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
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.
"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.
The author correctly focuses on the issue without the noise of introducing specifics of the comment(s)/response(s). Those would be separately controversial in many cases & not to the point.
Judging people by what they say (write) is one weakness. Judging people by what they don’t say (write) is a whole new exercise in futility & gamesmanship.
I agree with Emily Chamlee-Wright's argument as far as it goes, but in the current moment I don't think it goes far enough. Her example helps me say why. When I read about the Sellers/Batson "private" exchange that wasn't at all private, my first response wasn't, "hey, why didn't Batson give his colleague what for over her clearly racist assumption and comment?" Rather, my first response was: well, of course, she's distressed over the fact that in her experience a disproportionate number of students of color may struggle in ways that white Georgetown students don't. I shouldn't have to say that recognizing such a reality and worrying about it isn't racist. Here's the high-wire act educators now have to walk: knowing that education in the U.S. yields class and racial differences in preparation for jobs and higher education and being dedicated to ameliorating those differences so that all kids and young adults can flourish AND stating categorically that we see no such differences in our classrooms and that anyone who does see such differences is a racist who needs to be punished. In my view, what's needed now is less parsing of when anti-racist/classist/cishomotransphiles need to speak up and more acknowledgment of how deeply down the rabbit hole of denunciation we've already gone, perhaps irreparably. Batson's groveling apology just makes me deeply sad.
Ms. Sellers was fired for speaking the truth about the situation. Isn’t that the first step in solving a problem, naming it? Then asking why the situation exists. Then looking for solutions.
Addrienne Scott is on point. The silence=violence movement fizzled (thankfully) but it points down the darkest of roads. We seem to be driftinng towards denounciation of individuals for insufficient theatrical support of scripted opinions. Anybody who is not worried by this--or at least raising an eyebrow--should probably hit pause to diagnose their cognitive algorithm.
Can't help but notice that many of the loudest advocates for harshness and vindictiveness to "wrongdoers" are the same people condemning the American legal system as too harsh and vindictive. The other day (sorry, forgot where) I read someone calling for the death penalty for cops who murder.
I guess my problem with this article is that it doesn't go on to question the policy of firing people for breaking that taboo. Why not a reprimand or training? The other problem we are facing is a culture that is entirely too punitive. Firing people like this isn't justice either.
Anyone who equates silence -- or even speech -- with violence needs to get out more.
Beyond that simple observation, there's a pattern here at Persuasion: People argue for free speech and individual rights... up to a point. There's always a question -- often asked explicitly -- of "where do you draw the line?"
At that point, as the saying goes, "We've already established what you are; now we're just haggling over price." You've put yourself in the position of deciding what people should be allowed to say and/or what opinions they should be allowed to hold.
So let me counter that explicitly by saying that it's worse to be cruel than to be, say, racist. Professor Seller may have been racist (she wasn't, but let's posit it for the example); the people who got her fired were cruel. Having the opinion that other races are inferior is racist, but it's just an opinion. If it's wrong, it just joins all the other wrong opinions the typical person has -- it doesn't somehow pollute the noosphere. Cruelty has real, and pernicious, effects.
And because this is the Internet, where people typically can't, or won't, understand simple prose: Burning a cross on someone's lawn or refusing to serve him is both racist *and* cruel, and it's the cruel side that's the problem. And we had simple and effective fire-in-a-crowded-theater rules for speech, too, before we started policing people's opinions.
I'm tired of false equivalencies and rhetorical excess. Social media loves both. If I'm going to buy into this "silence is violence" meme, then I can only conclude that social media itself is violence. Thought policing is violence, too. In fact, reading "Persuasion" is violence. Anything that disturbs anyone is violence. OK, now that we've got that settled, what's next?
" Yet increasingly, readiness to condemn seems to be what people expect of themselves and others. As we demand that people have ripostes at the ready, it means we’re entering conversations armed, our words sharpened, weaponized. Like jacked-up warriors, we’re almost disappointed if we don’t encounter something worthy of condemnation."
Who is this "we" you speak of? I personally don't have a hyper sensitivity to expecting people to condemn things, particularly things that are not even deserving condemnation. I don't feel like either of those people should have lost their jobs for what they said -- or didn't say -- ; based on the clip I watched; it is insufficient to make a judgement about whether the comment was racist or whether, moreso, that Sellers is. And, I also don't even think all forms of "racist" expressions are good reason for a person to be fired from a job. Not all racism is equally bad, and how we socially punish should be calibrated to that diversity. In my mind, the people who advocated punishing them based on that clip and without any meaningful investigation are guilty of a sin. Don't worry though, I'm not going to try to get them fired from their job because of it.
"Of course, there are circumstances when the failure to condemn is itself a legitimate target for condemnation. The former president’s failures to condemn white nationalists in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 and those who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6 spring to mind. He had time and a cadre of advisers to help him think through what he might say. As a person with tremendous political power and cultural influence whose words might have prevented violence, he had a moral duty to condemn.
But in our daily conversations as ordinary citizens, we can afford a more forgiving standard. In fact, we need a more forgiving standard if we are to rebuild the social trust that has been in such sharp decline."
Trump finds his way into the strangest of political discussions these days. I'd just like to point out that you can dislike Trump but still do your due diligence of validating some of the most easily and commonly invalidated propaganda before repeating it as if it were fact. Trump did not "fail to condemn" either white nationalists after Charlottesville or the rioting at the capitol. Albeit, I'd argue that his overall response regarding the capitol was deplorable.
"If we shift our posture to a more charitable interpretation and proportionate response, if we expect our fellow citizens to act with decency and honor, we will likely lose the sharpened edge that gives us ready access to reproving barbs."
Except for with Trump supporters right?
I'm curious; when will Democrats begin to condemn the Democratic Party for covering up its legacy of slavery? Many Democratic politicians are now beginning to propose an investigation into reparations for slavery -- are they finally going to uncover the truth that the Democratic Party is responsible for fighting the war to keep it and nursing the KKK, which was responsible for plundering and warring on black people for 100 years after the Republican Party emancipated them? How about the Democratic Party pay for reparations? It's their debt. It would be a crime to have them move that debt to innocent people in the form of using taxes to pay for it--taking the income of first generation Indians to pay off the slave debt of the Democratic Party. Justice for American slavery will not move forward until Americans finally hold the Democratic Party responsible for its war for slavery.
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.
"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.
The author correctly focuses on the issue without the noise of introducing specifics of the comment(s)/response(s). Those would be separately controversial in many cases & not to the point.
Judging people by what they say (write) is one weakness. Judging people by what they don’t say (write) is a whole new exercise in futility & gamesmanship.
I agree with Emily Chamlee-Wright's argument as far as it goes, but in the current moment I don't think it goes far enough. Her example helps me say why. When I read about the Sellers/Batson "private" exchange that wasn't at all private, my first response wasn't, "hey, why didn't Batson give his colleague what for over her clearly racist assumption and comment?" Rather, my first response was: well, of course, she's distressed over the fact that in her experience a disproportionate number of students of color may struggle in ways that white Georgetown students don't. I shouldn't have to say that recognizing such a reality and worrying about it isn't racist. Here's the high-wire act educators now have to walk: knowing that education in the U.S. yields class and racial differences in preparation for jobs and higher education and being dedicated to ameliorating those differences so that all kids and young adults can flourish AND stating categorically that we see no such differences in our classrooms and that anyone who does see such differences is a racist who needs to be punished. In my view, what's needed now is less parsing of when anti-racist/classist/cishomotransphiles need to speak up and more acknowledgment of how deeply down the rabbit hole of denunciation we've already gone, perhaps irreparably. Batson's groveling apology just makes me deeply sad.
Ms. Sellers was fired for speaking the truth about the situation. Isn’t that the first step in solving a problem, naming it? Then asking why the situation exists. Then looking for solutions.
John McWhorter nailed it, as usual.
Addrienne Scott is on point. The silence=violence movement fizzled (thankfully) but it points down the darkest of roads. We seem to be driftinng towards denounciation of individuals for insufficient theatrical support of scripted opinions. Anybody who is not worried by this--or at least raising an eyebrow--should probably hit pause to diagnose their cognitive algorithm.
Can't help but notice that many of the loudest advocates for harshness and vindictiveness to "wrongdoers" are the same people condemning the American legal system as too harsh and vindictive. The other day (sorry, forgot where) I read someone calling for the death penalty for cops who murder.
I guess my problem with this article is that it doesn't go on to question the policy of firing people for breaking that taboo. Why not a reprimand or training? The other problem we are facing is a culture that is entirely too punitive. Firing people like this isn't justice either.
Anyone who equates silence -- or even speech -- with violence needs to get out more.
Beyond that simple observation, there's a pattern here at Persuasion: People argue for free speech and individual rights... up to a point. There's always a question -- often asked explicitly -- of "where do you draw the line?"
At that point, as the saying goes, "We've already established what you are; now we're just haggling over price." You've put yourself in the position of deciding what people should be allowed to say and/or what opinions they should be allowed to hold.
So let me counter that explicitly by saying that it's worse to be cruel than to be, say, racist. Professor Seller may have been racist (she wasn't, but let's posit it for the example); the people who got her fired were cruel. Having the opinion that other races are inferior is racist, but it's just an opinion. If it's wrong, it just joins all the other wrong opinions the typical person has -- it doesn't somehow pollute the noosphere. Cruelty has real, and pernicious, effects.
And because this is the Internet, where people typically can't, or won't, understand simple prose: Burning a cross on someone's lawn or refusing to serve him is both racist *and* cruel, and it's the cruel side that's the problem. And we had simple and effective fire-in-a-crowded-theater rules for speech, too, before we started policing people's opinions.
I'm tired of false equivalencies and rhetorical excess. Social media loves both. If I'm going to buy into this "silence is violence" meme, then I can only conclude that social media itself is violence. Thought policing is violence, too. In fact, reading "Persuasion" is violence. Anything that disturbs anyone is violence. OK, now that we've got that settled, what's next?
" Yet increasingly, readiness to condemn seems to be what people expect of themselves and others. As we demand that people have ripostes at the ready, it means we’re entering conversations armed, our words sharpened, weaponized. Like jacked-up warriors, we’re almost disappointed if we don’t encounter something worthy of condemnation."
Who is this "we" you speak of? I personally don't have a hyper sensitivity to expecting people to condemn things, particularly things that are not even deserving condemnation. I don't feel like either of those people should have lost their jobs for what they said -- or didn't say -- ; based on the clip I watched; it is insufficient to make a judgement about whether the comment was racist or whether, moreso, that Sellers is. And, I also don't even think all forms of "racist" expressions are good reason for a person to be fired from a job. Not all racism is equally bad, and how we socially punish should be calibrated to that diversity. In my mind, the people who advocated punishing them based on that clip and without any meaningful investigation are guilty of a sin. Don't worry though, I'm not going to try to get them fired from their job because of it.
"Of course, there are circumstances when the failure to condemn is itself a legitimate target for condemnation. The former president’s failures to condemn white nationalists in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 and those who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6 spring to mind. He had time and a cadre of advisers to help him think through what he might say. As a person with tremendous political power and cultural influence whose words might have prevented violence, he had a moral duty to condemn.
But in our daily conversations as ordinary citizens, we can afford a more forgiving standard. In fact, we need a more forgiving standard if we are to rebuild the social trust that has been in such sharp decline."
Trump finds his way into the strangest of political discussions these days. I'd just like to point out that you can dislike Trump but still do your due diligence of validating some of the most easily and commonly invalidated propaganda before repeating it as if it were fact. Trump did not "fail to condemn" either white nationalists after Charlottesville or the rioting at the capitol. Albeit, I'd argue that his overall response regarding the capitol was deplorable.
"If we shift our posture to a more charitable interpretation and proportionate response, if we expect our fellow citizens to act with decency and honor, we will likely lose the sharpened edge that gives us ready access to reproving barbs."
Except for with Trump supporters right?
I'm curious; when will Democrats begin to condemn the Democratic Party for covering up its legacy of slavery? Many Democratic politicians are now beginning to propose an investigation into reparations for slavery -- are they finally going to uncover the truth that the Democratic Party is responsible for fighting the war to keep it and nursing the KKK, which was responsible for plundering and warring on black people for 100 years after the Republican Party emancipated them? How about the Democratic Party pay for reparations? It's their debt. It would be a crime to have them move that debt to innocent people in the form of using taxes to pay for it--taking the income of first generation Indians to pay off the slave debt of the Democratic Party. Justice for American slavery will not move forward until Americans finally hold the Democratic Party responsible for its war for slavery.