on a subjective assignment over 18 years.

I'll ask you the same question wakelaw13 won't answer. Which explanation is more likely over 18 years?

Two professors were biased against Black students

or

Black students were almost always the worst students in this course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top