There's a certain irony in scolding others for their perceived victimhood while simultaneously claiming to be a victim yourself.
If I was attacked by it, I'd be a victim. I'm not a victim, but I exercise an abundance of caution (conversations as brief, formal, and public as possible and recorded when not) when dealing with this kind of person in the workplace and I'd rather not have to do even more of that in my free time. I already spend enough clock cycles trying to identify these people so I know who to avoid, monitor, or if I'm forced to talk to them arrange a proper meeting/recording so everything is in the clear. Perhaps I am being extreme, but if I lose my health insurance I die and I cannot reasonably let some punk take that away from me so easily.
Profs Negy and Katz did, and in spectacularly offensive fashion.
Claims of victimhood by any other group are debatable in any general context.
I'm ashamed that intelligent adults on HN could somehow come to the conclusion that ganging up on professors who have opinions different than one's own is somehow warranted. It's repulsive.
The point I have been making throughout this thread is that both things can be true.
Negy and Katz both said nasty offensive things, seemingly on purpose in order to rile people up and/or because they are bad people. You can't "whatabout" your way out of that.
The people they said offensive things about are somewhat-radical ideologues who lack respect for freedom and due process.
Two wrongs do not make a right, and vigilante justice is illegal for a reason.
IMO, strongly taking one side in this issue is a clear signal that you are abandoning your own critical thinking skills in favor of your feelings.
He said something he thought to be true - he was making a rhetorical point, in an uncomfortable and insensitive manner. He doesn't really come from a position of power and notably, has wasn't 'going after' anyone, just making a dumb comment.
The person representing the authority or power in the equation ... it doesn't matter much what their statements were, the fact is they went after him (and others) in a systematic and authoritarian manner.
At most, he should have been asked to apologize for being insensitive.
The school, however, needs to be investigated for systematic oppression of profs. using their weird internal investigations to harass people (aka '9 hour interviews? That's fing STASI like stuff, it's what the FBI does to serial killers. Could you imagine your employer grilling you in a room for 9 hours?).
He spoke out of line, the school acted with retribution using arbitrary authority.
Trump believed he won the election.
The students should also be given actual leadership, so that they can contextualize their concerns, and understand when they're being tits.
Some of them want to be tits, which is fine, so long as they aren't being overly vindictive or violent, being a tit is not illegal in most cases.
That there is no easy way to contextualize all of this is insane.
People seem to take one of 'either side' and can't find where a reasonable landing point is.
It's hard because the 'system' in Academia is judicializing their moral perspective, aka referring to protesters as 'terrorists' off hand is considered 'crime' when really it's 'insensitive and irresponsible'.
I should not be that hard and these schools and unions need to be reformed.
The perpetrators of the former use the word "victimhood" manipulatively to abuse the intuitive sympathy that normal non-callous people feel for real victims, and unfortunately it somewhat works, because many people are gullible to such tricks.
Whether or not Black people are victims in any given scenario is debatable. Firing this prof is obviously ridiculous and speaks to the actual authoritarian systems on campus.