Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stanford prof calls police after whistleblower exposes $5000/hour gov. contacts

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 65 posts

Re: Stanford prof calls police after whistleblower exposes $5000/hour gov. contacts

#31

Post by z3t111 »

cato_the_elder wrote: post #10

I think the headline is misleading. Based on the linked tweet, it seems that it should be " threatens to call the police" or something like that. It's still quite ridiculous though. She kinda seems to be the Doctor Oz of math education.

Just for the record: "at no point did @minilek post @joboaler’s address. He only retweeted a post containing the information that she was paid $5000/hour by the Oxnard school district. This is neither “private details” nor “misinformation” "

via https://mobile.twitter.com/boazbaraktcs/status/1511523206779...

Re: Stanford prof calls police after whistleblower exposes $5000/hour gov. contacts

#32

Post by phendrenad2 »

z3t111 wrote: post #31
cato_the_elder wrote: post #10

I think the headline is misleading. Based on the linked tweet, it seems that it should be " threatens to call the police" or something like that. It's still quite ridiculous though. She kinda seems to be the Doctor Oz of math education.

Just for the record: "at no point did @minilek post @joboaler’s address. He only retweeted a post containing the information that she was paid $5000/hour by the Oxnard school district. This is neither “private details” nor “misinformation” " via https://mobile.twitter.com/boazbaraktcs/status/1511523206779...

I don't think it's as simple as that. I'm not a lawyer, but I think one could certainly be accused of inciting violence by telling the truth creatively, to the right audience, under the right circumstances (like Trump's tweets during Jan 6).

Re: Stanford prof calls police after whistleblower exposes $5000/hour gov. contacts

#33

Post by KerrAvon »

leereeves wrote: post #25
hansvm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The stated reason was doxxing.

He didn't doxx her before the threat was made. Doxxing means revealing private personal information, but the contract (paid with government funds) that he shared is public record and thus not private by definition. He may have doxxed her by revealing her email address but that happened after the threat.

It doesn’t matter why he did it. The key words are “he may have doxxed her.”

Re: Stanford prof calls police after whistleblower exposes $5000/hour gov. contacts

#34

Post by whimsicalism »

cato_the_elder wrote: post #10

I think the headline is misleading. Based on the linked tweet, it seems that it should be " threatens to call the police" or something like that. It's still quite ridiculous though. She kinda seems to be the Doctor Oz of math education.

No? Did you read the email? they say they had already contacted the police

Re: Stanford prof calls police after whistleblower exposes $5000/hour gov. contacts

#35

Post by whimsicalism »

version_five wrote: post #5

This seems like an agitator trying to raise a fuss, not a "whistleblower" (I guess maybe that's how the term is used now). I'd encourage people to read the surrounding tweets, he looks like someone who wants to be outraged about something more than a brave soul calling out some malfeasance. That aside, if this money is for facilitating sessions, as another comment implies, it is perfectly reasonable. The facilitator…

I have had Prof. Nelson as a teacher multiple times... labeling him as an "agitator" is ridiculous, he is just a person sharing his opinion on an issue. He is also a commited educator who has organized multiple programs teaching K-12 codijg and mathematics.

Re: Stanford prof calls police after whistleblower exposes $5000/hour gov. contacts

#36

Post by throwoutway »

tyingq wrote: post #21
prepend wrote: post #13

It seems an odd complaint that the author publish a paper without any black co-authors. Why is that noteworthy?

It appears to be more than a paper. It's 900+ pages, 14 chapters, and apparently intended to guide how California public schools teach math. With an emphasis on making it work better for minority students. Some sections have been deleted in the draft process, including some on "racism behind past math policies and practices".[1] [1] https://edsource.org/2022/california-revises-new-math-framew...

Is perhaps the goal of publishing 900+ pages on a DEI topic to make it so inaccessible that they can profit ($5000hr) off taxpayers by charging public schools?

Re: Stanford prof calls police after whistleblower exposes $5000/hour gov. contacts

#37

Post by whimsicalism »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #11
sgdjgkeirj wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prof Nelson didn’t call himself “whistleblower “ but it does seem untoward that the main author of the California math framework is also making $5000/hour when the client is not a tech company but a public school district with mostly minority and economically disadvantaged students. In any case, if there is nothing untoward, why threaten him with “police and lawyers”?

Let's have this again, Prof Nelson is siccing his Twitter mob on a person doing her job - no matter what we think about the honorarium, Prof Boaler's job is math didactics for disadvantaged populations. That's not "nothing untoward".

Your "siccing a mob" rhetoric is bald-faced anti-democratic. Prof. Nelsons actions are what the public square is all about - expressing your opinions and criticizing things you think are wrong.

You are dressing up your argument with all these "anti-woke" signifiers but your claim boils dowj to Prof. Jelani was somehow wrong to express his opinion about actions of the government in a public forum.

Re: Stanford prof calls police after whistleblower exposes $5000/hour gov. contacts

#38

Post by whimsicalism »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #32
z3t111 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just for the record: "at no point did @minilek post @joboaler’s address. He only retweeted a post containing the information that she was paid $5000/hour by the Oxnard school district. This is neither “private details” nor “misinformation” " via https://mobile.twitter.com/boazbaraktcs/status/1511523206779...

I don't think it's as simple as that. I'm not a lawyer, but I think one could certainly be accused of inciting violence by telling the truth creatively, to the right audience, under the right circumstances (like Trump's tweets during Jan 6).

Yes, you are very clearly not a lawyer.

Re: Stanford prof calls police after whistleblower exposes $5000/hour gov. contacts

#39

Post by whimsicalism »

gruez wrote: post #22
sgdjgkeirj wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prof Nelson didn’t call himself “whistleblower “ but it does seem untoward that the main author of the California math framework is also making $5000/hour when the client is not a tech company but a public school district with mostly minority and economically disadvantaged students. In any case, if there is nothing untoward, why threaten him with “police and lawyers”?

>but it does seem untoward that the main author of the California math framework is also making $5000/hour when the client is not a tech company but a public school district with mostly minority and economically disadvantaged students It seems lazy to dismiss that person just because he charges a high rate. If his services are effective and there's no better alternatives, who cares how much it costs? People getting o…

Jelani Nelson himself is probably a better alternative and does much of his work for free.

Re: Stanford prof calls police after whistleblower exposes $5000/hour gov. contacts

#40

Post by whimsicalism »

KerrAvon wrote: post #33
leereeves wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't doxx her before the threat was made. Doxxing means revealing private personal information, but the contract (paid with government funds) that he shared is public record and thus not private by definition. He may have doxxed her by revealing her email address but that happened after the threat.

It doesn’t matter why he did it. The key words are “he may have doxxed her.”

Sure, except for the fact that he didn't, and none of that information is non-public.
Post reply on HN