I think this is a clear story where conceptual clarity is both necessary and sorely lacking. It's unfortunate when academic disagreements degrade into accusations of racism, or when social awkwardness gets amped up into harassment charges, or when people file fake complaints in retaliation for writing articles they don't like. But beyond the emotional compulsion of the term "snitch", is there any reason to think that these are all facets of the same problem or that the same strategies would effectively handle all of them?
Academe is a hotbed of craven snitches
31–40 of 71 posts
Re: Academe is a hotbed of craven snitches
#32I'm having a serious "Gell-Mann Amnesia effect" moment on this one: I don't think that representation of the Ewell paper is quite accurate, though admittedly it's been over a year since I read it. Despite being Jewish (would have had different significance later than during his time!) Schenker was a proud german nationalist and in his own words considered his method one of the ways german people could assert their su…
Do you view anything hierarchical as racist via associated Whiteness? I'm confused how the origins were an "explicitly racist project". Was Schenker promoting a race that he didn't even belong to? Is it possible to think American culture is superior over other cultures, without thinking that white people are superior to black people?
It's probably because German Nationalism (especially of that time) was "Ethnic" Nationalism ? Which I have gotten the impression has been distinctly racist even long before the Nazis ?
Re: Academe is a hotbed of craven snitches
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Rules are meant to be broken" is a great maxim in my opinion. It's the expression of truly democratic attitude towards rules. Something that's "technically wrong" but taken by the majority as not an ethical issue deserves to live because it questions the legitimacy of the rule. How any progress happens.
It's a great way to breed corruption and decay. Turn the other way here and there and before long rules don't matter at all. Even a majority can be on the wrong side of right.
>It's a great way to breed corruption and decay.
Tacitus is spinning in his grave.
Re: Academe is a hotbed of craven snitches
#34Is this satire or something? Since when is being a snitch a bad thing? Isn't that what people complain about with cops, that they don't report each other? So now what, we want the same thing with academia? That they can do whatever they want, secure in the knowledge no one will report them? And isn't "craven snitch" an oxymoron? To be a snitch you need at least a bit of bravery, even if you are being anonymous, since…
Blacklists are bad things. Whisper campaigns where people can't defend themselves are bad things. #metoo is a bad thing. The creeping realization that you're being surveilled by potentially any and certainly some of your peers is a bad thing. The incentive to snitch on others is a bad thing. All of those exhibit cowardice because snitching is attacking someone without allowing that person confront the attacker.
The whole premise of #metoo was that if victims had individually attempted to directly confront their abuser they'd have faced serious and potentially career ending retaliation. I have a hard time labeling someone cowardly for preferring an option that didn't have that consequence!
Re: Academe is a hotbed of craven snitches
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
> First let us pause to consider our terms: Was Schlissel’s narc a “snitch” or a “whistle-blower”? Whistle-blowers are generally attempting to topple or thwart the powerful, and Schlissel was certainly powerful. But the reported offense was, in the words of a lawyer I spoke with, “a nothingburger.” Let us provisionally define snitching as turning someone in anonymously, for either minor or nonexistent offenses, or pr…
So if it's a "nothingburger", then why is the administration not just ignoring it? You can't have that kind of harassment without the assistance of those you are reporting to. Being how I'm not there, I'm going to defer to the administrators to decide what's important and what's not.
No post body was provided.
Re: Academe is a hotbed of craven snitches
#36If you are the President of a university (or a company) that has an explicit official policy prohibiting romantic relationships between superiors and subordinates, and you have a semi-secret romantic relationship with a subordinate that many people know about, then someone in the know who is upset with one of your management decisions retaliates by telling the truth to HR, then I have zero sympathy for you. Are they…
Most of the examples in the article are much crazier than that though. The chocolate muffin sexual harassment case, for example.
Re: Academe is a hotbed of craven snitches
#37If you are the President of a university (or a company) that has an explicit official policy prohibiting romantic relationships between superiors and subordinates, and you have a semi-secret romantic relationship with a subordinate that many people know about, then someone in the know who is upset with one of your management decisions retaliates by telling the truth to HR, then I have zero sympathy for you. Are they…
Zoot Allure. And what pray tell if these people fell in love? Is this not the plot of countless romance novels and movies for a reason? Nobody is special. Must follow rules. You will be reported. Zero sympathy. No exceptions. Are we in East Germany? Imagine if you were French. Or had a pulse. I swear, society is overrun with gross troglodytes. Look, lets be real honest here. The snitch is usually an unattractive jeal…
And we’ve blown past Godwin’s law already. That was fast.
If the rule is so bad… shouldn’t they fix the rule? But it’s there for a reason, so they shouldn’t fix it. It’s not broken.
Re: Academe is a hotbed of craven snitches
#38If you are the President of a university (or a company) that has an explicit official policy prohibiting romantic relationships between superiors and subordinates, and you have a semi-secret romantic relationship with a subordinate that many people know about, then someone in the know who is upset with one of your management decisions retaliates by telling the truth to HR, then I have zero sympathy for you. Are they…
"Rules are meant to be broken" is a great maxim in my opinion. It's the expression of truly democratic attitude towards rules. Something that's "technically wrong" but taken by the majority as not an ethical issue deserves to live because it questions the legitimacy of the rule. How any progress happens.
The version I like most is Terry Pratchetts: "Rules are there so that you think before you break them".
Re: Academe is a hotbed of craven snitches
#39If you are the President of a university (or a company) that has an explicit official policy prohibiting romantic relationships between superiors and subordinates, and you have a semi-secret romantic relationship with a subordinate that many people know about, then someone in the know who is upset with one of your management decisions retaliates by telling the truth to HR, then I have zero sympathy for you. Are they…
"Rules are meant to be broken" is a great maxim in my opinion. It's the expression of truly democratic attitude towards rules. Something that's "technically wrong" but taken by the majority as not an ethical issue deserves to live because it questions the legitimacy of the rule. How any progress happens.
Civil disobedience is one thing - breaking the rules in order to drive change. "Breaking the rules because I'm big and powerful so I can probably get away with it" does not deserve the nobility associated with the former.
And the rules against romantic relationships with subordinates are there to protect the less powerful against exploitation by the more powerful. That's a really bad area for you to be extolling the virtues of breaking the rules. That's not how progress happens.
Re: Academe is a hotbed of craven snitches
#40I'm having a serious "Gell-Mann Amnesia effect" moment on this one: I don't think that representation of the Ewell paper is quite accurate, though admittedly it's been over a year since I read it. Despite being Jewish (would have had different significance later than during his time!) Schenker was a proud german nationalist and in his own words considered his method one of the ways german people could assert their su…
Do you view anything hierarchical as racist via associated Whiteness? I'm confused how the origins were an "explicitly racist project". Was Schenker promoting a race that he didn't even belong to? Is it possible to think American culture is superior over other cultures, without thinking that white people are superior to black people?
So first off I'm familiar with schenkerian analysis but I am not an expert on schenker the person, though I did at one point read some of his writings in translation to verify Ewell's claims. Nor am I trying to argue, right now, that his works are inherently racist. If you're looking for those things you should just read Ewell, who is a Schenker expert, and is making that argument.
> Was Schenker promoting a race that he didn't even belong to?
I think this is an error, trying to map our understanding of race onto the past like this. I don't know what race Schenker thought of himself as. He was Jewish, and he consistently asserted the natural superiority of german people and culture. That doesn't cleanly reconcile with any conception of race that I've come across, which indicates to me that those conceptions are not a useful lens here.
My goal wasn't to start up the is-schenkerian-analysis-racist-or-not quagmire here. It was to point out that I believe the author of this essay has misunderstood or misrepresented a more nuanced conflict for their own purposes.