Unless you can reveal anything about the inner workings of the tenure board, you are taking your impression of a broad organisation and applying it to a specific department, a management structure and a board for which you are ignorant.
Please don't make sweeping generalisations and minimise the position of the author unless you have actual knowledge that might let you walk in his shoes.
I didn't publish AND promote a blog post where I feared not getting my current job because of some social dynamic that happens to exist 12,500km from where I am right now.
You should ask OP to provide evidence of caste discrimination in Canada, at this particular University.
> I can assure you that caste had absolutely nothing to do with OPs election/non-election
Also you:
> the burden of proof does not lie on me
You made very strong claims in your opening post. Asking you to provide some proof to support those claims is perfectly valid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)
>In a legal dispute, one party has the burden of proof to show that they are correct, while the other party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct.
>(emphasis) while the other party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct
>The burden of proof is usually on the person who brings a claim in a dispute.
In case it's not clear, I'm not OP, I did not write TFA.
Also, this is not a courtroom.
Posting this sentence for the third time. I am on the "presumably correct" side.
>Also, this is not a courtroom.
Why is that important?
"I can assure you that caste had absolutely nothing to do with OPs election..."
If your argument was just "there's not enough evidence to conclude that..." then I would agree with you.
> Why is that important?
Because you're trying to apply a convention from the context of legal disputes to something that isn't a legal dispute. Do you also ask HN commenters to go through a discovery process?
Following your really weird strawman, if we are not in a courtroom, why is it important? X2
Make up your mind, man.