I don’t understand how UPenn firing her is helping her to become a new right wing victim. Her legal arguments and interpretations are not why she would be fired. Her explicitly racist ideas about who belongs in her institution are why she should be fired.
I don’t understand how UPenn firing her is helping her to become a new right wing victim. Her legal arguments and interpretations are not why she would be fired. Her explicitly racist ideas about who belongs in her institution are why she should be fired.
I disagree that someone should be fired for expressing their views unless their contract sets forth that they cannot express certain views publicly in any forum at any time.
There is an old saw "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." We have become way too oversensitized to "offense" and "taking offense." Every thing you ever utter will "offend" SOMEone it they are looking to be offended.
Firing someone for their ideas and opinions leads to Book Burning and Book Banning and other forms of censorship.
It also leads to more silos, more tribalism, more polarization.
Peacefully protest abhorrent ideas. March. Sit in. Write letters. But engage in a way that has at least a possibility of change coming rather than ensuring any change will be bloody.
Both sides are now working to muzzle the opposition. Both are wrong.
So, she is afforded free speech protections, but the university isn’t? In fact, we are going to compel speech from the university by making them retain her?
If the path to success is being victimized, there are various ways to get there. Possibly she miscalculated, and only hoped to be made a pariah in her ivory tower, so she could sally back and forth from there to Fox to attract the attention and rewards of cancellation. Actually losing one's job is taking it a bit far. Perhaps she was just a would-be mendicant who used a knife to produce some pity-inducing scarification and accidentally cut off her arm.
Frankly, she's not the right demographic for "right wing martyr". They are not interested in adding an aging, female, Ivy-League law professor to their litany of saints. Maybe if she were 30 years younger and blonde, had shot someone like Kyle Rittenhouse, or had been on a reality TV show. But she seems much to boring for the right to care about.
I find racism a too easy label. And when I listened to her, I found more of a gadfly. Someone who challenges the nation of racism. Still if she is fired... well it won't make my life change at all.
“I often chuckle at the ads on TV which show a Black man married to a white woman in an upper-class picket-fence house,” she said, adding, “They never show Blacks the way they really are: a bunch of single moms with a bunch of guys who float in and out. Kids by different men.”
I know a Puerto Rican man in Paterson NJ who was changing a tire in his neighborhood when he was robbed by a black guy. Is he a racist for wanting to move to Clifton or Totowa?
And I know of several black women who are single mothers - several kids before 21 and a few fathers. They climbed out of a hole (work as clerks where I worked). Can we not worry about that?
I volunteer in Paterson. We see lots of motivated kids (HS age) some are interns where I volunteer. Very few have been African American in the 9 years I have been volunteering.
Mr. McKenna, if your tire-changing man wants to move because he is looking for a lower crime area that makes perfect sense. If he wants to move because his assailant had black skin he ought to think about what he'd do if his assailant had had white skin.
There are many reasons why black people may more frequently break the law or become single mothers. Poverty, urban economic segregation, alienation and cynicism due to longstanding social prejudice (which has, indeed, gutted optimistic motivation), unequal incarceration standards, and so forth. But dark complexion is not one of them.
When you observe and wonder, I hope you bear in mind that the effects you see are not due to any simple, essential cause: skin pigment. Professor Wax's stream of comments all reduce to: good things come from white skinned people; people with different skin color don't create good things and what they're good at creating are bad things.
“I often chuckle at the ads on TV which show a Black man married to a white woman in an upper-class picket-fence house,” she said, adding, “They never show Blacks the way they really are: a bunch of single moms with a bunch of guys who float in and out. Kids by different men.”
"I am amused when our culture doesn't show all White men the way they really are: a bunch of overweight redneck fentanyl addicts who drive pickup trucks with confederate decals and AR-15's in the gunrack".
Cheese with your crackers, anyone?
Racism is not just KKK murderers burning crosses and blowing up black churches. It's more extensive and more subtle and doesn't even require personal malice toward anyone in particular.
She is allowed to say whatever she wants. When she makes sweeping statements about an entire race of people, she should expect people to pushback against her racism and the university is not curbing her academic freedom by firing her. At this point, we have exhausted this debate. I’m going to stop responding lest I say something uncivil. Your anecdotes however, aren’t data, I would ask you to refrain from using them in an argument.
Actually argument is not what I am after. In fact it is impossible without doing a full paper on a subject. And I don't want to. But you seem satisfied that racism is the label to use against her. I do not.
Racist is a chainsaw. I prefer to see her as a frustrated person and a gadfly.
Opinions are not appropriate in a learning environment, unless it is to discuss the whole subject - opinion, observation, experience, drawing conclusions and testing them out.
Her sharing her observations and conclusions she has drawn is spreading the bias that has developed in herself. This is what makes it racist.
If I say that every peach pie I have ever smelled or tasted is gross, I am spreading bias. But when the listener approaches their next peach pie and chooses not to try it, the pie's feeling will not be hurt nor will it have missed an opportunity to provide better for its children.
Easy to label as racist. I just don't see it. You are clearly angry. No need to be. The anecdote you shared above about her commenting on black men in ads... is that racist or her fair comment?
I think her comment above is clearly racist. I’m not so much angry as frustrated that here you are providing cover for a bigot. Incidentally, it’s not the only racist thing she has said. Yet, you seem to be okay with it.
I don’t understand how UPenn firing her is helping her to become a new right wing victim. Her legal arguments and interpretations are not why she would be fired. Her explicitly racist ideas about who belongs in her institution are why she should be fired.
I disagree that someone should be fired for expressing their views unless their contract sets forth that they cannot express certain views publicly in any forum at any time.
There is an old saw "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." We have become way too oversensitized to "offense" and "taking offense." Every thing you ever utter will "offend" SOMEone it they are looking to be offended.
Firing someone for their ideas and opinions leads to Book Burning and Book Banning and other forms of censorship.
It also leads to more silos, more tribalism, more polarization.
Peacefully protest abhorrent ideas. March. Sit in. Write letters. But engage in a way that has at least a possibility of change coming rather than ensuring any change will be bloody.
Both sides are now working to muzzle the opposition. Both are wrong.
So, she is afforded free speech protections, but the university isn’t? In fact, we are going to compel speech from the university by making them retain her?
If the path to success is being victimized, there are various ways to get there. Possibly she miscalculated, and only hoped to be made a pariah in her ivory tower, so she could sally back and forth from there to Fox to attract the attention and rewards of cancellation. Actually losing one's job is taking it a bit far. Perhaps she was just a would-be mendicant who used a knife to produce some pity-inducing scarification and accidentally cut off her arm.
Frankly, she's not the right demographic for "right wing martyr". They are not interested in adding an aging, female, Ivy-League law professor to their litany of saints. Maybe if she were 30 years younger and blonde, had shot someone like Kyle Rittenhouse, or had been on a reality TV show. But she seems much to boring for the right to care about.
I find racism a too easy label. And when I listened to her, I found more of a gadfly. Someone who challenges the nation of racism. Still if she is fired... well it won't make my life change at all.
Ah yes, just challenging the notion of race.
“I often chuckle at the ads on TV which show a Black man married to a white woman in an upper-class picket-fence house,” she said, adding, “They never show Blacks the way they really are: a bunch of single moms with a bunch of guys who float in and out. Kids by different men.”
Is she not allowed to say that?
I know a Puerto Rican man in Paterson NJ who was changing a tire in his neighborhood when he was robbed by a black guy. Is he a racist for wanting to move to Clifton or Totowa?
And I know of several black women who are single mothers - several kids before 21 and a few fathers. They climbed out of a hole (work as clerks where I worked). Can we not worry about that?
I volunteer in Paterson. We see lots of motivated kids (HS age) some are interns where I volunteer. Very few have been African American in the 9 years I have been volunteering.
Can we not observe and worry? Wonder?
Mr. McKenna, if your tire-changing man wants to move because he is looking for a lower crime area that makes perfect sense. If he wants to move because his assailant had black skin he ought to think about what he'd do if his assailant had had white skin.
There are many reasons why black people may more frequently break the law or become single mothers. Poverty, urban economic segregation, alienation and cynicism due to longstanding social prejudice (which has, indeed, gutted optimistic motivation), unequal incarceration standards, and so forth. But dark complexion is not one of them.
When you observe and wonder, I hope you bear in mind that the effects you see are not due to any simple, essential cause: skin pigment. Professor Wax's stream of comments all reduce to: good things come from white skinned people; people with different skin color don't create good things and what they're good at creating are bad things.
I admire you for volunteering.
“I often chuckle at the ads on TV which show a Black man married to a white woman in an upper-class picket-fence house,” she said, adding, “They never show Blacks the way they really are: a bunch of single moms with a bunch of guys who float in and out. Kids by different men.”
"I am amused when our culture doesn't show all White men the way they really are: a bunch of overweight redneck fentanyl addicts who drive pickup trucks with confederate decals and AR-15's in the gunrack".
Cheese with your crackers, anyone?
Racism is not just KKK murderers burning crosses and blowing up black churches. It's more extensive and more subtle and doesn't even require personal malice toward anyone in particular.
She is allowed to say whatever she wants. When she makes sweeping statements about an entire race of people, she should expect people to pushback against her racism and the university is not curbing her academic freedom by firing her. At this point, we have exhausted this debate. I’m going to stop responding lest I say something uncivil. Your anecdotes however, aren’t data, I would ask you to refrain from using them in an argument.
Actually argument is not what I am after. In fact it is impossible without doing a full paper on a subject. And I don't want to. But you seem satisfied that racism is the label to use against her. I do not.
Racist is a chainsaw. I prefer to see her as a frustrated person and a gadfly.
Opinions are not appropriate in a learning environment, unless it is to discuss the whole subject - opinion, observation, experience, drawing conclusions and testing them out.
Her sharing her observations and conclusions she has drawn is spreading the bias that has developed in herself. This is what makes it racist.
If I say that every peach pie I have ever smelled or tasted is gross, I am spreading bias. But when the listener approaches their next peach pie and chooses not to try it, the pie's feeling will not be hurt nor will it have missed an opportunity to provide better for its children.
When she repeatedly makes racist statements, she’s a racist. Providing cover for her bigotry isn’t something you need to do.
Easy to label as racist. I just don't see it. You are clearly angry. No need to be. The anecdote you shared above about her commenting on black men in ads... is that racist or her fair comment?
The 'tell' in her comment is "they never show BLACKS as they REALLY are". That's kind of saying blacks are all like this. Bigoted by definition.
I think her comment above is clearly racist. I’m not so much angry as frustrated that here you are providing cover for a bigot. Incidentally, it’s not the only racist thing she has said. Yet, you seem to be okay with it.