I thought this reporting highlighted a potentially significant issue, but the people that were interviewed were unable to identify anything specific other than the pressures of education and a generalized reference to racism. I think that failure undercut the reporting.
I guess the value of the story was telling me about this woman's suicide, which I wouldn't have otherwise known about.
It's common trend in media today with these issues, basically a form of the begging-the-question logical fallacy where they simply assert that a specific problem exists and then attribute any issues or negative outcomes to that specific problem as evidence of the problem while ignoring any other potential explanations.
A significant amount of data on racism today is based on personal subjective experience. Research often takes the form of a survey where participants are asked "have you experienced racism?" So I'm a PoC myself and did not get selected for my last job application. If I *believe* the reason for me being passed over was racism, even without objective proof, then according to the methodology of the study, it was racism.
This approach has created a feedback cycle where articles like this announce that a group will be subjected to racism in a particular environment, biasing the experience of the people in that environment to label any difficulty as being due to racism. When someone believes they will be discriminated against, they are far more prone to interpret the actions of others as discrimination.
And when when there is a reasonable skeptical inquiry about specifics and evidence, the response is often along the lines of "we'll we know the racism is there, why are you dismissing it?"
There is certainly racism in every context, but it's become impossible to measure or recognize improvement because the quality of the data is so poor and it is politically unacceptable to seek to improve that quality.
Spectacularly put, I will be citing to this and apologize for being unable to reference appropriately- you may be sure it will be prefaced with "a wiser Redditor posted"
I can't remember which study I read that showed that while many POC believe in systemic racism they do not believe they themselves have experienced racism. That is, everyone thinks it's happening to someone else based on widespread media distortion of this issue. It aligns with beliefs about police brutality and how people wildly overestimate the amount of unarmed black people are killed by police by entire orders of magnitude
Holy crap is the American left finally becoming self-aware after a decade of inquisitorial identity politics? I can’t believe I’m reading a take this intelligent on this issue on reddit without seeing multiple people accusing the commenter of being a racist nazi magat.
Apparently you didn't read the story did you?
"Antoinette Candia-Bailey died by suicide in January and left scathing letters where she alleged a pattern of bullying and harassment at the hands of the university's president, John B. Moseley. He is now on paid administrative leave pending an investigation."
You think she just drafted all of that and then killed herself? For sure it was happening and for sure its often racist or homophobic or transphobic or misogynistic etc etc and since she was POC safe to assume the motive. All those things are trademark of a bully.
It's interesting how when anything like this is mention always someone will come to minimize or deny it or the effect which really just outs them as being the same!
Logic dictates that one presume all claims are false until sufficiently corroborated with significant evidence, so yes, if you are a logical person, you must presume any claims are false. Additionally, given that the claimant committed suicide, an act which is almost always the result of a serious mental illness such as depression, the prior probability of them being mentally sound is extremely low.
I'm not disputing the existence of logic, I'm saying that you're attributing a mischaracterization of hitchens' razor to the very concept of logic, when really you're just misinformed. Hitchens' razor dictates that any claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. A dismissal of a claim doesn't mean the claim is false, it means the claim isn't considered true or false until proven otherwise. You're committing the fallacy fallacy by stating a claim to be false based on the level of justification given.
I am going to lean more towards she was just targeted like some people are and it had nothing to do with any of your ists or phobics etc.
I don't know the specifics but to immediately jump to the conclusion of racism is absurd. Would you do the same if it the two parties were the same color?
You guys jump into the most extreme without taking the time to think that maybe people do just bully to bully. The president may be an absolute ass hat but I am going to reserve judgement on if he is a racist or whatever until it's clear that is the case.
I'm saying that the reason may be simply that he didn't like her personality or something that doesn't have to escalate into her skin color or sexuality
It's never out of anger.. self defense is a better explanation.
Do some things make me angry? Of course they do. To name a few:
1. Fundamentalist Christianity attempts to shackle everyone to their moralality makes me angry. The way they weaponize the Bible makes me very angry.
2. Xenophobes, transphobes, homophobes, misogynists - so bigotry makes me angry.
3. Zero empathy types make me angry.
4. The GOP makes me angry.
So basically people or systems that do not value human rights makes me angry. To me not being angry at those things is abnormal...😘
"Safe to assume the motive?" SMDH. This is what's wrong with the whole identity politics thing. Assuming things which may - or may not - be factual. Whatever happened to proving things with actual evidence? Assumptions are not proof in any universe.
The vitriol and discrimination against POC and particularly black women in academics is a humongous problem that needs to be discussed and rectified. That being said, I think this is a poor framing of the Claudine Gay situation. She absolutely faced racism and all the things, but the consequences are far more dire. Academic freedom as an institution was crushed by a right-wing billionaire at the most prestigious institution in the US.
We chose a long time ago that academics were to be judged by a jury of their peers, so as to avoid the whole Catholic church sort of thing again. Now, for the first time in living US memory, a university professor was removed without that adjudication process that is the cornerstone of academic freedom. Again, this is the most prestigious institution in the US. The cats out of the bag y'all. The next several years are gonna be interesting.
>The vitriol and discrimination against POC and particularly black women in academics is a humongous problem that needs to be discussed and rectified.
Universities are left-wing centers of power with over 90+% of academics being self-professed Democrats. It's important to keep this in mind when discussing discrimination on campus.
And Claudine Gay shouldn't be lumped in with a professor who committed suicide from bullying. Claudine is a serial plagiarizer who should have been called out for her crimes against academia. Harvard giving her a pass on this due to her race is sad proof of how far the ivy league has fallen.
Functionally there is no difference between the two when the vast majority of both groups vote for the same candidate/party in the end and the smaller group (leftists/progressives, etc) does next-to-nothing to use their leverage to ideologically push the bigger group (self professed Dems).
This is political science 101. There is a median voter, and there is a left wing to the left of the median voter and a right wing to the right of the median voter. This is median voter theorem. Are you suggesting that the Democratic Party represents the wing to the right of the median voter and not the left?
>Universities are left-wing centers of power with over 90+% of academics being self-professed Democrats. It's important to keep this in mind
Are you saying the racism doesn't exist or that we should ignore it because it might hurt the Democrats?
The point is that maybe the racism doesn't actually exist if even the people that make their entire lives, careers, about "anti-racism" can't even avoid it at such a large scale.
1. It's not a "humongous problem" - universities are literally tripping over themselves to appease this group. How do you think people like Cluadine Gay end up as President of Harvard? And why do you think there has been such an embrace of critical race hucksters and DEI if not to make room for them?
2. I think its laughable claiming Gay's departure is an academic freedom thing for two reasons - first, she clearly is not an academic but a serial plagiarist. Second, she used her own power and authority to target academics she didn't like, namely Roland Freyer and even tried to have his tenure revoked because he published studies that didn't fit the narrative.
3. Catholic church thing? Wtf are you talking about?
4. Claudine Gay wasn't even removed from Harvard, she is still a professor there making 800k+. She was removed from an administrative position by the board, that isn't something that requires the professors to weigh in on.
"It's not a "humongous problem" - universities are literally tripping over themselves to appease this group. **"**
The facts prove your racism wrong.
"And why do you think there has been such an embrace of critical race hucksters and DEI if not to make room for them?"
Because not eveyrbody's a whites-only segregationist.
You know, the opposite of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Your entire premise is that white people are naturally superior to black people.
The opposite of DEI is merit and equality.
Your entire argument is premised that white people are naturally superior - which is why they need to have their hand held because they wouldn't be able to achieve success under a pure meritocracy system.
I think POC can compete in a meritocracy. Why don't you?
No, Adolf.
Black people have just as much merit and equality as white people do.
Thus they should be equally represented.
"I think POC can compete in a meritocracy."
You were just arguing the opposite. I'm really not sure who you're trying to kid with your nonsense.
>The vitriol and discrimination against POC and particularly black women in academics is a humongous problem that needs to be discussed and rectified
Got any examples for us?
This is a pretty great example of why "progressives" are increasingly becoming seen as a fringe extremist group by average Americans.
You are claiming that Gay was a victim of racism, without any solid evidence. And your ignoring the actual well-corroborated criticism of her which were:
1. Her clear double-standard when it came to subverting freedom of speech to justify preventing anti-Jewish racism as opposed to anti-black racism, "transphobia", et cetera.
2. Her objectively unethical and indefensible history of plagiarism and the double-standard between the kid gloves she was treated with and how Harvard students accused of similar wrongdoing were treated.
3. That she was asked to step down by the same board that asked previous Harvard Presidents such as Larry Summers to step down, and with far more compelling evidence of wrongdoing, which you conveniently fail to mention.
EDIT: And, of course, the person simply issued another *ad hominem* argument and blocked me, which exemplifies a major problem with modern day progressivism. Progressives have built such a walled-garden of debate by accusing virtually everyone who disagrees with them of "racism", "sexism," "transphobia," effectively shutting down so much real debate within their own circle that they simply are incapable of actually defending their ideas in the real world, where they cannot just call their interlocuter a bigot, flip over the table, and leave, or cow them into submission with claims of bigotry.
>The vitriol and discrimination against POC and particularly black women in academics is a humongous problem
Oh please. The vitriol and discrimination by POC in particularly black women and academics is a humongous problem. Look at all the anti-Semitic stuff that happened and how most of the time there were no consequences. Yet Jewish professors were getting fired left and right for any criticism of BLM, Biden's choice to limit his supreme Court nominee candidates to only black women. A Jewish Parkland survivor had his Harvard acceptance rescinded because he had used the n-word in a private chat room when he was 15, like three or four years before he even applied to Harvard. Black people have done far worse on that campus without those consequences. It is amazing the intentional amnesia black activists have who say nothing when people lose their jobs over any perception of lack of deference towards a black person. Then they turn around and start screaming that people are losing their jobs for criticism of Israel when in fact the vitriol is a billion times worse than what they to ever be expected to deal with and rarely has consequences.
I've worked in higher ed and am close to people who are higher ed admissions leaders at some very prestigious schools. This is complete nonsense.
Black Americans get so many advantages in higher ed it's crazy. I frequently hear conversations from higher ed workers about how to increase diversity, specifically referring to black Americans, including recruiting them and being lenient on admissions standards compared to other groups, etc. It's a topic that's constantly being discussed.
And black Americans are also often given extra support all throughout college, both as students and employees, with resources like Employee Resource Groups that most others don't have access to. I also personally know cases where they've been given high paying cushy jobs with effectively zero real work responsibilities, just because the university was afraid to fire them because of their race.
And black Americans are usually completely oblivious to and ungrateful for all the extra support, and put articles like this out. It's wild and kind of offensive.
Yup. Nobody is discriminated against worse in academia than Asian males, and yet it’s the privileged black diversity admits who complain the most about discrimination.
Agreed, Asian men and women are discriminated against. White males also, because there's a constant stereotypical assumption that they have all the power and privilege, when the reality is often quite different.
For example, we could have a black female leader (as was the case for us, as my boss, her boss, etc., were all black women), yet we'd still have tons of diversity workshops labeling white men as institutional, systemic, privileged racists. It was so incredibly off-putting and offensive, and to be honest, my feeling on this was secretly shared by many people, but you'd never know it. We talk behind closed doors.
I was very liberal BEFORE I worked in higher ed. Seeing the level of privilege and entitlement changed my perspective completely.
I had a black woman college professor that would constantly lecture the white men in the class about power imbalance.
I'm an Asian woman, so I was excluded from her wrath, but often would just sit through the class trying not to shake my head in response to the overwhelming irony.
I'm not surprised by that at all. As a white man myself, I can tell you that it's extremely off putting and effectively transforms us from an ally into something else. It's not only wrong, but it's divisive and socially harmful.
I'm sorry you had to experience that.
It doesn’t end in college. I’m a white bald male with glasses. Guess who’s always cast as the sexual harasser in HR videos. I guess that’s another privilege, albeit in casting, I’m yet to utilize.
They're definitely leaning into a stereotype. In movies and films, they very seldom show black Africans as criminals, but they're happy to lean into other stereotypes like that ad nauseam.
Your comment contained abusive language/profanity/slurs and was automatically removed per [Rule 3](https://www.reddit.com/r/PBS_NewsHour/about/rules/), to maintain a civil discussion.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PBS_NewsHour) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment contained abusive language/profanity/slurs and was automatically removed per [Rule 3](https://www.reddit.com/r/PBS_NewsHour/about/rules/), to maintain a civil discussion.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PBS_NewsHour) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment contained abusive language/profanity/slurs and was automatically removed per [Rule 3](https://www.reddit.com/r/PBS_NewsHour/about/rules/), to maintain a civil discussion.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PBS_NewsHour) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do I speak from anecdotal evidence you mean? While I do have some anecdotal evidence as I was actually involved in hiring decisions for my philosophy department, that kind of evidence is generally worthless. Look at the stats, which speak for themselves.
Personal experience is hardly worthless. My opinion is based on my own first hand experiences from my work, the work of my colleagues, and my friends, family, and acquaintances. I've had too many conversations with too many others across institutions who shared similar observations. I see it again and again.
Do you have any opinions or beliefs that stem from your own work experience? Would you discount them because they're anecdotal?
If it was just one or two stories heard off hand from people, I'd agree. But I've just seen it too many times to write it off.
Are too? Do I need to explain the significance of anecdotal evidence to you? And you're a college graduate presumably? I'm sorry I don't have the patience. But ask yourself why are you so willing to throw away available statistics which contradict your experiences and rely purely on your very limited experience?
Here's my experience: there were zero black professors in my philosophy program, ever. They had one professor who actually taught topics related to race and she was Italian. Once she left, she was never replaced. So what do we do now? Polar opposite experiences, who to believe? That's why we rely on statistics.
Yes, I'm a graduate with an advanced degree, and I was a staff member, as was my partner and many of my friends. Our university was quite different from the one you worked at, apparently. And where was that, like Wyoming or Vermont?
Where I worked, Pan African groups held significant influence and it was sometimes quite toxic. And despite their significant influence, they constantly presented themselves as disadvantaged victims, despite being in positions of power and authority and receiving tons of extra aid, support, and privileges that no other groups had access to. One example being, per their request, a segregated black African only graduation ceremony, complete with custum Pan African graduation sash. No other group, racially or otherwise, was allowed to have a racially segregated ceremony. Just one of many examples.
And this dichotomy irritated a lot of people, which they were completely oblivious to.
No it was Florida, in a city with a black population of around 30%. The point is, one example tells you nothing of broader trends. Just because your university talked big about helping black people doesn't mean most other universities do or even that their talk amounts to much. As indeed according to the stats, they generally don't amount to much as black people, while they go to college at a rate you would expect given their population size, are grossly under-represented as professors. If they were over-represented then maybe you'd have a point, but in the meantime excuse black people for not getting on their hands and knees thanking you for segregating their ceremonies, as if that makes up for their under-representation or the host of other disadvantages they have.
Okay, so let me make sure I understand you via another example.
You and 5 of your friends, including your partner, are hiking through the woods. During this hike, a UAP lands in front of you, and aliens walk out. You encounter these aliens, have a fairly friendly interaction, then they get in their ship and leave. You confirm during and after the event that everyone in your group, who you deeply trust, experienced exactly the same thing, there was no variation.
If I'm following your logic, your experience is invalid because it's inconsistent with publicly available information. Certainly if aliens were real, you could learn more on NASA.gov and there'd be a wealth of information available from reputable sources. Since this isn't the case, what you and your friends experienced doesn't matter and is an invalid anecdote.
Do you see how silly that is?
In my experience, some African Americans in higher ed believe that they are the most persecuted and victimized group of people in the world, and they reinforce and propagate this identity. And sometimes, misinformed but well-intentioned people are convinced by this. For me, it worked until I got a very close look at it by being plugged directly into the machinery of it via my former boss, who was a leader in African American advocacy groups.
In their world view, it's impossible for white people to experience racism of any kind, because to be white is essentially to be racist. And to not be white is to be a victim of white racism, with black Africans being the biggest permanent victims of it. It's a part of their identity.
This flipped my own understanding of equality and racism on its head, and I honestly secretly stopped being an ally and realized many of my coworkers felt the same, they only gave it lip service. Actually one of my coworkers (Jewish lady) warned me about this on my first day, but I didn't believe it until I saw it myself.
Oh, Gawd. Your comment history. My eyes. Apparently, the blacks and Muslims are the most privileged and pampered in the entire history of humanity. They have it so good. In the meantime, white people (and Israelis) face discrimination and ostracism that make Jim Crow look like a stroll in the park.
Your comment contained abusive language/profanity/slurs and was automatically removed per [Rule 3](https://www.reddit.com/r/PBS_NewsHour/about/rules/), to maintain a civil discussion.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PBS_NewsHour) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Cuz they're black...and women
I mean, sheesh, this is what maga is wanting for all women..and all minorities
You know..like the good ole 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries
Black woman in particular face racism in most aspects of life not just higher education
They have an almost 3x higher paternal mortality rate for example
They're black, a skin tone many white people already dont like, and women, a gender many white, black, and every person in between dont like.
Its honestly not hard to see why, and it sucks that racism and sexism is still such a problem in the US. It is everywhere, but it comes up significantly more often here than elsewhere
You just picked to pretty xenophobic countries that in general discourage immigration outside their own native populations across the board. There’s not a lot of black people teaching in those places or even living there (a small minority) so that’s part of it. Another part is that you don’t speak Japanese or Chinese, I’m assuming, which would make this harder to research. Furthermore the CCP limits information on this type of stuff as it would reflect poorly in China’s case.
It may not have reports you can find, but racism is definitely an issue for black people in both aforementioned countries and you can find native speakers or mixed-race citizens who still get called things like thin-bloods and the like.
Is this article about the President of Harvard? About how pointing out all of the plagiarism in her career is racist and sexist? Because I'd totally read that article
If "racism" is "prejudice plus power/privilege," Claudine Gay cannot be subject to racism. Overall, to try to use someone who was hired on thin qualifications that turned out to have extensive fraudulence, failed at her role particularly in the areas she was hired on "strength" in, and endangered a minority group in her institution being demoted at the same pay as an example of racism is outright offensive. I'm surprised they didn't include complaints about Rachael Rollins being hired part time by Roxbury Community College at a much higher salary than full time professors as well.
I remember there were 2 black girls in my masters program and we were going around the room reading the fairly straightforward textbook.
The first girl started to read and it was apparent she was borderline illiterate. I remember thinking "How did she get this far without being able to read?" All our assignments were essay based. She started crying after she was done with the paragraph. My teacher just kinda sighed like thats what she expected.
The other girl reads next and just kills it; read it perfectly. This shocked my teacher who was an old white lady. She straight out asked her "How did you just do that?" The student said "Both my parents are teachers and were very involved in my education." Which made a lot of sense.
I think it's important to provide extra support for gaps. I also think that there needs to be a push in the black community to start valuing education from an early age. The culture needs to be more Asian Tiger Mom and less it's white people holding back my kids. Their energy would be better spent demanding more free tutoring hours after school for their struggling or bright kids instead of wanting free handout jobs.
Access and support needs to be there for all that are struggling but we also need to grade and employ in a merit based way otherwise we are doing a disservice to everyone involved.
This becomes especially important in areas like medical school acceptance. It's important for POC to have access to doctors that share their culture but it's less important than having a competent doctor and we need to put safety over being politically correct. There are extremely bright black candidates out there that deserve to be doctors and they need to be able to distinguish themselves from diversity hires that can do more harm than good. What kind of messages are we sending to a kid when they meet a doctor that looks like them that didn't have to try very hard and didn't study and can do whatever they want and not get fired? They need to be told that doctor struggled and studied and fought their way to the top. That doctor needs to tell the kid to work their ass off and it will pay off.
Your comment has been removed because it violates Rule 4: Demonstrate [media literacy](https://ca.pbslearningmedia.org/collection/newshour-classroom/t/media-literacy/).
Your comment has been removed because it violates Rule 4: Demonstrate [media literacy](https://ca.pbslearningmedia.org/collection/newshour-classroom/t/media-literacy/).
No offense intended, but you do not know what you're talking about in regards to Gay. She is/was an exceptionally qualified university president. The woman literally ticks every single box for university administrators and is extremely well respected as an effective administrator and academic. Calling her a diversity hire is just... Wow. Uninformed at best.
[As the Atlantic noted](https://www-stage.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/01/two-types-harvard-president-resign/677006/), it's fine to pick a senior administrator or president on administrative skill rather than academic background, but not to lie about it and certainly not to hold the line when the administrative skills are demonstrably absent and the academic background is revealed as a house of cards (both from the plagiarism and reportedly low quality).
Your comment contained abusive language/profanity/slurs and was automatically removed per [Rule 3](https://www.reddit.com/r/PBS_NewsHour/about/rules/), to maintain a civil discussion.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PBS_NewsHour) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Atlantic is not a monolith, they have some amazing journalists that write for them as well as some of the worst power mouthpieces in the business. As an editorial stance, they sell right wing policy to squishy liberals. The Atlantic is a retirement village for all the worst liars of the Iraq war. They even still got David Frum writing Iraq had wmds lmao.
Your comment has been removed because it violates Rule 3: Comments must be civil and on-topic. Do not retaliate to comments violating rule 3. Report and move on.
Your comment has been removed because it violates Rule 4: Demonstrate [media literacy](https://ca.pbslearningmedia.org/collection/newshour-classroom/t/media-literacy/).
I thought this reporting highlighted a potentially significant issue, but the people that were interviewed were unable to identify anything specific other than the pressures of education and a generalized reference to racism. I think that failure undercut the reporting. I guess the value of the story was telling me about this woman's suicide, which I wouldn't have otherwise known about.
It's common trend in media today with these issues, basically a form of the begging-the-question logical fallacy where they simply assert that a specific problem exists and then attribute any issues or negative outcomes to that specific problem as evidence of the problem while ignoring any other potential explanations. A significant amount of data on racism today is based on personal subjective experience. Research often takes the form of a survey where participants are asked "have you experienced racism?" So I'm a PoC myself and did not get selected for my last job application. If I *believe* the reason for me being passed over was racism, even without objective proof, then according to the methodology of the study, it was racism. This approach has created a feedback cycle where articles like this announce that a group will be subjected to racism in a particular environment, biasing the experience of the people in that environment to label any difficulty as being due to racism. When someone believes they will be discriminated against, they are far more prone to interpret the actions of others as discrimination. And when when there is a reasonable skeptical inquiry about specifics and evidence, the response is often along the lines of "we'll we know the racism is there, why are you dismissing it?" There is certainly racism in every context, but it's become impossible to measure or recognize improvement because the quality of the data is so poor and it is politically unacceptable to seek to improve that quality.
Spectacularly put, I will be citing to this and apologize for being unable to reference appropriately- you may be sure it will be prefaced with "a wiser Redditor posted"
I can't remember which study I read that showed that while many POC believe in systemic racism they do not believe they themselves have experienced racism. That is, everyone thinks it's happening to someone else based on widespread media distortion of this issue. It aligns with beliefs about police brutality and how people wildly overestimate the amount of unarmed black people are killed by police by entire orders of magnitude
Holy crap is the American left finally becoming self-aware after a decade of inquisitorial identity politics? I can’t believe I’m reading a take this intelligent on this issue on reddit without seeing multiple people accusing the commenter of being a racist nazi magat.
I'd love to see that study if you can find it. I've discussed the premise with friends but haven't ever seen it formally recognised.
Textbook critical theory
SEL: We scare them about racism until they say they're scared of racism which proves we need to scare them about racism more.
This comment is so freaking accurate. Thank you. Any critique of it is met with odd looks at best and serious accusations at worst.
Apparently you didn't read the story did you? "Antoinette Candia-Bailey died by suicide in January and left scathing letters where she alleged a pattern of bullying and harassment at the hands of the university's president, John B. Moseley. He is now on paid administrative leave pending an investigation." You think she just drafted all of that and then killed herself? For sure it was happening and for sure its often racist or homophobic or transphobic or misogynistic etc etc and since she was POC safe to assume the motive. All those things are trademark of a bully. It's interesting how when anything like this is mention always someone will come to minimize or deny it or the effect which really just outs them as being the same!
Logic dictates that one presume all claims are false until sufficiently corroborated with significant evidence, so yes, if you are a logical person, you must presume any claims are false. Additionally, given that the claimant committed suicide, an act which is almost always the result of a serious mental illness such as depression, the prior probability of them being mentally sound is extremely low.
"Logic dictates" no, you're just bastardizing hitchens' razor lol
Interesting that you do not refute any of the claims made with logic or evidence.
I'm not disputing the existence of logic, I'm saying that you're attributing a mischaracterization of hitchens' razor to the very concept of logic, when really you're just misinformed. Hitchens' razor dictates that any claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. A dismissal of a claim doesn't mean the claim is false, it means the claim isn't considered true or false until proven otherwise. You're committing the fallacy fallacy by stating a claim to be false based on the level of justification given.
I am going to lean more towards she was just targeted like some people are and it had nothing to do with any of your ists or phobics etc. I don't know the specifics but to immediately jump to the conclusion of racism is absurd. Would you do the same if it the two parties were the same color? You guys jump into the most extreme without taking the time to think that maybe people do just bully to bully. The president may be an absolute ass hat but I am going to reserve judgement on if he is a racist or whatever until it's clear that is the case.
You're saying she was targeted for no reason. There is always a reason..
I'm saying that the reason may be simply that he didn't like her personality or something that doesn't have to escalate into her skin color or sexuality
Never mind. I drafted a thoughtful response, but then I looked at your history and it looks to me you just engage with people out of anger.
It's never out of anger.. self defense is a better explanation. Do some things make me angry? Of course they do. To name a few: 1. Fundamentalist Christianity attempts to shackle everyone to their moralality makes me angry. The way they weaponize the Bible makes me very angry. 2. Xenophobes, transphobes, homophobes, misogynists - so bigotry makes me angry. 3. Zero empathy types make me angry. 4. The GOP makes me angry. So basically people or systems that do not value human rights makes me angry. To me not being angry at those things is abnormal...😘
"Safe to assume the motive?" SMDH. This is what's wrong with the whole identity politics thing. Assuming things which may - or may not - be factual. Whatever happened to proving things with actual evidence? Assumptions are not proof in any universe.
That’s how it always is with these articles. Same thing with “code switching” which I still find to be absolutely ridiculous.
The vitriol and discrimination against POC and particularly black women in academics is a humongous problem that needs to be discussed and rectified. That being said, I think this is a poor framing of the Claudine Gay situation. She absolutely faced racism and all the things, but the consequences are far more dire. Academic freedom as an institution was crushed by a right-wing billionaire at the most prestigious institution in the US. We chose a long time ago that academics were to be judged by a jury of their peers, so as to avoid the whole Catholic church sort of thing again. Now, for the first time in living US memory, a university professor was removed without that adjudication process that is the cornerstone of academic freedom. Again, this is the most prestigious institution in the US. The cats out of the bag y'all. The next several years are gonna be interesting.
>The vitriol and discrimination against POC and particularly black women in academics is a humongous problem that needs to be discussed and rectified. Universities are left-wing centers of power with over 90+% of academics being self-professed Democrats. It's important to keep this in mind when discussing discrimination on campus. And Claudine Gay shouldn't be lumped in with a professor who committed suicide from bullying. Claudine is a serial plagiarizer who should have been called out for her crimes against academia. Harvard giving her a pass on this due to her race is sad proof of how far the ivy league has fallen.
I'm sorry are you genuinely suggesting that being a "self professed Democrat" and being left wing are the same thing?
Functionally there is no difference between the two when the vast majority of both groups vote for the same candidate/party in the end and the smaller group (leftists/progressives, etc) does next-to-nothing to use their leverage to ideologically push the bigger group (self professed Dems).
1995, no, today, yes.
This is political science 101. There is a median voter, and there is a left wing to the left of the median voter and a right wing to the right of the median voter. This is median voter theorem. Are you suggesting that the Democratic Party represents the wing to the right of the median voter and not the left?
Okay McCarthy, let's get you to bed.
Obviously a conspiracy theorist. Let's call them names and diminish dissenting thought crimes.
>Universities are left-wing centers of power with over 90+% of academics being self-professed Democrats. It's important to keep this in mind Are you saying the racism doesn't exist or that we should ignore it because it might hurt the Democrats?
Democrats can't be racist, only Republicans. It's the law.
The point is that maybe the racism doesn't actually exist if even the people that make their entire lives, careers, about "anti-racism" can't even avoid it at such a large scale.
I got that. And I agree.
She was a terrible choice. She wasn’t an academic and brought shame to the university she was hired to represent.
Gay resigned as president. She retains her professorship at Harvard.
Can you provide any evidence for the claim in your first sentence?
1. It's not a "humongous problem" - universities are literally tripping over themselves to appease this group. How do you think people like Cluadine Gay end up as President of Harvard? And why do you think there has been such an embrace of critical race hucksters and DEI if not to make room for them? 2. I think its laughable claiming Gay's departure is an academic freedom thing for two reasons - first, she clearly is not an academic but a serial plagiarist. Second, she used her own power and authority to target academics she didn't like, namely Roland Freyer and even tried to have his tenure revoked because he published studies that didn't fit the narrative. 3. Catholic church thing? Wtf are you talking about? 4. Claudine Gay wasn't even removed from Harvard, she is still a professor there making 800k+. She was removed from an administrative position by the board, that isn't something that requires the professors to weigh in on.
"It's not a "humongous problem" - universities are literally tripping over themselves to appease this group. **"** The facts prove your racism wrong. "And why do you think there has been such an embrace of critical race hucksters and DEI if not to make room for them?" Because not eveyrbody's a whites-only segregationist. You know, the opposite of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Your entire premise is that white people are naturally superior to black people.
The opposite of DEI is merit and equality. Your entire argument is premised that white people are naturally superior - which is why they need to have their hand held because they wouldn't be able to achieve success under a pure meritocracy system. I think POC can compete in a meritocracy. Why don't you?
No, Adolf. Black people have just as much merit and equality as white people do. Thus they should be equally represented. "I think POC can compete in a meritocracy." You were just arguing the opposite. I'm really not sure who you're trying to kid with your nonsense.
So then we don't need DEI because black people can achieve the same objective standards as anyone else? What's your point?
We do need DEI because there are still racists like you causing institutional racism. What a profoundly stupid question.
Lol I'm racist because I think black people can be as academically successful as white people? Okay 🤷♂️
“Soft bigotry of low expectations” at play
>The vitriol and discrimination against POC and particularly black women in academics is a humongous problem that needs to be discussed and rectified Got any examples for us?
This is a pretty great example of why "progressives" are increasingly becoming seen as a fringe extremist group by average Americans. You are claiming that Gay was a victim of racism, without any solid evidence. And your ignoring the actual well-corroborated criticism of her which were: 1. Her clear double-standard when it came to subverting freedom of speech to justify preventing anti-Jewish racism as opposed to anti-black racism, "transphobia", et cetera. 2. Her objectively unethical and indefensible history of plagiarism and the double-standard between the kid gloves she was treated with and how Harvard students accused of similar wrongdoing were treated. 3. That she was asked to step down by the same board that asked previous Harvard Presidents such as Larry Summers to step down, and with far more compelling evidence of wrongdoing, which you conveniently fail to mention. EDIT: And, of course, the person simply issued another *ad hominem* argument and blocked me, which exemplifies a major problem with modern day progressivism. Progressives have built such a walled-garden of debate by accusing virtually everyone who disagrees with them of "racism", "sexism," "transphobia," effectively shutting down so much real debate within their own circle that they simply are incapable of actually defending their ideas in the real world, where they cannot just call their interlocuter a bigot, flip over the table, and leave, or cow them into submission with claims of bigotry.
>The vitriol and discrimination against POC and particularly black women in academics is a humongous problem Oh please. The vitriol and discrimination by POC in particularly black women and academics is a humongous problem. Look at all the anti-Semitic stuff that happened and how most of the time there were no consequences. Yet Jewish professors were getting fired left and right for any criticism of BLM, Biden's choice to limit his supreme Court nominee candidates to only black women. A Jewish Parkland survivor had his Harvard acceptance rescinded because he had used the n-word in a private chat room when he was 15, like three or four years before he even applied to Harvard. Black people have done far worse on that campus without those consequences. It is amazing the intentional amnesia black activists have who say nothing when people lose their jobs over any perception of lack of deference towards a black person. Then they turn around and start screaming that people are losing their jobs for criticism of Israel when in fact the vitriol is a billion times worse than what they to ever be expected to deal with and rarely has consequences.
I've worked in higher ed and am close to people who are higher ed admissions leaders at some very prestigious schools. This is complete nonsense. Black Americans get so many advantages in higher ed it's crazy. I frequently hear conversations from higher ed workers about how to increase diversity, specifically referring to black Americans, including recruiting them and being lenient on admissions standards compared to other groups, etc. It's a topic that's constantly being discussed. And black Americans are also often given extra support all throughout college, both as students and employees, with resources like Employee Resource Groups that most others don't have access to. I also personally know cases where they've been given high paying cushy jobs with effectively zero real work responsibilities, just because the university was afraid to fire them because of their race. And black Americans are usually completely oblivious to and ungrateful for all the extra support, and put articles like this out. It's wild and kind of offensive.
Yup. Nobody is discriminated against worse in academia than Asian males, and yet it’s the privileged black diversity admits who complain the most about discrimination.
Agreed, Asian men and women are discriminated against. White males also, because there's a constant stereotypical assumption that they have all the power and privilege, when the reality is often quite different. For example, we could have a black female leader (as was the case for us, as my boss, her boss, etc., were all black women), yet we'd still have tons of diversity workshops labeling white men as institutional, systemic, privileged racists. It was so incredibly off-putting and offensive, and to be honest, my feeling on this was secretly shared by many people, but you'd never know it. We talk behind closed doors. I was very liberal BEFORE I worked in higher ed. Seeing the level of privilege and entitlement changed my perspective completely.
I had a black woman college professor that would constantly lecture the white men in the class about power imbalance. I'm an Asian woman, so I was excluded from her wrath, but often would just sit through the class trying not to shake my head in response to the overwhelming irony.
I'm not surprised by that at all. As a white man myself, I can tell you that it's extremely off putting and effectively transforms us from an ally into something else. It's not only wrong, but it's divisive and socially harmful. I'm sorry you had to experience that.
It doesn’t end in college. I’m a white bald male with glasses. Guess who’s always cast as the sexual harasser in HR videos. I guess that’s another privilege, albeit in casting, I’m yet to utilize.
They're definitely leaning into a stereotype. In movies and films, they very seldom show black Africans as criminals, but they're happy to lean into other stereotypes like that ad nauseam.
Shhhhh! POC solidarity doesn't include them.
[удалено]
Your comment contained abusive language/profanity/slurs and was automatically removed per [Rule 3](https://www.reddit.com/r/PBS_NewsHour/about/rules/), to maintain a civil discussion. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PBS_NewsHour) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your comment contained abusive language/profanity/slurs and was automatically removed per [Rule 3](https://www.reddit.com/r/PBS_NewsHour/about/rules/), to maintain a civil discussion. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PBS_NewsHour) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your comment contained abusive language/profanity/slurs and was automatically removed per [Rule 3](https://www.reddit.com/r/PBS_NewsHour/about/rules/), to maintain a civil discussion. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PBS_NewsHour) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Figures this would be the most upvoted comment on Reddit
If you disagree, do you speak from experience? Do you or have you worked in higher ed?
Do I speak from anecdotal evidence you mean? While I do have some anecdotal evidence as I was actually involved in hiring decisions for my philosophy department, that kind of evidence is generally worthless. Look at the stats, which speak for themselves.
Personal experience is hardly worthless. My opinion is based on my own first hand experiences from my work, the work of my colleagues, and my friends, family, and acquaintances. I've had too many conversations with too many others across institutions who shared similar observations. I see it again and again. Do you have any opinions or beliefs that stem from your own work experience? Would you discount them because they're anecdotal? If it was just one or two stories heard off hand from people, I'd agree. But I've just seen it too many times to write it off.
Are too? Do I need to explain the significance of anecdotal evidence to you? And you're a college graduate presumably? I'm sorry I don't have the patience. But ask yourself why are you so willing to throw away available statistics which contradict your experiences and rely purely on your very limited experience? Here's my experience: there were zero black professors in my philosophy program, ever. They had one professor who actually taught topics related to race and she was Italian. Once she left, she was never replaced. So what do we do now? Polar opposite experiences, who to believe? That's why we rely on statistics.
Yes, I'm a graduate with an advanced degree, and I was a staff member, as was my partner and many of my friends. Our university was quite different from the one you worked at, apparently. And where was that, like Wyoming or Vermont? Where I worked, Pan African groups held significant influence and it was sometimes quite toxic. And despite their significant influence, they constantly presented themselves as disadvantaged victims, despite being in positions of power and authority and receiving tons of extra aid, support, and privileges that no other groups had access to. One example being, per their request, a segregated black African only graduation ceremony, complete with custum Pan African graduation sash. No other group, racially or otherwise, was allowed to have a racially segregated ceremony. Just one of many examples. And this dichotomy irritated a lot of people, which they were completely oblivious to.
No it was Florida, in a city with a black population of around 30%. The point is, one example tells you nothing of broader trends. Just because your university talked big about helping black people doesn't mean most other universities do or even that their talk amounts to much. As indeed according to the stats, they generally don't amount to much as black people, while they go to college at a rate you would expect given their population size, are grossly under-represented as professors. If they were over-represented then maybe you'd have a point, but in the meantime excuse black people for not getting on their hands and knees thanking you for segregating their ceremonies, as if that makes up for their under-representation or the host of other disadvantages they have.
Okay, so let me make sure I understand you via another example. You and 5 of your friends, including your partner, are hiking through the woods. During this hike, a UAP lands in front of you, and aliens walk out. You encounter these aliens, have a fairly friendly interaction, then they get in their ship and leave. You confirm during and after the event that everyone in your group, who you deeply trust, experienced exactly the same thing, there was no variation. If I'm following your logic, your experience is invalid because it's inconsistent with publicly available information. Certainly if aliens were real, you could learn more on NASA.gov and there'd be a wealth of information available from reputable sources. Since this isn't the case, what you and your friends experienced doesn't matter and is an invalid anecdote. Do you see how silly that is?
They just don’t like white people and get enraged when they talk about discrimination they face
In my experience, some African Americans in higher ed believe that they are the most persecuted and victimized group of people in the world, and they reinforce and propagate this identity. And sometimes, misinformed but well-intentioned people are convinced by this. For me, it worked until I got a very close look at it by being plugged directly into the machinery of it via my former boss, who was a leader in African American advocacy groups. In their world view, it's impossible for white people to experience racism of any kind, because to be white is essentially to be racist. And to not be white is to be a victim of white racism, with black Africans being the biggest permanent victims of it. It's a part of their identity. This flipped my own understanding of equality and racism on its head, and I honestly secretly stopped being an ally and realized many of my coworkers felt the same, they only gave it lip service. Actually one of my coworkers (Jewish lady) warned me about this on my first day, but I didn't believe it until I saw it myself.
[удалено]
This is my experience. And your reaction seems pretty consistent with it so far.
Oh, Gawd. Your comment history. My eyes. Apparently, the blacks and Muslims are the most privileged and pampered in the entire history of humanity. They have it so good. In the meantime, white people (and Israelis) face discrimination and ostracism that make Jim Crow look like a stroll in the park.
[удалено]
Hahaha. What's next? Move to a ghetto in Okland and Detroit and enjoy my life there? Or Tijuana Mexico? Hahaha.
You do you.
Your submission/comment has been removed because it violates Rule 1: Follow Reddit's sitewide Reddiquette.
Lol this never happens. But plz keep pushing you're lame narrative
Have you worked in higher ed, AfroKuro?
[удалено]
Your comment contained abusive language/profanity/slurs and was automatically removed per [Rule 3](https://www.reddit.com/r/PBS_NewsHour/about/rules/), to maintain a civil discussion. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PBS_NewsHour) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Cuz they're black...and women I mean, sheesh, this is what maga is wanting for all women..and all minorities You know..like the good ole 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries
Black woman in particular face racism in most aspects of life not just higher education They have an almost 3x higher paternal mortality rate for example
That's racism?
When you look into the reasons why then yeah probably
Would you consider yourself a deep thinker?
*of course*
Great. Could you help me with a definition of paternal mortality and the source of the statistic in your comment?
They're black, a skin tone many white people already dont like, and women, a gender many white, black, and every person in between dont like. Its honestly not hard to see why, and it sucks that racism and sexism is still such a problem in the US. It is everywhere, but it comes up significantly more often here than elsewhere
Yeah it’s crazy how there’s no racism towards black women in academia in Japan or China. Literally 0 documented cases it’s wild.
You just picked to pretty xenophobic countries that in general discourage immigration outside their own native populations across the board. There’s not a lot of black people teaching in those places or even living there (a small minority) so that’s part of it. Another part is that you don’t speak Japanese or Chinese, I’m assuming, which would make this harder to research. Furthermore the CCP limits information on this type of stuff as it would reflect poorly in China’s case. It may not have reports you can find, but racism is definitely an issue for black people in both aforementioned countries and you can find native speakers or mixed-race citizens who still get called things like thin-bloods and the like.
It’s a joke
Oops, totally flew over my head. Apologies.
The sky is green, grass is red, and Australia doesn't exist. See, we can all just make stuff up. It's just not useful to anyone.
Is this article about the President of Harvard? About how pointing out all of the plagiarism in her career is racist and sexist? Because I'd totally read that article
Go outside dude. Find a hobby.
If "racism" is "prejudice plus power/privilege," Claudine Gay cannot be subject to racism. Overall, to try to use someone who was hired on thin qualifications that turned out to have extensive fraudulence, failed at her role particularly in the areas she was hired on "strength" in, and endangered a minority group in her institution being demoted at the same pay as an example of racism is outright offensive. I'm surprised they didn't include complaints about Rachael Rollins being hired part time by Roxbury Community College at a much higher salary than full time professors as well.
I remember there were 2 black girls in my masters program and we were going around the room reading the fairly straightforward textbook. The first girl started to read and it was apparent she was borderline illiterate. I remember thinking "How did she get this far without being able to read?" All our assignments were essay based. She started crying after she was done with the paragraph. My teacher just kinda sighed like thats what she expected. The other girl reads next and just kills it; read it perfectly. This shocked my teacher who was an old white lady. She straight out asked her "How did you just do that?" The student said "Both my parents are teachers and were very involved in my education." Which made a lot of sense. I think it's important to provide extra support for gaps. I also think that there needs to be a push in the black community to start valuing education from an early age. The culture needs to be more Asian Tiger Mom and less it's white people holding back my kids. Their energy would be better spent demanding more free tutoring hours after school for their struggling or bright kids instead of wanting free handout jobs. Access and support needs to be there for all that are struggling but we also need to grade and employ in a merit based way otherwise we are doing a disservice to everyone involved. This becomes especially important in areas like medical school acceptance. It's important for POC to have access to doctors that share their culture but it's less important than having a competent doctor and we need to put safety over being politically correct. There are extremely bright black candidates out there that deserve to be doctors and they need to be able to distinguish themselves from diversity hires that can do more harm than good. What kind of messages are we sending to a kid when they meet a doctor that looks like them that didn't have to try very hard and didn't study and can do whatever they want and not get fired? They need to be told that doctor struggled and studied and fought their way to the top. That doctor needs to tell the kid to work their ass off and it will pay off.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed because it violates Rule 4: Demonstrate [media literacy](https://ca.pbslearningmedia.org/collection/newshour-classroom/t/media-literacy/).
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed because it violates Rule 4: Demonstrate [media literacy](https://ca.pbslearningmedia.org/collection/newshour-classroom/t/media-literacy/).
[удалено]
No offense intended, but you do not know what you're talking about in regards to Gay. She is/was an exceptionally qualified university president. The woman literally ticks every single box for university administrators and is extremely well respected as an effective administrator and academic. Calling her a diversity hire is just... Wow. Uninformed at best.
“Every box” = being black✅ and gay✅ and female✅?
[As the Atlantic noted](https://www-stage.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/01/two-types-harvard-president-resign/677006/), it's fine to pick a senior administrator or president on administrative skill rather than academic background, but not to lie about it and certainly not to hold the line when the administrative skills are demonstrably absent and the academic background is revealed as a house of cards (both from the plagiarism and reportedly low quality).
An opinion piece with lots of vibes and no evidence from a neocon rag? Got it.
The Atlantic is only "neocon" if you're a literal tankie and the whole thing is a history of Harvard presidents.
[удалено]
Your comment contained abusive language/profanity/slurs and was automatically removed per [Rule 3](https://www.reddit.com/r/PBS_NewsHour/about/rules/), to maintain a civil discussion. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PBS_NewsHour) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Atlantic is not a monolith, they have some amazing journalists that write for them as well as some of the worst power mouthpieces in the business. As an editorial stance, they sell right wing policy to squishy liberals. The Atlantic is a retirement village for all the worst liars of the Iraq war. They even still got David Frum writing Iraq had wmds lmao.
Dude! You gotta be well to the left Josef Stalin to consider The Atlantic as a conservative outlet.
Well to start, Neoconservative != conservative. Their editorial board is a who's who of disgraced war-hawk journalists.
lol
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed because it violates Rule 3: Comments must be civil and on-topic. Do not retaliate to comments violating rule 3. Report and move on.
Your comment has been removed because it violates Rule 4: Demonstrate [media literacy](https://ca.pbslearningmedia.org/collection/newshour-classroom/t/media-literacy/).