[FIRE] Rutgers caves to outrage mob: Prof. faces punishment for Facebook posts about white people

I cannot say I am shocked though
Indoctrination is real.

Reality will hit him hard

Rocket River

 

There is nothing I can add to this thread really at this point...

I will say this though. Stop telling edgy jokes online, if you aren't a known comedian, just stop. Text doesn't convey sarcasm, it doesn't convey anything, it doesn't add a smirk that may tell others "I'm clearly joking here..." and people can read it as anything.

So before you type "Kill all ____!" as a joke, realize that people will read it literally, whatever the context. Leave the edgy jokes to stand up comedians and television shows like Southpark, stop doing that **** online. It translates badly.

That's why I'd just like to tell these people to keep their edgy jokes on camera so people can clearly understand that a joke is being told and that they are not the views of the person. Not saying to ban edgy twitter/facebook jokes, just advice. People are still learning how to use social media, I think one thing we are finding out this decade that edgy jokes are a big risk. If you have a valued position like being a director of a major movie franchise, a professor, whatever...maybe it's not worth the risk. Just saying.

I think Rutgers has the right to fire him if they feel like his presence will make students uncomfortable.

Although it's clear to me he was joking, people can take the text literally (and will) and use it to make their political point. The right-wing has learned how to manipulate outrage to get people fired, so we're going to see a lot of this until companies/institutions stand firm and not punish people based on things said on twitter/facebook or until people take Herm Edwards advice of not hitting send.

 

Or you can tell all your edgy and hilarious jokes on Clutchfans.

Kill Whitey.

 

There’s a racial/ethnic preference across many places in the world over lighter skin tones....Asia and S. American countries like Brazil and Argentina come into mind. It’s deeply embedded in those cultures without the white man bringing them down.

Kill Litey?

 

I didn't realize Rutgers was public. That changes things quite a bit. Maybe it shouldn't, but we have a system now where they need to act like a government agency when it comes to things like free speech. If Cal can't stop a racist from doing speeches on their campus, I don't see how Rutgers can get away with policing speech on Facebook.

Reported.

 

I agree with everything you say here.

I was going to "like" your post until I got to this part. While I do agree the part in bold is happening, the left has been doing this for a long time. The right is simply learning left wing tactics and using it against them. I personally think both sides are wrong when they do this.

 

I should have clarified, when I said 'learned' I meant that yes, they picked it up from the left. Sure, you can say that, I don't think it would be wrong.

As soon as twitter/facebook was a thing people were dragged for this reason or that.

 

Would you agree it is wrong to manipulate outrage no matter which side does it?

 

The thing is, some of the outrage is legit. I think people have a right to be outraged by whatever they want to be outraged by, it's then hard to judge if someone is rightfully outraged by something.

I think people need better social skills online. If you say an edgy joke and people call you out on it, don't double down, apologize, and move on.

I think it is wrong to try and get people fired for it, definitely, some people do this deliberately as we have seen...but it's totally in people's right to just tell people, hey, what you said offends me. I think the appropriate response to that, if you care about the person or persons offended, is to apologize.

No matter who does it then yes, it's wrong to manipulate outrage, but we can't control reactions, and if you say something that draws the ire of people then you can expect some kind of backlash. It's why I just think, if you have a cushy job you want to protect, don't drunk tweet, keep your edgy jokes off these platforms because they can and likely will be used against you. Snipped out of context and then broadcasted to the world. I don't think it helps dialogue at all, it harms it, but unfortunately, I don't see what can be done about it other than teaching people how to better socialize on social media.

 

Same as Jeong. It's obvious satire.

A public University should not fire someone for speech unless it Breaks a law. And Facebook is giving into the mob as well.

Both sides of the political spectrum claim to be champions of free speech but the reality is both sides are more than willing to stifle free speech when it suits their purposes.

I commend the nytimes for not caving. I do think Google should was in a different position as the guy expressed sexist views which could be argued to affect decisions. I don't think someone should lose their job over a social media post about a fun emoji next to a horse.

Where do you see the line? It's not easy. But I think we need to allow room for things like satire or jokes. Someone should be given the chance to explain themselves or apologize. We shouldn't necessarily connect words with views so quickly.

There needs to be an emphasis to look at behavior versus words in social media. Even if someone says something racist or apparently attacks a group the reaction shouldn't be to fire them right away but to allow room for discussion first.

 

Well, I have always been on the side of education than punishment. Even if it's racist intended, educate and if it's repeated, fire away.

Personally, I draw the line at work vs non-work. At non-work, whatever is allowed by the US laws. At work, speech cannot be divisive, harsh, vile, lies, gossip... a much higher standard with education on what those means and repeated offender get the boot.

Your personal facebook account is non-work.

 

It's why I left twitter off. But even with facebook (or any public social media), if you use your personal account for anything work-related, than the standard at work applies.

 

I think it's more than that.

An athlete tweets something offensive and gets tons of heat for it. Teams may even stay away from drafting him, etc.

A CEO says something sexist on twitter and can lose his or her job.

Professors aren't celebrities -- far from -- but they're more public figures than a lot of other professions. Have their names and departments put up on the web. Teaching eval sites now. Sometimes they're interviewed as experts on some crap or another, etc.

So if a professor says something controversial or hateful on social media, even on "his personal account," it can reflect directly on the employing university just like a sports team or company.

I'm not saying it's right, but even if someone is just barely a public figure, they should be pretty careful if they love their job... I mean, except on Clutchfans, of course.

 

I disagree - you can't draw a line between work and non-work. Views are views and part of why you are in a position earning a paycheck is for your views which dictate your ability to lead.

My point is that there is a difference between what is posted and one's views - context is key. And therefore there should not be a rush to judgement.

 

I completely get that. That’s the common current view. Large companies now have training that warn about embarrassing them through social media. I don't think it should be that way. What you do in your personal time should be personal and not be considered as a representation of the workplace by society.

Yes you can. Whether you should or not is an opinion. I give you an example. Most work place has a zero tolerance for p*rnography. Your p*rn habit outside of work isn’t considered as part of that zero tolerance.

I agree on context.

 

Actually it is. If you make a p*rn and publish it on the internet it could affect your job (for example if you are a teacher). Just because it's outside of work doesn't mean you can do what you want and have it not affect your job.

Employers hire people based on their character, values, and how they carry themselves.

 

I hear you if that's basket weaving or water skiing or rock climbing. But if you do something very loudly public in your "personal time," in today's outrage-ready world, that will of course bring consequences on your employer. So being in a satanic metal band, writing racist poetry for poetry slams, or being a dillweed on facebook is all fairly well broadcast.

Hey, I agree with your sentiment. Back when "your personal life" involved true privacy, maybe your family, or having a few brews at the local dive bar (with no cameras or cell phones), or writing crappy science fiction stories for an obscure magazine, YES. But the notion of a private personal life on social media, practically speaking, makes no sense. (Unless, of course, you cleverly disguise yourself with an obscure moniker and personal on clutchfans.)

 

It could definitely. There was a Canadian newswomen who acted in very explicit sex scenes (would be xxx rated here) and she almost got fired for it. She wasn’t. It’s a choice and an opinion.

Employers can choose to keep personal matter personal. They can evaluate if the personal views and actions actually leak into their workplace. Unfortunately, in today very judgmental and reactive society, most can’t simply afford to do that.