Is this racism?

[Trausti]

A St. Louis Circuit Court jury has awarded a former Harris-Stowe State University instructor $4.85 million after finding that the historically black university discriminated against the instructor because she is white.

The lawsuit goes on to say that the entire department was purged of white faculty except one white instructor who was protected by tenure.

Conversely, the only black faculty member fired from the College of Education during the same time was not terminated because of the reduction-in-force policy, but rather because he was found to be a sex offender, the lawsuit says.

Wilkins’ lawyer, Michael Meyers, said Harris-Stowe systematically discriminated against white employees and then tried to cover it up by deleting emails.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/jury-says-harris-stowe-discriminated-awards-dismissed-white-instructor-nearly/article_a72e6120-e535-597b-b5e8-dedaa64386bf.html

It would seem all the ingredients are there; but I am aware that racism has become something in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, some instances can only be termed racism based on the point of view of the observer and some are really straightforward examples of racism. This seems to be one of the latter.

 

[Metaphor]

The lawsuit goes on to say that the entire department was purged of white faculty except one white instructor who was protected by tenure.

Conversely, the only black faculty member fired from the College of Education during the same time was not terminated because of the reduction-in-force policy, but rather because he was found to be a sex offender, the lawsuit says.

Wilkins’ lawyer, Michael Meyers, said Harris-Stowe systematically discriminated against white employees and then tried to cover it up by deleting emails.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/jury-says-harris-stowe-discriminated-awards-dismissed-white-instructor-nearly/article_a72e6120-e535-597b-b5e8-dedaa64386bf.html

It would seem all the ingredients are there; but I am aware that racism has become something in the eye of the beholder.

Trigger warning: satire of social justice warrior redefinition of racism follows.

Racism isn't in the eye of the beholder; only White people in the United States can be racist.

Latisha Smith might have institutional power over the White people she fired, Latisha Smith might have expressed her racial prejudice so blatantly and openly that even fellow Black faculty were offended, Latisha Smith might have been supported by the institution that promoted her to such a position of authority, but Latisha Smith couldn't possibly be racist.

 

[repoman]

Do you need a sarcasm/... /sarcasm wrap for that, Metaphor?

 

[Metaphor]

Do you need a sarcasm/... /sarcasm wrap for that, Metaphor?

My initial thought was that no, I didn't -- it's such a blindingly obvious satire of the sociological redefinition of racism that it surely didn't need it.

But, since there are people who apparently have enough brain cells to rub together to use the Internet that also think The Onion is real....I'll add a trigger warning.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The lawsuit goes on to say that the entire department was purged of white faculty except one white instructor who was protected by tenure.

Conversely, the only black faculty member fired from the College of Education during the same time was not terminated because of the reduction-in-force policy, but rather because he was found to be a sex offender, the lawsuit says.

Wilkins’ lawyer, Michael Meyers, said Harris-Stowe systematically discriminated against white employees and then tried to cover it up by deleting emails.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/jury-says-harris-stowe-discriminated-awards-dismissed-white-instructor-nearly/article_a72e6120-e535-597b-b5e8-dedaa64386bf.html

It would seem all the ingredients are there; but I am aware that racism has become something in the eye of the beholder.

The firing is racist. The ruling, not so much.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Is this racism?

Let's suppose it is. Then, you win a trophy. You can put a title on the bottom of "FRDB Racism Definition Winner of 2015."

Let's suppose it isn't because it doesn't match various elements of a sociological definition. Then, what are the elements that match and what are the elements that don't match?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Context is everything.

It IS racism in the context of the university system and its existing power structure, it is the systematic disenfranchisement of a specific race, favoring the superiority of a competing race. This does not hold true in the broader context of the society of which the university is a part, however.

The sociological definition of racism is also only really relevant in a sociological discussion. Since most of us are not sociologists, that definition probably isn't very meaningful here.

 

[Derec]

Let's suppose it isn't because it doesn't match various elements of a sociological definition. Then, what are the elements that match and what are the elements that don't match?

There is only one thing that doesn't match the so-called "sociological definition" - the victim is white.

- - - Updated - - -

The sociological definition of racism is also only really relevant in a sociological discussion. Since most of us are not sociologists, that definition probably isn't very meaningful here.

The so-called "sociological definition" is not even universally accepted among sociologists but is rather being pushed by those with an ideological ax to grind.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Context is everything.

It IS racism in the context of the university system and its existing power structure, it is the systematic disenfranchisement of a specific race, favoring the superiority of a competing race. This does not hold true in the broader context of the society of which the university is a part, however.

The sociological definition of racism is also only really relevant in a sociological discussion. Since most of us are not sociologists, that definition probably isn't very meaningful here.

How does it not hold true in the broader context of society? They're firing people because of their race. That's racism in every context.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There is only one thing that doesn't match the so-called "sociological definition" - the victim is white.

Please provide evidence that it matches to the several elements.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Context is everything.

It IS racism in the context of the university system and its existing power structure, it is the systematic disenfranchisement of a specific race, favoring the superiority of a competing race. This does not hold true in the broader context of the society of which the university is a part, however.

The sociological definition of racism is also only really relevant in a sociological discussion. Since most of us are not sociologists, that definition probably isn't very meaningful here.

How does it not hold true in the broader context of society? They're firing people because of their race. That's racism in every context.

I don't know if this is what he meant, but the courts ruled in their favor. If the courts were reverse racialist, then you wouldn't expect that. On the other hand, a single entity discriminating may not be enough to make a judgment call re: institutionalized racism. Again, I don't really know. I asked and Eddie was the only one who tried to make a realistic, non-hyperbolic distinction.

 

[Mumbles]

In my view, yes it is.

But what's far more important is that, if true, it's simply wrong and damaging to both the professors affected, and to the department as a whole.