As I've admitted in the past, I have a very hard time making these decisions. Leslie K was the best at this; she acted quickly and decisively, but I struggled all day about what was the right thing to do for the blog.
I feel as though I know Ben well enough to know that the jokes he made were not malicious. Yet they violated the rules of the blog.
Direct any complaints or concerns to me and I'll try to address them.
Fab Sun
CM Moderator
Which were they, and did I comment on them?
ReplyDeleteThey were the ones involving a student named Guang. You didn't comment on either of them.
DeleteA very hard decision, Fab, but, I think, the right one. I very much hope Ben will continue to both post and comment. I always look forward to his posts.
ReplyDeleteI kept hoping someone would write an eloquent, articulate indictment of what was written without indicting the writer. It would have needed to have been eloquent because the writer has great social and moral capital here, and I felt he did not mean to hurt any individual poster or commenter.
ReplyDeleteIt's not enough to point to the Rules of Misery, which say, "Do not post or comment with racist, sexist, hateful, objectionable, or otherwise inappropriate material." If Fab removed all material found to be objectionable or inappropriate by somebody, then there wouldn't be much left on this blog, and it would lose its flavor. And I clearly despise some of my fucktard colleagues, for example, but those "hateful" posts are not removed. And Stella probably gets away with some outrageous, sexist remarks because she is (presumably) not a man. For example.
So why not just flick away the complaints and dismissively say, "You whiners are being too sensitive. This is CM. If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen"?
That's not an easy question to ask or to answer because it is figuratively like telling a rape victim that s/he must testify in public court, in great and convincing detail, about why and how s/he felt hurt. And that's not something I want to see at CM, so that's why I'm ok with Fab removing the posts.
That said, though, I hope somebody here can find the courage and the wherewithal to come up with a post that elucidates why parts of the two posts were offensive. Yes, I said "courage." Because I think there would need to be some courage in the person who could compassionately explain these things without inciting an adversarial digging-in-of-heels. And it would require some wherewithal in order to really convey what was truly so hurtful. I feel like there's something that hasn't been said here that needs to be said. I, for one, would appreciate it if somebody could say it. There are enough people here who are curious and would not roll our eyes.
At the very least, perhaps somebody could recommend the Chinese equivalent of Ellison's Invisible Man or Angelou's I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. Or something like that? I don't know what that book would be, or even how to suggest what that book might be. Or maybe it is an opera or a movie? Or maybe it has more to do with geography or culture than with race or ethnicity? I don't know. But my heart is open on this. And I bet the same is true of the original writer and many others here.
I am indeed a woman. I don't think the posts should have been removed, but it's not my call. What I'm generally for is open discussion when there is a perception that something is offensive. So, leave the posts up and let people talk about them, until they get tired of talking about them. But if that's not within the CM rules, it's not within the rules, and I accept that.
ReplyDeleteAnd in the general scheme of things, if someone is perceived to be sexist/racist it doesn't help to eliminate the evidence. It helps to discuss it, and explain why it is perceived that way. And if the "offender" doesn't agree, the offender doesn't agree. That doesn't invalidate the discussion.
I'm divided myself on the whole issue of referring to Asians as dog-eaters. But I think there's a difference between talking about a specific student that actually eats an actual dog and ascribing the general stereotype to that one student. So, I guess it's the difference between going to a Chinese restaurant in China and seeing dog on the menu and saying "EW! THEY EAT DOGS HERE!" and pointing at a Chinese person on an American street and saying "HEY, THAT GUY EATS DOGS!"
I think it's complicated by the fact that while we all recognize more obvious forms of racism, whether or not we think eating dogs is okay is very much a cultural thing. We can't really agree that this is "bad" unless we're vegetarians and oppose the eating of all animals. I can't intellectually defend thinking that eating a dog is bad, and eating a pig is okay. And I like me some ribs. So something that seems like a racial insult could just baffle the person being "insulted". If an Indian professor wanted to refer to me a "cow-eating American" and mean it as an insult, I'd shrug and think, "yeah, I like a hamburger when I can get it..." But if they're just assuming that about the vegetarian standing next to me as well, that vegetarian might be insulted.
Also, it pays not to take shit too seriously when it's not meant seriously, about something that's a totally cultural thing, when someone's trying to be funny. We're not talking about female genital mutilation here.
But what do I know. I don't know if that makes any sense, really. I'm just talking out of my ass.
@Stella: Sometimes I love it when you talk out of your ass.
DeleteSecond.
DeleteNot every label that has historically been used as a stereotype meant to denigrate and belittle certain groups is negative in and of itself. Being good at dancing and sports is not a bad thing, hell, it's not a bad thing to be "articulate." But in the historical context of African-Americans in the U.S., those labels have been used to stereotype, belittle, and other.
DeleteBy the way, for pete's sake, not every person from a culture in which dogs are eaten eats dogs. I can't speak for China, but in Korea it's a practice that varies by family and generally varies inversely with whether you keep dogs as pets.
In the absence of a edit/apology from Ben, I think taking the posts down was the right decision for the page, inasmuch as leaving them up made it look like CM condoned his comments.
Stella - your paragraph number 3 seems to me to be the only coherent thing said so far that does a good job of articulating the issues involved with the deleted posts. And your second-last paragraph probably best reflects what Ben was trying to get across with his 2nd post (the image and caption) - I myself totally read it as a response of "racist? my arse!" (said a la Jim Royle style)
DeleteI want to say that I think Fab did the right thing in this case. Of course it was difficult. Ben is much beloved on the page, clearly, but his comments - which I too think were just attempted jokes and not evidence of any particular malice - were needlessly insensitive.
ReplyDeleteI hoped that Ben would amend the comments himself yesterday, or redact those parts, or something.
At the same time, I wouldn't have been bothered if Fab had left the posts up. Lots of things on CM are offensive, of course. Have you read the page? :)
But I do think the notion that this is a shared space should always be kept in mind. Would Ben have called his Asian student a dog-eater in the hallway of of his office building, in the faculty lounge, at a faculty meeting? Would he say it to a professor of Asian descent?
I know that there's an edge to the page, and that the over the top histrionics of many writers is sort of part of our charm. But this didn't feel like that. When Strelly is getting ready to blow a student up or ship him/her to Siberia, it's just because it's a fucking stupid student. That, it seems to me, is different from what Ben did.
Just my opinion as a former mod and sometime mod.
Leslie K
Huh. I seem to have missed the posts entirely. However, I think that either the rules apply to all of us, however beloved individuals are, or they don't apply to any of us. We would indeed be the closed circle that trolls often accuse us of being if we exempted one another from rules we've agreed on.
ReplyDeleteThat said, though I detest having my own "isms" pointed out, I learn from it every time. It takes courage to speak up when something is really over the line, and courage to admit that the speaker may be right. May we all be brave and compassionate.
I completely support Fab, but I think the rules the CM has self-imposed are not sensible; they are academic hand-wringing.
ReplyDeleteThe correct policy, IMHO, is to let all posts stand. Ben told an off-color joke: agreed. The correct response is for everyone to call him out, hit him with figurative flamethrowers, and generally beat him until he apologizes and changes his behavior.
The only reason to _delete_ posts is to hid them from public view, so that no one can point at the site and call us terrible people with terrible ideas. But the whole site is pseudonymous! We have no gravitas to maintain!
I read this blog nearly every day, but every month or so I see one of these mysterious "we deleted some comments" or "we deleted some posts" because people were complaining. This is mystifying and frustrating: I feel like I went to the bathroom and missed the entire bar fight. There's some guy nursing a black eye in the corner and the bartender is putting chairs back up, making vague threats about calling the cops. I want to know what happened, and, if necessary, start my own fight in response.
I appreciate Dr. Nathaniel's perspective. It's not something I heard from anyone about the issue earlier and it might have given me pause.
Delete"hide them from public view", not hid. I blame Fab for not buying me a new keyboard.
DeleteThis is also a view I could support. I don't think it accords with the current rules, and I'm a strong believer that any rules that exist should be applied equally to everyone, so I think Fab did the right thing in this case. However, the ideas that the best response to free speech is more speech, and that sunlight is the best disinfectant, are ones I support. After all, this site is devoted, to some extent, to airing dirty laundry.
DeleteThe tricky issue, I think, is that it might be hard to write a version of the "Rules of Misery" that would preclude participants' ad hominem attacks on each other -- a rule which is probably necessary to keep discussions from devolving into mud-slinging on a regular basis -- while allowing more latitude in the discussion of those outside the discussion. The current rules of misery have served us pretty well as a basis for shutting out people (and/or trolls with the digits necessary to work a keyboard) whose sole purpose in participating seems to be to pick fights.
In short, it may be necessary to set some rules for civility in discussing those outside the CM community in order to maintain some semblance of civility within the CM community. There's a tradeoff involved, and the balance could be struck at various points. Ultimately, it's up to Fab and the other mods to decide where the balance point is, with input from the community if they so choose.
I think we've talked specifically about these attacks of each other on this site. I know whenever it comes up, there's quite an immediate response. We're here to bitch about our misery, and the page goes off the rails when we start sniping at each other. Of course, that's how a lot of the internet is anyway, as any review of other blogs and forums can attest.
DeleteIn some way, all of us who frequent the place likely think of it as our blog, or our community. When we fight each other, some furniture in our clubhouse is going to get broken. That's no good. That's why the compound in Oxford has switched to all rental furniture.
Holy shit folks. I schedule a couple of posts, step away for a while and all Hell breaks loose.
ReplyDeleteIt was not my intention to offend anybody. The whole thing was a joke. Although based on real events I've experienced, the particular remarks that set people off were completely fictitious. My writing didn't convey my intent. I am sorry for that.
Once and for all, I want to clear up any misunderstanding that some people got from my posts. I did not, under any circumstances, mean to imply that I was actually giving an award to students. I assumed that my body of work at CM would preclude people from making such an inference but I misjudged that. Clearly, rewarding those students is truly offensive and such actions have no place in polite society. Those faculty who do give such awards should be shamed from the academy.
I'm relieved. What's-his-name does not need or deserve another entry for his resume.
DeleteI have to admit, when I read this I thought of Beaker Ben much like my beloved, well-meaning and very personally generous uncle who likes to make racist/sexist comments that his actual behavior repudiates. I shook my head, sighed, and realized that there was nothing I could do about it.
ReplyDeleteThis description resonates for me. Human beings are strange creatures, and their actions and words/ideologies often don't match up. I'm still a strong believer in the power of words, and therefore the need for exploring the implications of ones I find disturbing, but I have no illusion that policing linguistic expressions alone will bring about a more just society.
DeleteIf it matters, I would have voted against deleting the posts, but I also felt a little funny about Ben's jokes. That's okay, though. I'm sure I hold some views that some of you might find a little ugly, too. I'm okay with that, too.
ReplyDeleteFine, just as a counter-balance to this kumbayah moment, I'll go on record as finding the posts offensive. Then again, it was also typical Ben. I don't like him nor his posts. So, I usually skip them. I am not one of those cowards who writes in private complaints and has secret correspondences via e-mail. It's a public blog, so I post comments and criticism here. I wish more people had the fortitude to do so, but the mob often attacks when you do.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, it's about fucking time you people stop patting each other on the back and holding people not in the "mythical" inner circle to lesser standards than some newb who picks a bad nickname.
You made rules, and agreed to them, now hold EVERYONE to them or ditch them completely.
I think The_Myth's point about the rules is important. I actually don't agree with all of them, but they are the rules of the community. If we want to change them, that's a separate debate -- but while the rules exist, how is it fair to hold Ben to a different standard because he's a Hall of Famer?
DeleteI didn't think the posts should have been removed -- I said this in a now deleted public comment (of course, the corollary of removing Ben's two posts is that 25 or so comments were removed as well) and in a private e-mail to Fab, but I don't know what the tenor of all the comments ze received were. And I think the moderators do a wonderful and largely thankless task -- so thank you Fab.
I have a hard and fast rule about folks who like to call others cowards. They're always assholes.
DeleteI'll send Fab an email any time I'd like, thanks.
DeleteI have to watch everything I say in class to avoid the new trend in student complaints: he's a racist, bigot, homophobic, and all the rest. Now someone posts something funny on CM and it's over the line. And because I like it, I must be over the line. If people can't write out their frustration on this page anymore without wondering about going too far then what is left?
ReplyDeleteStop trying to be politically correct. It won't work.
from a reader:
ReplyDeleteI read the site all the time but have never posted a comment or emailed before.
I think the rules of CM should be enforced at the time of posting, but that once something has been posted it should not be deleted. If it gets past the moderators and there's a kerfuffle, they'll know better for next time.
The practice of deleting comments and posts leads to a bifurcated history of the site - a "secret" history that obsessive readers know, because they read comments/posts before deletion, and a surface history that is increasingly incomprehensible to casual readers. For the record, I read (and enjoyed) Ben's posts, but there have been many deleted troll comments or posts in the past that have left days of posting in their wake and confusion for those of us who missed the 6 hours it was up.
I expect that the practice of "posting rights" means that approved posters are not moderated by others. I recognize that enforcing the rules only at time of posting will lead to more pressure on the moderator(s, slower appearance of posts and comments, and possibly a change in the practice of posting rights, and I'm sorry about that. I really appreciate the moderators and the work you do for the site; I love the site and read it multiple times a day. I think that dealing with the emails and comments of anonymous strangers is extremely soul-sucking work, which is why I don't post or comment. So either way I appreciate the work that you are doing.
(snark) Sheesh... Talk about underhanded. Next thing you know, Fab will be putting up a wall, socializing health care and then taking away all our strap-ons! (/snark)
ReplyDeleteI'll go back to drinking now, atleast until he declares prohibition.