Academe is a hotbed of craven snitches
chronicle.com
chronicle.com
Personally, I find these arguments objectionable for various reasons I don't care to get into, but either way I think it's probably a good idea to be aware of where people are coming from when engaging with pieces like this
If it's happening only on one or two campuses, perhaps. But these aren't new trends and have popped up all over the US.
I don't think that representation of the Ewell paper is quite accurate, though admittedly it's been over a year since I read it.
Despite being Jewish (would have had different significance later than during his time!) Schenker was a proud german nationalist and in his own words considered his method one of the ways german people could assert their superiority over other cultures.
The Ewell paper is actually pretty clear that schenkerian analysis is technically valid and quite valuable for many purposes. But also that its origins were in an explicitly racist project, and that applying it without understanding that frame could get you racist results even if you didn't intend them.
It's easy to go after this paper because it sincerely uses "critical race theory" vocabulary, but it's a solid contribution to answering the question "why are some fields so incredibly white even if no one intends them to be that way?"
The essay both-sides it, but Ewell's paper is researched and professional even with its flaws, while in context Jackson's response was fairly nasty and defensive, basically just accusing Ewell of black antisemitism.
I've been following this particular one for years (grew up on schenkerian analysis, in a musical family) and I am definitely not neutral on it. Ewell's moral rigidity on this is unpalatable sometimes and I think you could fairly call him a hothead. But the author's description of the conflict is a lot more "balanced" than the conflict itself really deserves. This is essentially an academic raising a painful point within a field that he clearly loves, and others trying to shut it down because of the embarrassment they feel it exposes them all to.
Seeing how the author misrepresents this issue to make their point makes me not really trust the rest of it. I just happen to be somewhat informed on this one.
> Was Schenker promoting a race that he didn't even belong to?
I think this is an error, trying to map our understanding of race onto the past like this. I don't know what race Schenker thought of himself as. He was Jewish, and he consistently asserted the natural superiority of german people and culture. That doesn't cleanly reconcile with any conception of race that I've come across, which indicates to me that those conceptions are not a useful lens here.
My goal wasn't to start up the is-schenkerian-analysis-racist-or-not quagmire here. It was to point out that I believe the author of this essay has misunderstood or misrepresented a more nuanced conflict for their own purposes.
Isn't that what Ewell is doing, by declaring that a 19th-century Jew born in modern-day Ukraine is actually a white German?
And Ewell isn't a Schenker expert - he focuses on Russian and modern music. He does self describe as: "I am an activist for racial, gender, and social justice in the field of music theory."
And he writes stuff like:
> Beethoven occupies the place he does because he has been propped up by whiteness and maleness for two hundred years, and we have been told by whiteness and maleness that his greatness has nothing to do with whiteness and maleness, in race-neutral and gender-neutral fashion. Thus music theory’s white-male frame obfuscates race and gender, one of its main goals….
Has there ever been a worthy white/male composer, or have they all been problematic racists because of their demographic information?
This guy is, basically, a clown. He, like many social-justice minded people, epitomizes Maslow's hammer. Writing in an academic style or in journals doesn't mean you have anything interesting to say. I did not agree with the author of the original article one bit, but I don't think they did any kind of disservice in their brief take on Ewell's paper(they even linked to it, which is at least a sign of good faith in my opinion).
(It's worth noting the flip side of that argument, too - we literally have historical sources telling us "when you see a composition made of big, white notes, that will sound a lot better if the performer improvises on them melodically on the spot, keeping the overall meter of the white note" (Lorenzo Penna, Li primi albori musicali). And of course, on-the-spot improvisation has been mastered to an unprecedented degree in the modern day by the "black" tradition of Jazz!)
edit: Actually let me go a step further and agree with you a bit - I think Kipnis's point would be more clearly made if she didn't make her own perspective on the merits of the Ewell paper such a big part of that section of the article.
I'm not even sure that the actual written paper had even been published at that time: the basic arguments of the paper were first summarized in a conference presentation, and of course it is terrible form to publish a purported critique of something that hasn't even been fully presented in full detail! The whole thing has really reflected pretty badly on the authors of these 'critiques', for very good reasons overall.
But he's thrived himself. He's got a swish appointment just outside of Boston.
Usually, a generic recommendation letter without any specifics is negative enough. Many professors don't want to write such recommendation letters.
So now what, we want the same thing with academia? That they can do whatever they want, secure in the knowledge no one will report them?
And isn't "craven snitch" an oxymoron? To be a snitch you need at least a bit of bravery, even if you are being anonymous, since there's always the chance you'll be found out.
For those who bravely make it to the 3rd paragraph.
You can't have that kind of harassment without the assistance of those you are reporting to. Being how I'm not there, I'm going to defer to the administrators to decide what's important and what's not.
I'm not sure where to draw the line, perhaps it's never really clear.
All of those exhibit cowardice because snitching is attacking someone without allowing that person confront the attacker.
On the one hand, society institutes these rules and we supposedly claim to be rule following people.
On the other hand, people who try to have the rules enforced are labelled as "snitches."
Your answer to why tragedies occur but even when people knew, nobody did anything.
Do the rules matter or not?
Go to the cops and try to turn yourself in for that time you ticked a "I have read the terms and conditions" checkbox dishonestly. I suspect you'll find some rules matter more than others.
So I'm not very persuaded by this argument.
Tacitus is spinning in his grave.
And the rules against romantic relationships with subordinates are there to protect the less powerful against exploitation by the more powerful. That's a really bad area for you to be extolling the virtues of breaking the rules. That's not how progress happens.
Nobody is special. Must follow rules. You will be reported. Zero sympathy. No exceptions. Are we in East Germany?
Imagine if you were French. Or had a pulse. I swear, society is overrun with gross troglodytes.
Look, lets be real honest here. The snitch is usually an unattractive jealous busybody, regardless of "rule breakage".
If the rule is so bad… shouldn’t they fix the rule? But it’s there for a reason, so they shouldn’t fix it. It’s not broken.
The person I responded to phrased it in a soul revealing manner:
> you chose to flagrantly violate the rules, thinking that you were special
Therefore the snitch will punish you and vengefully cut you down to size. You will be equally unspecial and unhappy compared to the snitch, don't you see?
We aren't talking some rule about borrowing red staplers. We're talking about private affairs between adults. Could be a perfectly happy couple.
This is very much the toxic vibe of East Germany and USSR societies. To a tee.
But the rule is there for a reason, a good reason, and everybody else had to follow it. I’ve heard of people leaving companies and having to effectively be demoted due to interpersonal relationships; that’s the responsible thing to do. It avoids the issues of conflict of interest and power dynamics. Choosing to simply flaunt the rules is not exactly admirable and maybe not even that romantic. The maximally romantic thing would be to give up the position as a sacrifice.
Do I get why someone wouldn’t want to do that? Sure, but you can’t eat your cake and have it too…
Hypotheticals aside, and with all due respect, what godly business is it of yours?
"Rules are there for a good reason and must be followed" is also called fascism under certain circumstances. The old soviet ladies watching like hawks from balconies the goings on in the hood were all about power trips and exploiting the situation.
If you wish to explore how one well intentioned rule building on another leads to atrocities I recommend you read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago
What is "maximally romantic" for other people to do is truly none of your concern. Other peoples affairs are their own, who knows if you even understand the situation properly and yet you rush to become their self appointed judge, jury, and executioner... why? For the greater good? Take a long honest look in the mirror.
We are too far apart in our assumptions and definitions to have a meaningful discussion.
Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition. The pope is infallible. And the cardinal surely knows best. Ours is not to question why.
You see, every two bit authoritarian is always so very sure that they are correctly interpreting and enforcing the rules. Strong sense of justice, all for the greater good.
And every two bit dictator learns to capitalize on these proclivities. All one has to do is create a rotten atmosphere of guilt, after all, who isn't guilty of something? And then just crown yourself enforcer-in-chief.
If anybody questions you just assert that they are morally inferior, insensitive or just don't get it and goose-step away in a huff.
You are not batman. You are Thunder Karen.
Right, because things like rule of law and consistent application of rules are the hallmarks of a fascist polity.
Sexual relationships between bosses and subordinates are seen a bad idea by many organizations. For the subordinate, is difficult to have a consensual sexual relationship with someone who is managing you, who is in charge of what you do on a day-to-day basis, and can decide whether you are fired or promoted. The power imbalance seeps in to everything. And then even if that was possible and there are no consent issue, there is the other looming accusations of preferential treatment. Did the subordinate get that promotion or that more lucrative assignment because they are sleeping with the boss? Finally, if these office relationships break-up (and many, many of them do), the resulting fallout can be devastating to the organization's productivity and legal liability.
For these reasons, many organizations make it a policy to require that these kinds of relationships be disclosed and prohibited. If a boss and a subordinate truly fall in love and want to live a life together more than anything else, then they can try to find alternative roles in the organization where one person in the relationship doesn't report to each other.
So that is the rationale. Agree or disagree if you want, but many organizations choose to have this policy. The second-order problem is what do you do if someone who is in a position of authority flagrantly violates an official, explicit policy? What other policies are the violating? Do they also think it is OK to charge personal expenses to a work account? People who are in power and who think the rules are meant to be broken often find their way into rationales to break all kinds of rules. They are a liability to the organization.
You don't need to laborousoly explain to me office romance, yet another obvious power trip.
These policies can hypothetically make sense, sure. You want to talk about a power imbalance, contemplate by whom and how these things are enforced and whether false positives are possible.
Are we dealing with subjective or objective things? And sweetness, this is a rhetorical question, I know your answer. I'll ask another one, have you yourself been in many successful relationships? Any?
Tell me, are you the HR lady human person in this situation or just some random busybody?
Is this not a whole profession that supposedly requires training?
> If a boss and a subordinate truly fall in love and want to live a life together more than anything else, then they can try to find alternative roles in the organization where one person in the relationship doesn't report to each other.
Gee, thanks for your permission, and what and who are you in all of this? Is this point really flying over your head? Suppose they, as human people, are in this process of figuring it all out.
Or that they aren't a couple at all and you misread.
And there you go and parachute in with your nonsense and force the issue for them on explicitly your personal terms, not some company policy.
Hero vigilantly rescuing the office from these ne'er-do-wells who no doubt are bad immoral people who no doubt also charge personal expenses to the work account and stole your lunch probably.
Also: if you could just as easily break vs. change a rule, want to do so, but still believe it's generally a good rule - is it better to just break it?
I guess this is what both sustains and dooms autocracies.