Hacker News Reader

> But he obviously misjudged his audience and caused them more harm than good with his words, even if he had the best intentions behind them

He said that people should not punish 15 year old for something she said said offhand, when she was 12 years old. How is that causing more harm than good ?

That is what he had intended to transmit, but it was clearly not the message that the audience received. Instead, the message they actually got from this conversation seems to have been more along the lines of 'this NYT reporter who is lecturing us about native ctures is throwing around the N word and claiming it's OK to use when he says it or something. This is uncomfortable and annoying'.

If a class is just not learning from a teacher, both the class and the teacher share some of the blame. But since the teacher's job is to teach, and when the class is made up of children or teens, I always err on the side of accusing the teacher first.

Again, not accusing them of Racism! Just of failing to create the understanding and environment they were supposed to create.

It's worth remembering that he was a journalist, not a teacher. I mean, he was acting as a teacher, but he was invited to do so because of his background as a journalist. He didn't have any pedagogical training.

I do think it's relatively clear that something went wrong on that trip. Perhaps he should have been given more support from actual teachers, or perhaps he's just bad with kids and the position was always a terrible fit. But none of that should have significantly impacted his role at the Times, where mentoring teenagers was not a part of the job description.

His role there was as a teacher. The fact that he does not have pedagogical training is likely a reason why he failed in this role, and a reason why we shouldn't judge his failure harshly. It is not a reason why he shouldn't apologize.

I'm a programmer. If I offer to fix my friend's sink but end up spilling a lot of water, my friend shouldn't judge me too incapable, but they can still expect an apology for the inundation I caused.

Edit after your own edit: I completely agree. While I don't think he was right not to apologize, I absolutely agree that it is not normal and good that this escalated into him being fired/pressured into quitting. It seems that there was a good deal of internal politics that was involved in the way this escalated (of the personal grudge and/or inconvenient employee kind). We should also remember that we only have one side of the account of what happened at the NYT, what his exact reactions were, how much of what we are discussing here may have been discussed with there as well (and rejected) etc. Still, none of this is painting a nice picture.

Sorry if our edits crossed! We mostly agree, except on one point—I concur with the author that responding to The Daily Beast's story with an apology, without providing any additional context, would be acknowledging that the story as reported was accurate. And if it's not accurate, that's a great way to ensure that the situation escalates, in a way that's good for neither the author nor the Times.

I hear what you're saying but go on any social media today and you'll find hundreds, likely thousands of people claiming people are sexist, racist, ageist etc. because of the most innocuous comments.

These are full-grown adults doing this. Many of them have prestigious jobs in media, universities etc.

Really not hard to imagine a scenario where teenagers are looking for scalps to show how "woke" they are. The author fully admits that he comes off as an asshole sometimes. Maybe he was a bit of a jerk to the kids and pissed them off so they decided tattling on the guy for "being racist" would be payback.

I saw shit like this happen in high school all the time and it was well over a decade ago.

My partner is a teacher and I don't know how many times her students do shit like complain to the principal or guidance counselors that she's being unfair to them. Marking them absent from class for no reason when they attended via zoom and when it's investigated it turns out the kid had the camera off and didn't respond after being called on repeatedly.

Is this actually what happened? I don't know, we only have this guy's side of the story. Literally no one in the NYT or elsewhere has any evidence first hand or otherwise that he said anything worse than what IMO worst case scenario might be described as ill-advised and potentially insensitive.

I am born, raised and living well outside the US (Eastern Europe), and while I have been steeped in US pop culture since an early age, I do not have access to US social circles in this way. My own country is dissimilar to what you are describing in basically every aspect, so I can't relate, but of course this isn't in any way an argument against your own experience.

> IMO worst case scenario might be described as ill-advised and potentially insensitive.

Yes, this is my perception from his account as well. I can imagine that the teenagers he describes may have gotten inflamed, may have felt hostile, and may have complained to parents and trip organizers. They may have easily convinced themselves that it is righteous to take him down when the Daily Beast presented an opportunity to them. They are also likely much worse than a man with a 40 year career in journalism at recalling exactly what happened months ago in long windy conversations, so they are likely to be much more inaccurate in their own memories of these events.

> Instead, the message they actually got from this conversation seems to have been more along the lines of 'this NYT reporter who is lecturing us about native ctures is throwing around the N word and claiming it's OK to use when he says it or something. This is uncomfortable and annoying'.

Only someone with limited thinking skills would come away with that message.

I'm not white, nor did I grow up in America, so what the fuck do I know, eh?

You're probably also not a teenager, which I think is the most important distinction.

I think we should not take the viewpoints of a bunch of over privileged white teenagers so seriously.

Yes, we absolutely shouldn't.

The reporter should have probably cared a little more, during the trip, as he had entered a contract to provide a certain kind of experience to these kids, and he clearly failed at that. But that is of no interest to anyone outside the two parties of this contract.

And it absolutely does not make him a racist, or sexist, or colonialism apologist, or sexualizer of children or any of the things he has been apparently accused of.

> The reporter should have probably cared a little more, during the trip, as he had entered a contract to provide a certain kind of experience to these kids, and he clearly failed at that.

I'm not sure he "clearly failed at" providing "a certain kind of experience to these kids". The program sounds like a way for rich families to give their teenage children an international learning adventure trip with close exposure to world-wise adults. The focus of this trip was on rural health and included shaman rituals and hiking around Macchu Pichu. These teenagers intellectually engaged a decades-long journalist and it sounds like he was giving them a masterclass in critical thinking. That they were unprepared to have their thoughts contradicted is a sign of something else, but not his failure to help guide them through an adventure trip on rural health.

he was NOT wrong, about anything.

He probably did fail in communicating and creating the kind of environment for these kids that he was contracted to by the trip organizer company. He could have done well to apologize for this - the famous kind of non-apology we often complain about would have actually been appropriate here: 'I'm sorry you felt this way'. But that is the extent of his responsibility.