Hacker News Reader

It certainly seems that the mere accusation of racism (or not even racism -- just not making race your primary focus and language of discussion) is career-destroying.

What I got from reading the article was the notion that the head of an academic institution should not sit by and let a frothing mob that argues by fear and destroying careers and screaming and swearing run any and all discussion at the college; rather try to enforce a more cordial and respectful mode of communication, be brave in his or her rejection of this attitude and stand as an example to others that respect and dialogue are the cornerstone of the mission of education.

The only "protection" they need is to be secure in the knowledge that the enormous amount of abuse and harassment and attempts to attack their livelihoods will be met with a firm defense of their ability to have opinions by those in power, not a request for their resignation.

The idea that some forms of speech are "career-destroying" and must be suppressed is isomorphic to the idea that, for instance, an email about Halloween costumes can be insensitive enough to cost a faculty member their job.

I have no problem with the idea that certain forms of speech should end your career. If someone starts yelling slurs at people, they shouldn't have a job that involves interacting with people anymore. That doesn't infringe upon their free speech rights; they can say anything they like, and others can respond accordingly, which includes firing them or choosing not to hire them.

The question then becomes where to draw the line: what speech deserves that level of response? And that seems like a topic people can vigorously disagree about.

In particular, any conflict of fundamental values generates heated debate. It's "easy" to evaluate a conflict between a fundamental value and something that isn't: the fundamental value tends to win. That's part of why people rarely change their minds about fundamental values; not necessarily a feature. But when a conflict arises between two fundamental values (say, "free speech" and "non-discrimination") that many people hold simultaneously, people have to actually think to resolve the issue. You'll get some people taking sides (such as declaring "free speech" absolute and telling people to grow a thicker skin), but you'll also get people learning to define their values more precisely (e.g. your right to speak doesn't require others to listen without reaction, or to give you a platform from which to speak).

> And that seems like a topic people can vigorously disagree about.

Thankfully, most industries don't have blacklists, so each "career-ending" moment can be evaluated independently by people who do hiring in that respective field.

Speech that mocks a Jeb Bush might disqualify you from work at Fox News, or (if any exist) conservative-leaning universities, but might actually be viewed as favorable to others. It is because we so vigorously disagree on those levels that, for the most part, even though there may be some job losses in the present, except where they are universally disagreed with, should not necessarily be career-ending.

Or, at least that's how it works in theory. Gary Webb's career never rebounded from having printed a generally true series of articles, but then again, it might eventually have righted itself had he not died in 2004.

Should they get their job back when they stop yelling slurs?

Depends. They will have demonstrated a basic lack of consideration important for that sort of work.

It is on them to make the case they now will demonstrate that consideration.

A very common thought will be, "they do, until they don't" and their case will center in on that risk. If successful, they will improve on that basic dynamic over time spent demonstrating that consideration.

"I don't want to spend my life not having good food going into my pie hole. That hole was made for pies."

-Paula Deen

Case in point, yes?

There is no shield in the First Amendmemt.

> It certainly seems that the mere accusation of racism ... is career-destroying.

Examples?

The article we are currently discussing is a good place to start though there are certainly others if you care to look (in academia at least).

As someone going to one of the 5Cs, some of my CMC friends have said that Dean Spellman's resignation was something that some students had been actively pursuing at least since last year, so I'd argue it's hardly a result of the mere implication of racism.

Do you have any context? I googled and couldn't find any.

Maybe I'm taking your use of "career-destroying" too literally. This dean will surely have no trouble finding another job.

I hope so and I think it's certainly possible, but 'publicly forced to resign for being a racist' being the first thing that shows up when a university official googles your name might make it a rough hire. These positions are high-publicity and the student body is the same everywhere.

But I'm encouraged by your optimism -- perhaps I should have said 'job-destroying' instead, because it is inarguably that.

I mean, yes, it may invite some uncomfortable conversations in the future. This isn't the first time that someone has been forced to resign for problematic statements, and I honestly can't think of anyone who has been totally shut-out because of them. Once you reach the higher levels (e.g., dean of a very prestigious liberal arts college), the landings become quite soft (even when they ought to be hard).

Anyway, I'm on-board with your suggestion of "job-destroying."

This is the same argument that's used by people advocating expelling ten [white, straight, cis, male] students for the same purported crime. "It's okay to leverage overwhelming power to commit outrageous acts of injustice toward so-called privileged persons because they'll just wave the magic priviledge wand to make everything better." This argument only serves to dehumanize the out-group which has been labeled as "priviledged"; it's a modern witch-hunt.

The present argument is whether the which hunt would prevent them from advancing their career in the same field. It is contended that it never does really. Sure it is a dick move, but that's not being disputed.

Racism's supporters try to have their cake and eat it too. They claim to defend free speech — but "the mere accusation of racism is career-destroying." So speech from the "frothing mob" (college students getting rid of backwards bureaucrats) is dangerous:

> "... destroy the lives of anyone who dares step outside the social justice orthodoxy even for a moment."

Whereas racism, in a country where being black can get you killed by the state? Attacked by whites, jailed, unemployed...? Oh, racism's just words, let's not get carried away...

Something that bugs me whenever I see it:

> these protesters were perfectly happy to use this student to further their own agenda, but turned on her as soon as they realized she wasn’t supporting their narrative.

Put another way: "these protesters were perfectly happy to support this student when they agreed with her, but stopped supporting her when they realized they didn't agree with her."

What the hell is wrong with that? Isn't that exactly what you'd expect? If I agree with you, I'll support you; if I disagree with you, I won't. If I agree with you and support you and then you start saying things that I disagree with, I'll begin to distance myself from you. Of course that's how it goes, what else are you expecting?

I freely admit that I don't know the details surrounding the particular student they're referring to, but the way that the author framed this with such divisive language ("further their own agenda", "supporting their narrative") smacks of the sort of ad hominem garbage that seems to be increasingly popular in these sorts of arguments, and it stops discussion before it starts. Anytime you agree with someone you're "only doing it because it furthers your agenda"; everyone has an "agenda" if agenda just means "things I care about" and every side of an argument is trying to "further their own agenda" if that just means "achieve certain goals".

It's the principle that when your speech is on-message, you're counted in our number, whereas when your speech is off-message, you've been brainwashed, therefore you're also counted in our number, but we are also going to shut you up by any means necessary. The sophistry and belligerent obtuseness is insulting.

This is a signature tactic of the "safe space" crowd, and people tend to (quite understandably) grow allergic to it.

Don't take my word for it: watch a couple of videos of verbal clashes between these goons and people who don't agree with them, and make up your own mind.

> What the hell is wrong with that? Isn't that exactly what you'd expect?

What's wrong with that? They gave her a platform because she was an Asian woman. She disagreed with them, so they revoked the platform. It's farcical.

I think it's more like speaking up when somebody is harangued and bullied is the right thing to do. You don't curtail their free speech, you just tell them that "my friend over here is not a racist, what you're saying is bullshit, and I have his back; please continue".

But it is also a courageous thing to do, because then you will stand there harangued and bullied, and spat upon, the same as your friend and colleague.

The "safe space" they accuse Chodosh of not providing is necessarily a metaphor — it wouldn't make much sense if taken literally.

Sure, its not the institutions role to protect accusations of racism.

But watch the video yourself and make a judgement on who, if anyone was being racist. (Ignore the inflammatory title, this is the best one I can find)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8UTj8lQJhY

Who cares if "they're" the racists? It's always the same thing, both on the protester's side and the institution, stretching back years: someone does something dumb, and someone else overreacts.

I think part of the problem is that if you're a minority group which views the majority group don't think are important you will not only be judged as overreacting because they can't understand you, but you will also be judged more harshly if you do overreact.

It's like in work life when men can be looked up to as jerks when they fire people for petty things, favor their buddies over other colleagues, go out drinking groping and picking fights. But when a women is calling out someones unwanted advance or sexual harassment she have to be absolutely sure she is correct and can prove it because otherwise it's apparently her that are making people uncomfortable. And of course since "it wasn't a big deal" she is overreacting by default.

Maybe overreacting isn't such a bad thing, maybe it simply evens out the jerks a bit.

A thousand times yes. People equate overreacting with "complaining about something I don't understand."

Sadly, I include myself in this generalization. I need to work on empathy.

I didn't say anyone was. I don't think anyone was being racist in the video.

I was just trying to provide context to the paragraph you quoted in case you hadn't seen the video.

Let me change one word in your response:

> Students don't need "protection" from free speech, nor does anyone need to be rescued from the "mockery" and "humiliation" of an accusation of communism.

> Demands for journalism-free "safe spaces" are bad, but so too is the idea that accusations of communism are so beyond the pale that people need to be shielded from them by institutions.

Or:

> Demands for journalism-free "safe spaces" are bad, but so too is the idea that accusations of witchcraft are so beyond the pale that people need to be shielded from them by institutions.

Can you honestly be unaware that we live in a world where no one gets fired for being a communist, or a witch? But...

That's not the best example to pick: people are still killed on accusations of witchcraft. [0,1] The Hollywood blacklists are still in living memory, and someone was fired in the US for being communist ~2001.[2]

I, personally, am something of a free speech absolutist, and believe it is important to protect even (nay, especially) loathsome speech. I am not aware of the what the happened in the incident described in the letter, so I am not willing to judge whether the original letter is an overreaction as tptacek claims, or not. Nevertheless I generally like to see arguments made accurately.

[0]: Papua New Guinea, 2013. http://world.time.com/2013/06/05/despite-legal-moves-pngs-te...

[1]: Tanzania, 2014. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29572974

[2]: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2...