Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Sinchan's avatar

This article by Ms. Chamlee-Wright left me with a strange feeling. First, she needed to establish that there was anything objectionable/racist about Sandra Seller's comments. And she hasn't done that, not for a second. Yet she launches into a long discussion on whether Sandra Seller's colleague should/shouldn't have immediately condemned her remarks. The author is assuming that Sandra Sellers said something very objectionable and racist and this is clear or can be taken for granted. But what did Prof. Sellers say? The readers deserve to know that before becoming complicit in the author's implicit (but clear) condemnation of Sandra Sellers. To know about what Sandra Sellers actually said and whether it is racist, please read this piece by John McWhorter

https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/so-there-was-a-law-professor-at-georgetown

When I am chatting with my friend (and I am not aware that I am on camera), would I be racist if I make the following remark "a massively disproportionate amount of violent crime in United States is committed by black people". I don't believe so because I am pointing to a fact. A factual observation on its own cannot be racist. I might then go on to relate the high crime rate of black people to their socio-economic disadvantage and the brutal oppression that they suffered through most of American history, oppression that other ethnic groups did not suffer, at least not to the same degree. (or anywhere close).

Prof. Sellers could be a strong supporter of affirmative action for black people. Nothing in her remark suggests that she is not. If you make a factual observation, and if people subsequently claim that because you said X, you must believe Y - it is their fault, unless they are able to read your mind. This is Critical race Theory, interpret everyone's words in the worst possible light. Get them fired as a knee-jerk reaction before they are given a chance to explain their remarks. And then condemn, ostracise and fire anyone who has a different way of looking at this incident or who do not agree 100% with your take.

p.s: I am not saying Prof. Sellers comments were entirely appropriate or diplomatic, they were not. But she thought she was speaking to a friend/colleague in private. Those conversations are fundamentally different because I don't have to prove to a friend who knows me well that I am not racist. Lot of things are usually taken for granted in those conversations.

Expand full comment
Adrienne Scott's avatar

"But this new wrinkle—the impulse to compel speech, and the resulting fear of being punished for not speaking up—is just as worrisome."

People in certain groups gain points with intense "virtue signaling;" others gain points saying vile things. They get the same "high," just on different ends of spectrum. Being kind and giving people the benefit of the doubt is very last century.

Expand full comment
23 more comments...

No posts