Outrage as faculty caught conspiring to reward less qualified minorities

[laughing dog]

You are completely ignoring her asking "Should I take 2? All three?" She asks if she should take them because of their ethnicity, even though she would not take them on merit. That is core ideology on which AA is built.

I am not ignoring anything. The fact is she took none of them. She is explaining why she took none of them.

To recap, none of the latinos were chosen because they were unqualified. They were not overlooked because they were latino. That is a perfect example of AA in action. Which anyone whose head is not up his or her ass would recognize.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Read it again, dude. Those students were ALREADY IN THE CLASS. It wasn't up to her whether to "take" them or not, they registered for it and were about to take it. She wasn't asking whether she should take another two, she was complaining that if she had a choice -- which she didn't -- she wouldn't have let them in the class in the first place.

That discussion relates to the mock trial TEAM that this class is apparently supposed to prepare them for. In essence, this is a "look at the shit I have to deal with!" conversation.

Sorry, you are not entitled to create your own special reality. They are talking about filling a set number of spots with unregistered students

No, they're not. We know this because the students who RECEIVED the email by accident were all of the students actually registered for the class. You also seem to be confused in the difference between the mock trial class and the mock trial TEAM. Abigail is decrying the lack of Latinos on the mock trial TEAM (evidently this is what runburgundy is alluding to in pointing out the 388 advanced class she's teaching) while pointing out that because the Latinos in the CLASS have no mock trial experience, this probably isn't going to change.

She isn't ASKING if she should add more Latinos. She's pointing out that none of the Latinos in the class -- except for one or two, apparently -- are worth adding. And of course, none of them were added. It's a silly thing to be fired for, to be sure.

 

[dismal]

Sorry, you are not entitled to create your own special reality. They are talking about filling a set number of spots with unregistered students

No, they're not. We know this because the students who RECEIVED the email by accident were all of the students actually registered for the class. You also seem to be confused in the difference between the mock trial class and the mock trial TEAM. Abigail is decrying the lack of Latinos on the mock trial TEAM while pointing out that because the Latinos in the CLASS have no mock trial experience, this probably isn't going to change.

She isn't ASKING if she should add more Latinos. She's pointing out that none of the Latinos in the class -- except for one or two, apparently -- are worth adding.

Having trouble reconciling your version of reality with actual email from professor's daugter:

I need your opinion on something. I've started sorting the unregistered students. Looks like we should take 10-11. I have my top 6 or so and my bottom 4, with 7 lumped in the middle-ish. The question I have is about diversity. There were 3 (obviously) latino students who came; 1 was mediocre, 2 were pretty bad (1 of the 2 bad ones didn't seem to take it especially seriously). But we have almost no latino students on the team. If I were to rank purely on performance, I would probably only take 1 of them. Should I take 2? All three? None have mock trial experience. The mediocre one is extremely involved in community activism/organizing (she’s the one I would probably take no matter what, what she lacks in skill she makes up in confidence, although she may be too busy for this commitment.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

No, they're not. We know this because the students who RECEIVED the email by accident were all of the students actually registered for the class. You also seem to be confused in the difference between the mock trial class and the mock trial TEAM. Abigail is decrying the lack of Latinos on the mock trial TEAM while pointing out that because the Latinos in the CLASS have no mock trial experience, this probably isn't going to change.

She isn't ASKING if she should add more Latinos. She's pointing out that none of the Latinos in the class -- except for one or two, apparently -- are worth adding.

Having trouble reconciling your version of reality with actual email from professor's daugter:

I need your opinion on something. I've started sorting the unregistered students. Looks like we should take 10-11. I have my top 6 or so and my bottom 4, with 7 lumped in the middle-ish.[1] The question I have is about diversity. There were 3 (obviously) latino students who came; 1 was mediocre, 2 were pretty bad (1 of the 2 bad ones didn't seem to take it especially seriously). But we have almost no latino students on the team.[2] If I were to rank purely on performance, I would probably only take 1 of them. Should I take 2? All three? None have mock trial experience.[3] The mediocre one is extremely involved in community activism/organizing (she’s the one I would probably take no matter what,[4] what she lacks in skill she makes up in confidence, although she may be too busy for this commitment.

Exactly. Parse what's actually saying here:


[1] 17 came to register. I'm going to take 10 or 11 of them. 6 from the top, and 4 or 5 from the mediocre group*
[2] There are no latinos on the team and only 3 came to register for the class
[3] Two of them are unqualified and I don't want to take them.
[4] One is mediocre and I DO want to take her.

* It's not actually clear if she's going to take 7 from the "middle-ish" group or not, she might actually intend to take one or two kids from the bottom 4. I have known teachers who do this from time to time for various reasons; if so, that would change the dynamics of this entire conversation.

 

[dismal]

Having trouble reconciling your version of reality with actual email from professor's daugter:

I need your opinion on something. I've started sorting the unregistered students. Looks like we should take 10-11. I have my top 6 or so and my bottom 4, with 7 lumped in the middle-ish.[1] The question I have is about diversity. There were 3 (obviously) latino students who came; 1 was mediocre, 2 were pretty bad (1 of the 2 bad ones didn't seem to take it especially seriously). But we have almost no latino students on the team.[2] If I were to rank purely on performance, I would probably only take 1 of them. Should I take 2? All three? None have mock trial experience.[3] The mediocre one is extremely involved in community activism/organizing (she’s the one I would probably take no matter what,[4] what she lacks in skill she makes up in confidence, although she may be too busy for this commitment.

Exactly.

Huh? This seems to completely contradict what you claimed. They are clearly talking about whether to accept unregistered students.

[1] 17 came to register. I'm going to take 10 or 11 of them. 6 from the top, and 4 or 5 from the mediocre group*

OK. Except some appear to have already been accepted and registered, perhaps they took the class/were on the team previously.

[2] There are no latinos on the team and only 3 came to register for the class

No, there were "almost no" latinos on the team, presumably in the group that was already registered.

[3] Two of them are unqualified and I don't want to take them.

No, 2 are in the bad group and she's asking if she should take them anyway because they are latino. I'll accept the bad group is unqualified, but that's your word, not hers.

[4] One is mediocre and I DO want to take her.

Right.

But, even in your version, why were they both fired?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But, even in your version, why were they both fired?

They were fired because people were offended. People were offended because they used the word "bad" and the word "latino" in the same block of text. It really is that simple. There's no deeper analysis here.

 

[dismal]

But, even in your version, why were they both fired?

They were fired because people were offended. People were offended because they used the word "bad" and the word "latino" in the same block of text. It really is that simple. There's no deeper analysis here.

The father didn't even do that.

 

[Horatio Parker]

But, even in your version, why were they both fired?

They were fired because people were offended. People were offended because they used the word "bad" and the word "latino" in the same block of text. It really is that simple. There's no deeper analysis here.

I think it's more because the confidential assessments were made public.

If it'd been worded differently, they might've weathered it. But phrasing it as Our Latinos Suck did the trick.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I thought he quit because he gave his daughter a volunteer position that she was so unqualified for she asked questions that showed she was willing to engage in reverse discrimination and when the email went out accidentally with a different email, it not only exposed him for his clear nepotism, it also offended people on both sides of the political aisle in such a way that there was no going back. If it didn't offend people on both sides of the aisle, then one must wonder why there is such a hubbub from both sides of the aisle in social media and by the creation of this thread. In the professor's defense, though, I probably would have given my kid an opportunity at a volunteer job where she could schmooze and put it on her resume, I probably would have been open to answering questions even if inappropriate, and I probably also would have quit as coach of the mock trial team after such a firestorm was created by my daughter, those she offended, and my accidentally forwarding such communication. It's an easy situation for a privileged white male such as myself to empathize with and I do.

 

[fromderinside]

So you quit?

 

[dismal]

I thought he quit because he gave his daughter a volunteer position that she was so unqualified for she asked questions that showed she was willing to engage in reverse discrimination and when the email went out accidentally with a different email, it not only exposed him for his clear nepotism, it also offended people on both sides of the political aisle in such a way that there was no going back. If it didn't offend people on both sides of the aisle, then one must wonder why there is such a hubbub from both sides of the aisle in social media and by the creation of this thread. In the professor's defense, though, I probably would have given my kid an opportunity at a volunteer job where she could schmooze and put it on her resume, I probably would have been open to answering questions even if inappropriate, and I probably also would have quit as coach of the mock trial team after such a firestorm was created by my daughter, those she offended, and my accidentally forwarding such communication. It's an easy situation for a privileged white male such as myself to empathize with and I do.

From what I have read, the school asked them to resign (aka fired them) because it was a racist email.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

But, even in your version, why were they both fired?

Because they, who work on a campus that has been racked by controversy due to white supremacist antics and reactionary counter-antics, were stupid enough to forward that email -- with a discussion like that -- to ALL OF THEIR STUDENTS.

Because this is America. We do not fire people for incompetence. We fire people for insubordination or for embarrassing the boss, and that's pretty much it. These two could have been the worst teachers in the world, but they'd still have jobs if the email didn't get sent out. they also could have been (and arguably WERE) the best teachers in the world for their subject, but they would be fired in a heartbeat if they did something to embarrass the University.

The Hierarchy must be preserved.

 

[dismal]

But, even in your version, why were they both fired?

Because they, who work on a campus that has been racked by controversy due to white supremacist antics and reactionary counter-antics, were stupid enough to forward that email -- with a discussion like that -- to ALL OF THEIR STUDENTS.

Because this is America. We do not fire people for incompetence. We fire people for insubordination or for embarrassing the boss, and that's pretty much it. These two could have been the worst teachers in the world, but they'd still have jobs if the email didn't get sent out. they also could have been (and arguably WERE) the best teachers in the world for their subject, but they would be fired in a heartbeat if they did something to embarrass the University.

The Hierarchy must be preserved.

What was so bad about the email then?