Teen Vogue editor-in-chief appointee cancelled before day one over ten year old tweets

[Metaphor]

This woman did make apparent racist tweets 10 years ago. I think it is reasonable to find out if she has changed her views or not. A sincere explanation or apology is one way to ascertain that.

Oh, so sge's just the victim of cgznging vzlues?
Waa it acceptable to use the N word 10 years ago?
I don't recall that it was...

My grandmother used to insist that when she was little, in the 1920s, thd polite term for some people was 'darkies.' We eventually convinced her that this was no longer the case in 1984...just before she met my fiance.
I don't know anyone old enough to claim the N word was okay when they were young. USED, maybe, dependinb on tged bzckground, but not acceptazble.

Have you read the story? McCammond did not use 'the N word' in Tweets at any time.

 

[ZiprHead]

And, a twist in the tale:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle...ammond-firing-tweeted-racial-slur/ar-BB1eQ71W

A Teen Vogue staff member has come under fire for resurfaced tweets containing racial slurs following Alexi McCammond's departure from her newly appointed role as editor-in-chief.

Christine Davitt, senior social media manager at Teen Vogue, was among the magazine's staff members who expressed concern over McCammond being appointed editor. But in the wake of McCammond stepping away from the role, tweets from 2009 by Davitt—who has said she is of mixed Irish and Filipino descent—in which she used the N-word resurfaced.

...

Heather R. Higgins, businesswoman and political commentator, said: "If correct, Davitt needs by her own standards to resign her job at @TeenVogue, or by their standards they need to fire her. #samerulesforall"

It's one thing for the Woke to eat their own. But it's another to join the mob knowing have more recent sins that can be discovered.

McCammonds tweets were obviously bigoted. Davitt's use of the n-word was between two friends, who was black and didn't object.

 

[Metaphor]

And, a twist in the tale:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle...ammond-firing-tweeted-racial-slur/ar-BB1eQ71W

A Teen Vogue staff member has come under fire for resurfaced tweets containing racial slurs following Alexi McCammond's departure from her newly appointed role as editor-in-chief.

Christine Davitt, senior social media manager at Teen Vogue, was among the magazine's staff members who expressed concern over McCammond being appointed editor. But in the wake of McCammond stepping away from the role, tweets from 2009 by Davitt—who has said she is of mixed Irish and Filipino descent—in which she used the N-word resurfaced.

...

Heather R. Higgins, businesswoman and political commentator, said: "If correct, Davitt needs by her own standards to resign her job at @TeenVogue, or by their standards they need to fire her. #samerulesforall"

It's one thing for the Woke to eat their own. But it's another to join the mob knowing have more recent sins that can be discovered.

McCammonds tweets were obviously bigoted. Davitt's use of the n-word was between two friends, who was black and didn't object.

You are insufficiently acquainted with the Woke mindset. Davitt is not black, and even quoting the word without meaning to cause offense or singing it in songs that contain the word is a cancellable offense, let alone using it directly for someone else.

Indeed, on this very board, I have quoted the term "nigger" when I'm talking about the word, and my use was considered as unacceptable (by some posters) as if I'd used it against a person as an insult.

 

[laughing dog]

This woman did make apparent racist tweets 10 years ago. I think it is reasonable to find out if she has changed her views or not. A sincere explanation or apology is one way to ascertain that.

Oh, so she's just the victim of changing values?
Waa it acceptable to use the N word 10 years ago?
I don't recall that it was...

My grandmother used to insist that when she was little, in the 1920s, thd polite term for some people was 'darkies.' We eventually convinced her that this was no longer the case in 1984...just before she met my fiance.
I don't know anyone old enough to claim the N word was okay when they were young. USED, maybe, depending on the background, but not acceptable.

I didn't say it was acceptable ten years ago or today. People do change. If she truly has changed and is a different person today, should she lose her job because of something she said 10 years ago?

 

[Toni]

This woman did make apparent racist tweets 10 years ago. I think it is reasonable to find out if she has changed her views or not. A sincere explanation or apology is one way to ascertain that.

Oh, so she's just the victim of changing values?
Waa it acceptable to use the N word 10 years ago?
I don't recall that it was...

My grandmother used to insist that when she was little, in the 1920s, thd polite term for some people was 'darkies.' We eventually convinced her that this was no longer the case in 1984...just before she met my fiance.
I don't know anyone old enough to claim the N word was okay when they were young. USED, maybe, depending on the background, but not acceptable.

I grew up hearing the N word occasionally by family members. Even as a young child I found it extremely offensive, probably because I could hear the hatred in the voices of those who used it. Acceptable? Maybe not but I would not have gotten my mouth washed out if I had used it, the way I would have if I had said damn or hell or shit. In fact, by most I knew who used it, it was used almost as a cuss word, something you didn’t use in front of the ladies or children unless truly provoked.

The kids who came into adulthood in the 2000’s most likely only heard the term used in rap and other pop cultural contexts. I’m not excusing them but I doubt they heard the term used the way that you or I did when we were kids, and so perhaps missed understanding, I mean really understanding, the profound hatred and disrespect the term conveyed. It was more academic or cultural and didn’t have the same meaning. More like any number of racist terms kids of my childhood used with each other, ignorant of the actual import: Indian giver. Injun burn. Slant eyes ( no Asians where I lived). Jewing someone down. And other horrible things that kids said thoughtlessly, ignorantly. But without the interned to make immortal.

 

[ZiprHead]

McCammonds tweets were obviously bigoted. Davitt's use of the n-word was between two friends, who was black and didn't object.

You are insufficiently acquainted with the Woke mindset. Davitt is not black, and even quoting the word without meaning to cause offense or singing it in songs that contain the word is a cancellable offense, let alone using it directly for someone else.

Indeed, on this very board, I have quoted the term "nigger" when I'm talking about the word, and my use was considered as unacceptable (by some posters) as if I'd used it against a person as an insult.

I didn't mean to say Davitt was black but the friend she called "my nigger" was.

And you didn't even address the subject of my post, the difference in tone between the two posters.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I didn't say it was acceptable ten years ago or today.

Okay, but this is not like the six books of Seuss that were okay at one time, but 'acceptable' has shifted over the decades.
Using the word was as unacceptable then as it is now. I would expect her to be held accountable for using it, yes.
If only because if we let her off becsuse '10 years ago' it becomes harder to hold that 'my blood sugar spiked' guy accountable for last week.

 

[Metaphor]

McCammonds tweets were obviously bigoted. Davitt's use of the n-word was between two friends, who was black and didn't object.

You are insufficiently acquainted with the Woke mindset. Davitt is not black, and even quoting the word without meaning to cause offense or singing it in songs that contain the word is a cancellable offense, let alone using it directly for someone else.

Indeed, on this very board, I have quoted the term "nigger" when I'm talking about the word, and my use was considered as unacceptable (by some posters) as if I'd used it against a person as an insult.

I didn't mean to say Davitt was black but the friend she called "my nigger" was.

And you didn't even address the subject of my post, the difference in tone between the two posters.

I mean: Davitt is not black, and black people are the only ones with sufficient privilege to use the word 'nigger' without social censure.

Of course I addressed your post. I spoke directly to it. The Woke believe intentions are irrelevant. It does not matter that she was doing it with a friend who was not offended. When David McNeil was fired after quoting the n-word in context for clarification, the NY Times said “We do not tolerate racist language regardless of intent.”

 

[scombrid]

This woman did make apparent racist tweets 10 years ago. I think it is reasonable to find out if she has changed her views or not. A sincere explanation or apology is one way to ascertain that.

What's worse is that she was failing what was probably a chemistry for dummies class for non-science majors and blaming the TA. Makes here a whiny idiot in my book whether she is racist or not.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I didn't say it was acceptable ten years ago or today.

Okay, but this is not like the six books of Seuss that were okay at one time, but 'acceptable' has shifted over the decades.
Using the word was as unacceptable then as it is now. I would expect her to be held accountable for using it, yes.
If only because if we let her off becsuse '10 years ago' it becomes harder to hold that 'my blood sugar spiked' guy accountable for last week.

Are people not allowed to mature? Her statements were whiny and bigoted. (bigoted and whiny?). Such thoughts never occurred to me when in high school (with all white teachers...)... okay, that isn't a great example. But in college, the race or sex of my teacher never came to mind as to how good or bad they were. It sounds entitled. To make matters worse, is truly to blare it on the Internet.

But who is she today or maybe more importantly who is she as a person who has some level of power or authority? Her position as a student had zero authority, so we are talking bigoted talk, not racist. She wasn't, presumably, able to change anything around her because of what she thought or said. Had she done this stuff as an editor, as a person with authority? To me, that matters more, because if she said this crap and later matured, are we seriously going to punish her employment?

 

[Toni]

I didn't say it was acceptable ten years ago or today.

Okay, but this is not like the six books of Seuss that were okay at one time, but 'acceptable' has shifted over the decades.
Using the word was as unacceptable then as it is now. I would expect her to be held accountable for using it, yes.
If only because if we let her off becsuse '10 years ago' it becomes harder to hold that 'my blood sugar spiked' guy accountable for last week.

Are people not allowed to mature? Her statements were whiny and bigoted. (bigoted and whiny?). Such thoughts never occurred to me when in high school (with all white teachers...)... okay, that isn't a great example. But in college, the race or sex of my teacher never came to mind as to how good or bad they were. It sounds entitled. To make matters worse, is truly to blare it on the Internet.

But who is she today or maybe more importantly who is she as a person who has some level of power or authority? Her position as a student had zero authority, so we are talking bigoted talk, not racist. She wasn't, presumably, able to change anything around her because of what she thought or said. Had she done this stuff as an editor, as a person with authority? To me, that matters more, because if she said this crap and later matured, are we seriously going to punish her employment?

I also attended an all white/all American high school. FWIW, there were a couple of young, pretty female teachers who got some comments from some of the boys. Maybe not directly or where they could hear but fellow classmates did.

I attended university at 3 different stages of my life. My observation is that there are some students who absolutely put up a wall as soon as they hear an unfamiliar accent. They have trouble with the material and tend to blame it on the accent, rather than dig in and try to understand the accent--or the material. Those who are mature enough to make the effort usually fair much better.

Intro college classes are full of 18-19 year olds, most of whom are on their own for the first time. Many struggle in their first semester and year as they adjust to college life and the really big step up from high school in terms of learning. Trash talking to fellow students is one way some people deal with their own difficulties. I cannot imagine doing so in the days where your every thought is memorialized for all of eternity via stupid internet posts.

 

[laughing dog]

I didn't say it was acceptable ten years ago or today.

Okay, but this is not like the six books of Seuss that were okay at one time, but 'acceptable' has shifted over the decades.
Using the word was as unacceptable then as it is now. I would expect her to be held accountable for using it, yes.

And what does "holding her accountable" mean? And for how long? If she were unapologetic or insincere, I'd say good riddance to her. If she has changed and is sincerely sorry, how long and how should she be held accountable?

 

[Gospel]

McCammonds tweets were obviously bigoted. Davitt's use of the n-word was between two friends, who was black and didn't object.

You are insufficiently acquainted with the Woke mindset. Davitt is not black, and even quoting the word without meaning to cause offense or singing it in songs that contain the word is a cancellable offense, let alone using it directly for someone else.

Indeed, on this very board, I have quoted the term "nigger" when I'm talking about the word, and my use was considered as unacceptable (by some posters) as if I'd used it against a person as an insult.

OMG YOU SAID THE WORD! NOW IMMA HAVE TO WHOOP YO #@$@!

But seriously, I've made a few posts on this board that can be considered bigotry and warrant people questioning my motives. I don't plan on apologizing for an eternity though.

 

[Trausti]

McCammonds tweets were obviously bigoted. Davitt's use of the n-word was between two friends, who was black and didn't object.

You are insufficiently acquainted with the Woke mindset. Davitt is not black, and even quoting the word without meaning to cause offense or singing it in songs that contain the word is a cancellable offense, let alone using it directly for someone else.

Indeed, on this very board, I have quoted the term "nigger" when I'm talking about the word, and my use was considered as unacceptable (by some posters) as if I'd used it against a person as an insult.

OMG YOU SAID THE WORD! NOW IMMA HAVE TO WHOOP YO #@$@!

But seriously, I've made a few posts on this board that can be considered bigotry and warrant people questioning my motives. I don't plan on apologizing for an eternity though.

Nor should you.

 

[Politesse]

McCammonds tweets were obviously bigoted. Davitt's use of the n-word was between two friends, who was black and didn't object.

You are insufficiently acquainted with the Woke mindset. Davitt is not black, and even quoting the word without meaning to cause offense or singing it in songs that contain the word is a cancellable offense, let alone using it directly for someone else.

Indeed, on this very board, I have quoted the term "nigger" when I'm talking about the word, and my use was considered as unacceptable (by some posters) as if I'd used it against a person as an insult.

OMG YOU SAID THE WORD! NOW IMMA HAVE TO WHOOP YO #@$@!

But seriously, I've made a few posts on this board that can be considered bigotry and warrant people questioning my motives. I don't plan on apologizing for an eternity though.

Even if you were a corporate executive? Life is a bit more complicated for people in positions of power and influence; a wholly private life or a secret past is one of the things you have to sacrifice if you're going to strive for social rank over your peers. If I had something like that in my past, I might not be happy about it but I would entirely expect people to keep bringing it up, and if I was smart, would be able to present some tangible evidence for how I have changed, rather than just weakly apologizing after being caught. If you want some bare apology to be enough, that's your prerogative, but as a practical matter that won't play out well for year career when everything comes to light.

 

[Politesse]

I didn't say it was acceptable ten years ago or today.

Okay, but this is not like the six books of Seuss that were okay at one time, but 'acceptable' has shifted over the decades.
Using the word was as unacceptable then as it is now. I would expect her to be held accountable for using it, yes.

And what does "holding her accountable" mean? And for how long? If she were unapologetic or insincere, I'd say good riddance to her. If she has changed and is sincerely sorry, how long and how should she be held accountable?

If she's sorry, she should consider herself accountable. That's what being sorry means. If you've made an apology once in the past, but then get angry whenever people bring it up, it gives everyone good cause to doubt how sincere you were in the first place.

 

[Toni]

And what does "holding her accountable" mean? And for how long? If she were unapologetic or insincere, I'd say good riddance to her. If she has changed and is sincerely sorry, how long and how should she be held accountable?

If she's sorry, she should consider herself accountable. That's what being sorry means. If you've made an apology once in the past, but then get angry whenever people bring it up, it gives everyone good cause to doubt how sincere you were in the first place.

Is there a point at which you no longer need to revisit and apologize and make amends for past wrong deeds? I'm not thinking in particular of this incident but even prison terms end, except for life terms--and sometimes those are paroled or commuted to time served.

Every single one of us has done at least something of which we are thoroughly ashamed. We can admit our misdeed, apologize, make whatever amends need to be made---but are we condemned forever to apologize for the same mistake? To explain ourselves over and over again? Every time we enter into a new situation, must our past wrongs be re-litigated, reinvestigated, apologized for again? Is the past never the past?

I'm talking much broader than this case.

 

[Politesse]

v I'm not thinking in particular of this incident but even prison terms end, except for life terms--and sometimes those are paroled or commuted to time served.

Their formal punishment ends. Their social punishment continues forever. Have you ever talked to an ex-con about how easy it is for them to find work, housing, or family visitation rights? This may be a moral evil, but almost no one is particularly motivated to change it.

Every single one of us has done at least something of which we are thoroughly ashamed. We can admit our misdeed, apologize, make whatever amends need to be made---but are we condemned forever to apologize for the same mistake? To explain ourselves over and over again? Every time we enter into a new situation, must our past wrongs be re-litigated, reinvestigated, apologized for again? Is the past never the past?

Well, no, I don't think it is. Ultimately, people need to have the ability to question those who hold power over their lives, and interrogation of the past is one of the ways that happens. Do you think it's unfair when a prospective employer asks to see your resume? Maybe it is, but you're not going to get the job if you refuse - or if you don't have an answer ready for the questions you know they're going to ask when they see it. Maybe there's an entirely logical reason why you lost that position or were out of work for five years, and maybe it is kind of shitty for them to ask about it, but that isn't going to change. Ultimately, no one can erase their past, however much they might want to, and there's a sound reason why people in leadership positions have to learn to expect more scrutiny than others.

Can someone wronged by their former employer in the past get their job back, since the "past is the past" and the person who fired them has "moved on" from the offense? Generally, no. If you want to wield power over your neighbor, they have every right to question your motives in doing so. Can a person who lost their home due to redlining policies in 1976 and became homeless, just move right back in to that house today, because the "past is the past" and the homeowner's association "no longer holds those views"?

 

[Toni]

Every single one of us has done at least something of which we are thoroughly ashamed. We can admit our misdeed, apologize, make whatever amends need to be made---but are we condemned forever to apologize for the same mistake? To explain ourselves over and over again? Every time we enter into a new situation, must our past wrongs be re-litigated, reinvestigated, apologized for again? Is the past never the past?

Well, no, I don't think it is. Ultimately, people need to have the ability to question those who hold power over their lives, and interrogation of the past is one of the ways that happens. Do you think it's unfair when a prospective employer asks to see your resume? Maybe it is, but you're not going to get the job if you refuse - or if you don't have an answer ready for the questions you know they're going to ask when they see it. Maybe there's an entirely logical reason why you lost that position or were out of work for five years, and maybe it is kind of shitty for them to ask about it, but that isn't going to change. Ultimately, no one can erase their past, however much they might want to, and there's a sound reason why people in leadership positions have to learn to expect more scrutiny than others.

Can someone wronged by their former employer in the past get their job back, since the "past is the past" and the person who fired them has "moved on" from the offense? Generally, no. If you want to wield power over your neighbor, they have every right to question your motives in doing so.

Obviously, a prospective employer can ask for and should expect a resume, references, etc.

I was really thinking beyond this particular case. In this particular case, I can see why editors of a magazine aimed at teenagers and young women would be upset over texts, posts, etc. which were racist or otherwise offensive for any new hire, especially if those remarks were made when the prospective hire were the age of the readership. After all, these things are NOW forever. But I wonder if anyone thought about just how forever those things were when they were made? It's something I cautioned my kids about a little--and I'm sure they listened as well as any kid listens to their parent. Frankly I'm quite grateful that my own stupidity was not recorded for prosperity. I don't *think* I wrote or said anything racist or otherwise offensive targeted against anyone but what if I did and don't remember it? What about some expressions I used, as did my peers, before I realized that they were actually racist? What about the time when I was about 8 or 9 and was goaded into calling my sibling the N word (don't ask. I didn't understand any of it at the time, least of all why I did it because I knew it was wrong and immediately and ever since have felt nothing but deep shame and disgust). Is that enough to bar me from ever....working with children? Holding public office? Serving as an editor of a publication? What if I shoplifted when I was 10? What if it were a minority owned store?

What if I were an alcoholic who was terribly unreliable 20 years ago, when I was drinking? What if I had a DUI? What if after that DUI, I stopped drinking? At what point should that DUI fall off of my driving record? My criminal record? Should I have to face questions over whether I still drank and how much and was I sure I wasn't abusing alcohol any longer and how could I be sure, etc. etc. etc. forever?

I'm not suggesting anyone get to 'erase' their past. I'm just asking if there is a point at which past sins can be left in the past.

 

[Politesse]

An example from my own life: as a white guy who teaches a course on Native cultures, I am sometimes asked by a student about my own family's history. The true and honest answer to that question isn't very pretty. And from a certain perspective, they have no right to ask. I'm not my great great grandfather, and can't be held directly responsible for his actions. If I wanted to, I could get really mad and refuse to say anything, and maybe I would be justified in my own mind in doing so. It wasn't me who raised a gun in bad times and made some awful decisions. If you'd asked me that question when I was nineteen and naïve, I'm sure that's exactly how I would have reacted.

And yet, what would be accomplished by obfuscating things, lying, or worse, getting angry and belligerent? Their anxiety wouldn't be put at ease, quite the opposite. No learning would be done, no understanding reached. Petty anger over a question that anyone with a brain and a history book knows the reason for achieves nothing and only prolongs existing relationships of mistrust.

Instead, when this happens, we sit down and have an honest conversation: about what happened, how I feel about it, and most importantly what I'm doing to right those wrongs. And it's enough. At least, it always has been up until now. We move on, and usually on a much more even footing than we were on before the question was asked. This sort of thing irritates people like Trausti, because I'm de facto voluntarily accepting responsibility for something when I don't have to. But fundamentally, if you were a student of minority background, who can no more escape their families' past and legacy any more than I can escape mine, who would you rather have for a professor? Trausti, or myself? Being questioned over the past may not always be, strictly speaking, fair. But it's part of social life, and objecting, let alone going into dramatics and slinging accusations of your own around, only drags things out and makes the consequences worse than if you'd just been honest and ready for dialogue in the first place.

If I'd actually personally done criminally negligent things in my past, it wouldn't even be a question. Of course I would have to answer for those things. If your DUI episode took the life of another person on the road, your prison sentence however long will not bring that person back from the dead. You've changed many other people's lives forever, and nothing can undo that damage. Their family has a right to ask you for an apology whenever they feel ready to do so. And if you truly feel remorse, rather than just embarassment at being caught, you shouldn't be getting angry at them for doing so. And my experience has been that people are willing to move on from the past once it has been well and truly acknowledged, and especially once you've made it clear what you have done or are doing to make amends. Not only will the apology help them heal, it will also help you heal.

All of this, in a more mature generation, used to be what "apologizing" meant. At least, that's what my mother taught me when I was a kid. She would never let us just petulantly say "sorry" and demand the the other person immediately move on; the matter wasn't resolved until you agreed with the injured party about how to make things better in the future. And I'm grateful for that. It took a while for the lesson to sink in, but it has served me well so far in life.