- EphBlog - http://ephblog.com -

Occupy Hollander

On April 17th, a white faculty person enacted extreme hostility and aggression towards an Asian American professor in the middle of Hollander Hall. This latest instance of violent racism is unique only in that there were students there to witness it. Faculty of color [FoC] deal with racist shit every day, and we will probably never know the full extent of what they have to put up with. So, we are calling on the entire community to show up and express overwhelming love, gratitude, and support for all of our FoC mentors. We are also calling for accountability from President Mandel, administrators, and faculty to redress the violences against people of color, including FoC, at Williams College.

WHAT WE ARE DOING:
Rain or shine, we are going to stand outside Hollander and protest the continued lack of institutional support for Williams FoC. We will be holding signs and handing out flyers. And with just as much energy, we’re going to let our FoC mentors know how much we love and appreciate them.

HOW YOU CAN HELP:
Occupy Hollander with us. Hold posters with us. Hand out flyers with us. Chant with us. See us. Spread the word.

1) Can readers provide more links and details? I am piercing this together from various anonymous e-mails, but I may be getting important details wrong. For starters, is this organized by CARE Now?

2) Is this a protest or an occupation? Williams is happy to have students protest all day long. Williams would get very nervous/upset if students were to actually “occupy” Hollander and/or prevent, say, faculty from getting to their offices.

3) The Record article about the incident is excellent. Kudos to reporters Samuel Wolf and Jeongyoon Han!

The incident began slightly before 4 p.m., when [Professor Dorothy] Wang and Kasulis were walking through Hollander Hall and saw [Professor Katie] Kent [’88]. Kent was on her way to the department’s first meeting of the semester, and Wang asked Kent whether that meeting would include discussion of Love. According to Wang, Kasulis and Zheng, Kent reacted immediately and negatively, saying that sufficient conversations around Love had already been held.

“Professor Kent got immediately irritated,” Kasulis said. “She took a defensive posture. She raised her voice.” When Wang mentioned the particular relevance of Love’s departure for the English department, given Love’s critiques of feeling unsafe and unwelcome, Wang said that Kent responded, saying, “‘She was talking about the College, Dorothy. She wasn’t talking about the department; she was talking about the College.’”

For Wang, that statement was emblematic of what she sees as the English department’s continual inability to reconcile with its historical and present-day manifestations of racism.

Kent briefly left after making that statement, and Wang said to Kasulis, “This is why I disaffiliated from English.” Upon hearing Wang’s comment, according to Wang, Kasulis and Zheng, Kent immediately turned around and made an incensed statement closely resembling, “Are you talking shit about me to your students?”

Katie Kent ’88 didn’t put up with bullcrap 35 years ago and she isn’t about to start now! Does this incident deserve a controversy name? If so, “Talking Shit” seems like the obvious winner!

The first meeting of the English Department in 2019 is occurring in May?

The students involved, Jamie Kasulis and Emily Zheng, wrote this op-ed.

I could spend three weeks parsing these (amazing!) articles. Should I?

Record articles 1 and 2 below the break:

Professor Kent berates Professor Wang, sparking broader concerns over racism in English department

By Samuel Wolf, Executive Editor and Jeongyoon Han, Executive Editor

Students who witnessed the altercation described it as “alarming,” called for Kent’s resignation as English department chair
The incident in Hollander Hall highlighted concerns of structural racism in the department. PHOTO COURTESY OF WILLIAMS COLLEGE FLICKR.

On April 17, two students saw Chair and Professor of English Katie Kent behave aggressively toward Professor of American Studies Dorothy Wang, a woman of color, in an approximately 15-minute verbal confrontation in Hollander Hall.

Wang, a former faculty affiliate in English, had approached Kent on her way to a departmental meeting to ask Kent if the meeting would discuss the recent leave of Assistant Professor of English Kimberly Love. Love had cited the College’s “violent practices” as a reason for her departure at the beginning of the spring semester. Wang had previously expressed concerns about the cancellation of recent English department meetings. For her, they were reflective of the department’s unwillingness to discuss what she sees as its longstanding history of hostility toward faculty of color (FoC) – a concern that had compelled Wang to disaffiliate from the department several weeks ago.

The two students who witnessed the event – Jamie Kasulis ’20 and Emily L. Zheng ’20 – have met with Dean of the Faculty Denise Buell and President of the College Maud Mandel about Kent’s behavior. The two have called for Kent’s resignation, citing her role in what they perceive to be issues of structural racism in the department. Kent wrote notes of apology to Wang, Kasulis and Zheng, but all three found the apologies insufficient and disingenuous.

Students have organized a protest, “Love and Accountability: Occupy Hollander for FoC,” for Friday from 12:30–1:30 p.m., calling for recognition of what the organizers call “violent racism” in the College’s treatment of FoC. Students have also invited the community to express gratitude and support for FoC, and have called for Mandel and administrators to address issues of racism at the College against people of color (PoC).

The incident

The incident began slightly before 4 p.m., when Wang and Kasulis were walking through Hollander Hall and saw Kent. Kent was on her way to the department’s first meeting of the semester, and Wang asked Kent whether that meeting would include discussion of Love. According to Wang, Kasulis and Zheng, Kent reacted immediately and negatively, saying that sufficient conversations around Love had already been held.

“Professor Kent got immediately irritated,” Kasulis said. “She took a defensive posture. She raised her voice.” When Wang mentioned the particular relevance of Love’s departure for the English department, given Love’s critiques of feeling unsafe and unwelcome, Wang said that Kent responded, saying, “‘She was talking about the College, Dorothy. She wasn’t talking about the department; she was talking about the College.’”

For Wang, that statement was emblematic of what she sees as the English department’s continual inability to reconcile with its historical and present-day manifestations of racism.

Kent briefly left after making that statement, and Wang said to Kasulis, “This is why I disaffiliated from English.” Upon hearing Wang’s comment, according to Wang, Kasulis and Zheng, Kent immediately turned around and made an incensed statement closely resembling, “Are you talking shit about me to your students?”

“She was literally yelling in the hallway,” Kasulis said. At that point, Zheng, who had been listening from a chair across the hallway, walked up to Wang and Kasulis.

“I came over as soon as I heard her run back into the hallway and yell profanities,” Zheng said. “I didn’t really want to intrude … but I did so only after she started raising her voice, because that was alarming. I stood up because I couldn’t just sit there while she verbally attacked my friend and my professor.”

Zheng said Kent’s tone and physical posture made her fear for the safety of Wang and Kasulis.

Once the two students had directly joined the conversation, Kent rapidly changed her tone, according to Zheng. “There was this visible moment where she realized that we were two students who were witnessing all this, where she snapped, and was like, ‘Hi, nice to meet you,’” Zheng said.

According to Zheng and Kasulis, Kent shook the students’ hands, apologized that they had witnessed the altercation and attempted to invite them to office hours. Wang said that she responded, “Katie, I really don’t appreciate your trying to drive a wedge between me and my students.” The students shook Kent’s hand but refused her other invitations for discussion, with Kasulis forthrightly declining those offers, according to the students. After several more minutes of heated discussion, during which Kasulis repeatedly told Kent that Kent was making her uncomfortable, Kent left to attend the faculty meeting, Kasulis said.

“The students were calm, they were strong, and [Kent] was the one who lost control,” Wang said. “They were so strong, it was actually almost emotional for me because I’m very outspoken, especially on issues of race and racism, and I’ve never had faculty support me publicly. I’ve never had faculty stand up.”

After the incident, Wang alerted Buell, leading her, both students and Kent to submit statements and recount their experiences to Buell in person. According to Kasulis, these meetings resulted in the corroboration of their stories. “When I went in to talk to Dean Buell, she said that Kent had already come in, and that our stories lined up,” Kasulis said. Buell declined to comment beyond confirming the meetings’ existence. “I am aware of this incident, have met with the involved parties, and have consulted with President Mandel, and will not comment on an ongoing matter,” Buell said.

Kasulis and Zheng also met with Mandel at 4:30 p.m. yesterday. Kasulis found the meeting unsatisfying but did not comment further.

In an email statement to the Record, Kent wrote: “During an encounter with Professor Wang and two of her students in Hollander Hall on Wednesday, April 17, I raised my voice and spoke to her using inappropriate language. I should not have yelled or sworn – I shouldn’t have accused her of ‘talking shit about me’ to her students. Professor Wang’s questions about what I take to be confidential Departmental and College matters caught me off-guard and made me both upset and defensive. Nonetheless, I regret speaking to her in that way. I also regret putting her students in that uncomfortable position. It wasn’t my best moment. I lost my cool, and I apologize. All of us have moments where we wish we had done better – this is one of mine.”

While Kent sent letters of apology to Kasulis and Zheng, both students said that the apology was “not adequate at all.”

“My and Emily’s immediate reaction to it is that we’re disappointed and angry, but unfortunately not surprised,” Kasulis said.

“This is something that none of us are going to forget”

Kasulis, Wang and Zheng described the incident as emotionally harmful. “This is something that none of us are going to forget happened, and for a week afterward I would wake up in the middle of the night and think of it,” said Kasulis, who reported that she was physically shaking throughout the incident.

According to the students, the incident confirmed what they felt were longstanding issues within the English department and a departmental culture of intimidation, fear, racism and disrespect toward FoC, and in particular FoC who specialize in academic fields relating to minority literature and other underrepresented disciplines. “To think also that Dorothy Wang has been at this school for 13 years – how is she supposed to call this place home if stuff like this happens to her?” Kasulis said.

Wang expressed similar sentiments about the English department. “It confirms Kimberly Love’s assertion about violence of the institution,” Wang said. “People think she was just being hyperbolic, or they don’t understand. They’re always like, ‘Oh, what do you mean? Did somebody punch her in the face?’ That’s been the response, right? But [there are] all of these forms of violence: psychic, verbal, denigrating what we do.”

Wang pointed specifically to recent departures of faculty of color in English as evidence of its harmful culture. In addition to her own recent decision to dissociate from the English department and her colleague Love’s decision to take leave early this semester, Anjuli Raza Kolb, assistant professor of English, will be taking leave following this semester. “If you look at just the women who were hired to teach either minority American or postcolonial literature … three out of those four are either leaving, taking medical leave or disaffiliating,” Wang said. “This is all under the tenure of Katie Kent.”

Both Kasulis and Zheng said that they will never take another English class at the College. “Now that this has happened, I think that English classes, if not just Hollander Hall and that space is general, are going to be very uncomfortable for me,” Zheng said. “I don’t care how smart or accomplished Kent is. I don’t want to be taught by someone like that.”

A history of departmental issues

In Wang’s view, the toxic culture of the English department has a long history. She pointed to several incidents of bias in the past several years, and drew particular attention to the fact that no faculty member in the African American literature position has ever been tenured. “That’s a terrible, damning statement in 2019,” she said. Kasulis expressed similar sentiments, saying, “I’ve heard several professors of color on campus tell stories about situations like this, where other faculty are being overtly hostile or aggressive or racist.”

Vince Schleitwiler, acting assistant professor in American ethnic studies at the University of Washington, who taught at the College from 2008–2015, concurred with Wang’s statement. Schleitwiler pointed to problems within the English department extending even before his time at the College.

“The English department had a poor reputation and a poor record with regard to students and faculty of color when I was there, and for at least a decade or more before that,” Schleitwiler said. “This kind of treatment from people who are your colleagues and neighbors takes a toll… Eventually you have to speak out about it, even though it makes others uncomfortable, or else you swallow so much bitterness that you can barely recognize yourself.”

In 2015, three students provided critiques of the English department in an open letter that drew attention to several specific instances of insensitivity with regard to race and gender. “We do not present this account as an open question, or as a collective journal entry, but rather as a reflection on the growing number of incidents that the department routinely dismisses and suppresses,” the letter said.

“Our motivation to write it was a set of simultaneous conflicts playing out in and out of English classrooms that year,” said Tony Wei Ling ’16, one of the co-writers. He added that the issues spurring the letter included “countless rape jokes in the classroom, the targeted harassment of a friend of ours and in general a treatment of both rape and racism as matters of immaterial debate and light humor.” Wei Ling said he does not believe that any change came from the letter, in part due to the English department’s tendency to fixate on individuals’ inappropriate behavior rather than faults with the department as a whole.

“At some point, I began to realize that my meeting with the department for ‘conversations’ and argument was being taken as itself the solution, and that the department had also exaggerated the extent to which they’d met with me and understood the demands [and] concerns I presented,” Wei Ling said. He added that, in two instances, professors joked about the open letter’s content and his role in its creation.

The student role in restorative justice

This history, which also includes Kent raising her voice at Wang in at least two prior instances, has led Kasulis and Zheng to believe that, without their presence, the April 17 altercation would have been ignored. “The only thing that’s unique about it … is that there were two students to witness it,” Kasulis said. “There is a lot of faculty-on-faculty bullying … but this is the first time that I think students actually saw it,” Wang added.

Indeed, for Wang, student activism has been central to recent campus discourse. “In many ways, I think the activism that you guys have seen this semester – students have been able to do that, and they’ve had much more trenchant critiques of the institution than virtually any faculty member,” Wang said. “Faculty can’t do it. They are paid by the College. They’re scared. These are their friends. They don’t want to offend anyone.”

Wang did add, however, that some new professors have changed campus discourse, particularly in the last semester. “This new generation of professors of color – some of them are much more radical than what the College is used to, and Love and Green just happened to speak out in this way that ripped a hole in this fabric,” she said.

Kasulis, Zheng and Wang all acknowledged since students are not employed by the College, they have been able to more openly call for administrative accountability. Indeed, Kasulis and Zheng are calling for Kent to step down as chair of the English department. “We want her to voluntarily do that because we believe that is the means by which she can begin to repair the harm that she’s caused,” Kasulis said. For the two students, calling for this measure is not merely in pursuit of punishment but a restorative attempt to undo some of the English department’s harms. “We want her to unlearn some of these terrible things she’s enacting, and model for the rest of people like her: how do you take accountability for what you’ve done, and then re-earn the right to be in the community because again that’s not a right that PoC get, and other outsiders get, when they make a mistake,” Kasulis added.

Wang said she supports students’ calls for Kent’s resignation as chair. “I don’t think [Kent] should be chair,” she said. “I don’t think she understands the structural racism and sexism and the violence that the English department has perpetrated on people. She’s a defender of that department.” For her, Kent’s personal sentiments are less important than this perceived enabling of English department’s toxicity.

Buell does not, however, support this resignation. “I want to make it clear that Katie Kent will not be asked to resign as department chair,” she told the Record. Wang, Kasulis or Zheng, all of whom expressed doubt that Kent would face repercussions partially as a result of her close ties to the department, said they were not surprised by the lack of discipline. “[Kent has] been in this community for a while – she’s an alum as well,” Kasulis said. “And that’s a privilege, I think, that outsiders don’t get, specifically people of color and faculty of color don’t get.”

“My hope is that this incident is able to … instill a sense of urgency within the larger community to push forward in making Williams a better place for faculty and people of color,” Zheng said.

Bearing witness to aggression against faculty of color: Calling for accountability from the College for structural racism

By Jamie Kasulis and Emily L. Zheng

On April 17, we witnessed egregious faculty-on-faculty aggression in Hollander Hall. We were walking with our professor, an Asian American professor of English and American Studies, when Professor Kathryn Kent ’88, chair of the English department, passed by on her way to a departmental meeting. Our professor asked if the meeting would discuss Assistant Professor of English Kimberly Love, who cited the College’s violence as the reason for her medical leave this semester.

Since our professor is the person who was targeted in this situation and most harmed, we have deemed it inappropriate to name her in this article.

Professor Kent immediately began to raise her voice at us. She shouted obscenities and publicly berated our professor. She tried to turn us against our professor by suggesting that it was our professor’s fault that Kent had made a scene. To be clear, all that our professor had done was ask an innocuous question and, unlike Kent, never raised her voice during the entire encounter. Furthermore, Jamie Kasulis ‘20 voiced that Professor Kent’s behavior was inappropriate, and firmly expressed her discomfort with Kent’s presence. It took multiple verbal requests from said student before Kent finally walked away.

The only thing unique about this incident is that there were students there to witness it. In reality, this sort of violence, as well as numerous other forms of it, have been going on at the College for years. The fact that claims of violence are so often belittled and dismissed by disciplinary bodies, administration, faculty and students are in itself a mechanism of institutional violence. The silencing and vilification of faculty of color (FoC) who speak out about political and institutional issues is violence. The constant request for more evidence of racism is also violence because it invalidates the ways in which racism harms our mental health and our bodies. In all of these situations, the burden of emotional labor, accountability and healing is disproportionately held by FoC.

Racism is foundational to the structure of the College. Its effects are slow, suffocating and silencing. It permits people to shrug their shoulders and ask, “What violence?” It permits people like Kathryn Kent to escape accountability for their actions.

We are writing this piece because we refuse to comply with this violence. We are writing this as two students of color who are infuriated about the ways in which our FoC mentors are being treated. And we are calling on all facets of our community to stand with us in rallying behind FoC and holding Kent accountable.

For this reason, we are calling on Kent to resign as chair of the English department immediately. Kathryn Kent, you have failed to fulfill your responsibilities to your FoC colleagues and students of color. But unlike them, you have had the privilege of receiving the benefit of the doubt over and over again. In your resignation letter, you should do the following: Acknowledge that your tenure as chair has been fraught with racist violence, which you have both perpetuated and failed to adequately address; apologize to the faculty whom you have harmed; and actively seek to make repairs and reexamine your privilege. You can take for granted that Williams is your home, while students and faculty of color have to fight to make a home out of Williams. It is behavior exactly like yours that makes it so hard for people of color to remain here.

To our FoC mentors: Thank you for being here. Thank you for looking out for us on top of looking out for yourselves. Thank you for working to create change, call out violence and make this place a safer community for us all. We see you and we’re with you.

To the administration: We call on you to remove Kent from her position if she does not resign by the end of the semester. Failing to do so clearly indicates your disinterest in protecting people of color on this campus. Furthermore, your reliance on slow, bureaucratic processes fails to take seriously the urgency of the situation. Students and faculty of color have been rallying at three times the speed with half the resources to do the work that the administration fails to do. While they are doing that, it is on you to educate yourselves on what you need to know in order to do your job, which is to protect this campus’ students, faculty and staff.

To the entire community: What happened on April 17 is just the latest example – one which has the privilege of becoming public – of a legacy of institutional violence. The issues that we raise in this piece are not merely interpersonal, but systemically related to the broader structural violence that is ingrained in the culture of this College. As such, let’s acknowledge the work that CARE Now has been doing all year to show love for FoC, to hold the College accountable, to envision a better Williams and even to outline the steps we need to take to manifest that vision. Let’s also acknowledge that this work did not begin with CARE Now, but has been taken up by students, faculty and staff for decades. But the burden of this work cannot and should not be left to the usual groups of individuals – it’s on all of us to take seriously the ways in which we are implicated in the College’s violence, and to continually work to undo that harm.

As for us, we will never move through Hollander Hall in the same way again. We will never take an English class again. And we will always wonder what faculty of color are going through that we don’t know about.

Jamie Kasulis ’20 is a computer science major from Berlin, Conn. Emily L. Zheng ’20 is an economics and computer science major from Fremont, Calif.

Facebooktwitter
19 Comments (Open | Close)

19 Comments To "Occupy Hollander"

#1 Comment By frank uible On May 8, 2019 @ 1:05 pm

How about “Fear and Loathing in the Berkshires”?

#2 Comment By Anon On May 8, 2019 @ 1:15 pm

From the Record article:

“For this reason, we are calling on Kent to resign as chair of the English department immediately. Kathryn Kent, you have failed to fulfill your responsibilities to your FoC colleagues and students of color. But unlike them, you have had the privilege of receiving the benefit of the doubt over and over again. In your resignation letter, you should do the following: Acknowledge that your tenure as chair has been fraught with racist violence, which you have both perpetuated and failed to adequately address; apologize to the faculty whom you have harmed; and actively seek to make repairs and reexamine your privilege. ”

Interesting. The article shows a slice of an encounter — a professor ostensibly getting mad at another professor — and the students are quick to identify a perpetrator of “racist violence” who should forfeit her career and (unironically) apologize for her race. There is zero examination of the potential nuances of the situation here — why might Kent have been upset? Why was the question raised in a public setting? What’s the history between these two individuals?

But forget all that — it’s all about the perceived experience of these two students and one professor. If they interpret Kent as a racist, violent bigot, then that must be the reality. This is the hegemony the students are pushing for.

“Professor Kent immediately began to raise her voice at us. She shouted obscenities and publicly berated our professor”

This sounds a lot like what happened at the CC meeting when the two representatives from Black Previews were asked to go through the same protocols that everyone else goes through. But they will never care about these apparent double standards of decorum when the radical leftists have such a strong allegiance to the idea that only and all white people are devastatingly racist.

#3 Comment By Dal On May 8, 2019 @ 2:20 pm

Is the Record really going to get into wall to wall coverage of any argument that occurs anywhere on campus?

Seems pretty thin.

This stuff is going to get out of hand and have real world consequences for Williams. If anything happens to Kent, a storm of shit such as the college has not seen will kick in.

The writers of the opinion piece may have a future working at the new Chinese reeducation camps.

#4 Comment By Dal On May 8, 2019 @ 2:35 pm

The latest call to the barricades is also a good example of the downstream consequences when these absurdities are not dealt with and refuted when they occur.

So when Dr. Love and G man go AWOL on campus from their spring term classes and claim it’s because of “violence”, and no one calls bullshit, it becomes a thing. The claim is seen as somehow legitimate.

And now someone asking about the status of the previous jihad is what led to the latest thought crime.

Bravo to Kent for calling bullshit.

#5 Comment By Anon88 On May 8, 2019 @ 2:51 pm

I would recommend that Ephblog readers perplexed by this story read Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff’s “The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure.” While I don’t agree with all of their critique, they make a convincing argument about the roots of the belief systems evinced in the Record editorial. For those who have considered reading it, the book is much more that a lengthening of the Atlantic article and has none of the bombast of the Allan Bloom book from my era for which it was named (by an editor, not the authors).

#6 Comment By Williamstown Resident On May 8, 2019 @ 5:51 pm

Zheng said Kent’s tone and physical posture made her fear for the safety of Wang and Kasulis.

That might be the single most ridiculous comment I’ve ever read on Ephblog or the Record and that’s saying something. But then I read further and got to this gem:

Wang said she supports students’ calls for Kent’s resignation as chair. “I don’t think [Kent] should be chair,” she said. “I don’t think she understands the structural racism and sexism and the violence that the English department has perpetrated on people.”

I would love for Prof Wang to provide one concrete example of actual violence that the English department has ever perpetrated on anyone.

Bottom line: Prof Kent saying she felt that enough discussion about Love and Green had already occurred is her opinion which I’m pretty sure she’s entitled to. It actually suggests to me that at that moment she was thinking about Prof Wang as a fellow faculty member, not an Asian faculty member. Isnt that what we should all be shooting for? That’s not insensitivity. That’s acceptance of all races, creeds, etc.

#7 Comment By Jon Serviam On May 8, 2019 @ 8:09 pm

It’s a strange and unfortunate coincidence that Kent’s tirade happened in front of some of the campus’ more vociferous student activists.

It’s even stranger that the reporting, outrage, and organizing about this incident are all coming out now. If this were so urgent and traumatic, you’d think the news would have broken three weeks ago, right? It occurred on April 17th. A cynic might suspect that Care Now et al, who I imagine have been desperately fishing for a reason to occupy Hopkins all year (since it is the 50th anniversary), have seized on this incident as their last chance to do so before final exams.

#8 Comment By Snowed In On May 8, 2019 @ 10:03 pm

The Record has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of CARE Now. The editors probably needed to wait until Wang was ready to give them their well-timed marching orders.

#9 Comment By Rubber Duck ’91 On May 9, 2019 @ 8:54 pm

As the psychologist/economist Daniel Kahneman teaches, for the impulsive mind “What You See Is All There Is.” (WYSIATI) Was the student really drawn out of her chair out of fear for bodily harm? Perhaps she was drawn to intrigue; and perhaps Prof. Wang is not as defensive as she thinks she is.

While I feel sorry for victims of structural racism, even those commanding great salaries to suffer, it’s tiresome to ask questions. I suggest doing it to burn off of glucose.

#10 Comment By Rubber Duck ’91 On May 9, 2019 @ 9:54 pm

Ok, I get it now.

If I’m asked, “If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it fall – did it make a sound?” I ought answer, “It depends. Is it a white invasive colonialist tree or a ToC?”

Not just I who should answer thus, but everyone. Predictability is good.

#11 Comment By John On May 11, 2019 @ 12:12 am

It’s amazing how one of the most important HUMAN RIGHTS, that is, DUE PROCESS, is completely thrown away by this type of student movement. This is authoritarianism. Moreover, it’s unlikely that Asian Americans suffer the same degree of racism of African Americans or the Latinx population. In fact, they are, many times, the perpetrators of racist acts, under the idea of “model minority”.

#12 Comment By 0xEph On May 11, 2019 @ 1:45 pm

John — that’s not really what due process or authoritarianism mean.

Rubber Duck — I get it, but the butt of your joke is really a pretty obviously correct claim made by this community: that context and history matter.

#13 Comment By Rubber Duck ’91 On May 11, 2019 @ 10:31 pm

OxEph,

If you have something to say, by all means do so.

What history and what content are you referring to?

What happened is that Wang violated professional boundaries. The correct assessment is that both Kent and Wang behaved unprofessionally by including students in issues that pertained to professors. Kent apologized, which is correct, and Wang continues to claim victimhood which is why she behaved that way in the first place : to create a scene in front of students to create controversy. Is that acceptable behavior?

(I recommend disciplining Kent and firing Wang.)

#14 Comment By Rubber Duck ’91 On May 11, 2019 @ 10:33 pm

Also – the students involved ought be disciplined for poor judgement and misbehavior by messing with professors and their careers.

#15 Comment By Rubber Duck ’91 On May 11, 2019 @ 10:47 pm

Oxeph,

Short answer to you, “Hogwash.”

#16 Comment By 0xEph On May 11, 2019 @ 11:04 pm

Hogwash to what?

#17 Comment By Rubber Duck ’91 On May 12, 2019 @ 12:01 am

History and context : : hogwash. Facts matter, that is all. “And a fact is the most stubborn thing in the world.” Master & Margarita.

#18 Comment By John On May 12, 2019 @ 2:05 am

Due process involves the right to a defense. A democratic posture would be requesting an administrative proceeding against the alleged perpetrator. But, no, students are asking them to be FIRED, without any investigation or defense.

#19 Comment By Rubber Duck ’91 On May 12, 2019 @ 7:52 am

John,

Even the demand for proceedings are odd if not spurred by request of the complainant, but, but in this case, students.

Administration can choose on their own criteria whether contracts and workplace behavior requires managerial oversight.Sent

What sort of adult marshalls children against their colleagues? Weird.