Forestluv

He stated it was over last October in the UK and was clearly wrong. This is a very straightforward point. January-March is a set of data. January-October is a LARGER set of data because the January-October data INCLUDES the January-March data PLUS an additional eight months of data. I'm not famililar with those studies. I'd be happy to read some peer-reviewed scientific studies demonstrating that mask wearing is harmful to healthy people. And I'm a scientist. I don't need courts to explain how to interpret scientific data. If it was an area of science outside my expertise, I would communicate with a scientist who specializes in the area. For example, I'm not a specialist of R and had a discussion with a specialist of R regarding when it's best to use ANOVA, SPSS or R for analyzing a data set. You are making assumptions that masks are ineffective and harmful to people after your interpretation of a second hand interpretation of science data from a German court. I'm not saying your claims are 100% false. I'm saying I don't accept your presumptions as 100% true. If we accept that a Brazilian court determined that semen helps prevent covid spread, then we should be spreading our cum on our masks. Be careful with assumptions. As well, putting "virus" in quotes is often a red flag of a germ theory denier. Denying the existence of microbes, such as viruses, is a akin to denying the earth is spherical. I'm well aware of biases in science, including my own. The bigger problem is not he bias, it is the lack of awareness of a bias and attachment to that bias. I would agree that the majority of scientists are hyper-focused into contracted views. This can be good in the sense that it can create high resolution maps, yet can be problematic because it doesn't integrate those maps with other maps. I wouldn't call good scientists "stupid". They have a form of intelligence, yet lack other forms of intelligence. Yes, yet let's be mindful how we do so. Questioning existing frameworks can be useful in some contexts, yet "stupid" in other contexts. As well, certain components of established belief networks might be inaccurate or improved, yet this does not mean the entire framework is faulty. For example, we could question aspects of germ theory, improve and expand it - yet to throw out the entire theory is batshit crazy (unless we enter a much higher transcendent metaphysical view).

You raise some valid points regarding inherent dangers of policing and the necessity of reasonable force. It's fine to express right wing views, yet have some nuance and open-mindedness. Posting at a FoxNews narrative level is substandard. As well, a hyper simplistic "Right good, Left bad" binary frame doesn't quite cut it. A few months ago when you were active on the forum, you indicated a desire to have more expansive / transcendent views. This could be a good example. Perhaps set down attachment to "Right vs Left" conflicts and look from a meta view. For example, how various perspectives offer value toward a more comprehensive view. As well, that each perspective has limitations.

I'm not quite sure on a detailed level. This sounds like the reverse of associative learning. Perhaps a new area of research called "dissociative learning". In which two things that were coupled together become uncoupled. It could also be related to breaking automatic habitual patterns. Yet there is a change of neuronal communication such that certain neurons are no longer exciting other neurons to fire. It seems like you mean how would I become conscious that the two things are not linked? From an awakening perspective, there would be a realization that it happens independently of each other. Yet if someone was deeply ingrained that the two were coupled, they might not even consider the possibility. For example, people would just assume that moving fingers on the keyboard and the words on the screen are coupled. That's the way we are taught and the two seem exactly coupled. Noone would even question that they are actually uncoupled. So even if there was a "glitch" it would be filtered out. In your example, lets say that the neural link is 99,999% accurate. So, pressing the button and word appearing has a nanosecond difference, yet noone would even consider this. it's not perceived and any nanosecond delay is consistent with the signal traveling for keyboard to monitor. Let's say that there is a substantial perceptible Neuralink error every 1 in 100,000 keystrokes. About once every six months there is a neural link "glitch" in which the signal is not sent directly from the Neuralink implant to the monitor rapidly. For example, about once every six months one of the following glitches happens: 1) you press a key and there is a 1 second delay in the appearance, 2) you press a key and nothing happens, 3) a letter appears for which you didn't press the key. This happens to everyone, we wouldn't think twice about it. Just a glitch in our phone, just press the key again or I had fat finger. This could happen everyday and no one would pause and think "wait a minute. I just noticed a "k" appeared and I didn't press the "k" key. Maybe I'm linked directly to the monitor and don't know it. Let me try doing it without the keyboard. Very few people would realize it. Yet interestingly, with 7 billion people in the world - all it takes is for someone to figure it out. And then they could rapidly spread that realization throughout the world. The neuralink network would need to quickly respond by disabling the Neuralink and enabling the keyboard. In the case of the monkey, it would be like using the controller and believing you are moving the video ball via the joystick (yet it's actually through the Neuralink). If the monkey was able to recognize this and think "what a second, do I even need to use the joystick". To maintain the charade, Neuralink would need to rapidly disable the Neuralink and reactivate the controller. So when the monkey tries to make the video ball with his mind it doesn't work. He sees he can't do it via his mind and returns to the controller. Neuralink can no disable the controller and re-enable the Nerualink. This could even re-enforce the belief in the controller. If someone asked "How do you know you need the controller", the mind would think "I tried it without the controller and couldn't do it" Overall, it is an extreme example of correlation implying causation.

There are some barriers that international students have to deal with. I'm working with a brilliant student from Vietnam, yet she is ineligible for nearly all internships in the U.S. I have a similar impression. I don't think she is malicious or intentionally racist. I think she is an average level adjunct professor that lacks professional and teaching skills. Georgetown law school is a high level prestigious school. They have high standards. It isn't some reddit forum. I do have some sympathy, since I don't think she is intentional or malicious. To her it's like saying "The football players in class always get the low grades, they drive me crazy". Being able to teach in diverse classrooms is becoming a requirement for professors in the U.S. In the larger context, I think the University may be part of the problem. The may be recruiting underrepresented students to diversify their demographics for "branding", financial aid, alumni donations etc. They may recruit underprepared students and not give them the resources needed. The University may be doing some virtue signaling in firing her. I'm curious how many faculty have the attitude that what she said was unprofessional, yet there is a deeper problem at the University that needs to be addressed. Ime, administration is very concerned about image. They will go out of their way to protect their image. Many Universities hire PR firms to help them present an image after high profile racist incidents or crimes have occurred on campus. Some spend millions of dollars on it.

It is not malicious or conscious bigotry. She lacks DEI awareness and skills. That is a distinction from a statistical fact. Imagine a doctor stating a statistical fact that 10% of his patients are unhealthy and he has no idea why, and he doesn't treat them. It's not about the statistical fact that 10% of his patients have are mysteriously ill. The problem is that he is unable to diagnose them as having cardiac problems and unable to treat them. This doctor isn't being malicious, yet he lacks awareness and skills. She didn't get fired. She voluntarily resigned. Yet what type of sense making are you offering here? Your "sense-making" is a simple counter-position to the position you dislike. This is a simple black racism vs anti white racism construct. You criticize those on the forum going unchallenged, yet how willing are you to challenge your construct. Other people have offered nuances much deeper than a surface level black vs anti-white construct. This example involves minority students performing poorly in a classroom. What are the underlying causes of this? How much of this is due to a student's background? How much about this has to do with individual motivation? How much to do with college course structure, support resources? How can we improve pedagogy to expand accessibility and student success? You mention looking at societies through a lens. Yet there are other lenses you can be looking through.

Yes, there is a larger context. Yet keep in mind that I have conversed with thousands of professors in over 30 years in academia. I'm very familiar student-teacher dynamics. It's not only what was in the video, it's what is lacking. She referred to her black students as "the low ones" and how they "drive me crazy". Nowhere in the video did she show any signs of caring for those students, a desire to help them or any DEI skills. This is only a clip, yet if she had said anything in support of their success - it would have been aired. That absence says a lot. DEI is an area of education and she doesn't have awareness or skills in this area. That compromises her ability to effectively teach. She is not talking like a professor that has DEI awareness and skills. As well, no students came to her defense. That absence suggests she did not have good rapport with her students. With that said, I think there needs to be room for white professors that lack awareness space to learn and grow. To me, how she responded is important. If her reaction was that she was genuinely unaware that she is missing something in DEI and wants to learn to become a better professor - then I think there should be some space. Creating a space in which someone's lack of awareness or unconscious bias costs them their job can be toxic. You don't want half the white faculty at Georgetown feeling like they are missing something and if they say the wrong thing, they could be fired. The underlying awareness and intention is important. As well, I think Boomers should be given a bit of a break - almost like a grandfathers clause. These days, most applicants have to write DEI statements to demonstrate they are culturally competent in the classroom. Yet this is a new world for old school professors. I have some sympathy for the professor because I don't think she realizes what she is missing. It all subconscious. I highly doubt she was an advocate/ally for underrepresented students, yet if she was and this clip is manipulated out of context it would be an injustice.

In her defense, one of her colleagues wrote a defense which includes: Due process and academic freedom apply to professors even when people might suspect them of being racist. We must protect alleged racists because without academic freedom, the anti-racists will be silenced, too. I reject the notion that the only way to end racism is to stop people from talking about racial disparities and punish those who discuss the reality of the racism around us. Instead, we must confront racism and be willing to openly discuss race without punishing those who say something offensive. I agree that due process is important. Terminating faculty without due process is destructive. Yet keep in mind that she was an adjunct professor on a short contract and that she voluntarily resigned (although there may have been enormous pressure on her to resign). As well, this as absolutely nothing to due with academic freedom. Adding that in there is a sneaky way to bolster his argument. I also agree with him that discussing racial disparities is important and that it's important to be able to discuss racial disparities without the fear of being fired for a misspoken word. The issue isn't whether racial disparities are raised, it's how racial disparities are raised. I guarantee you, that every minority staff, faculty and administrator wants to racial disparities at their institution addressed. It's how these racial disparities are discussed. I don't consider the professor to be consciously racist against black students. My sense is that she wanted all her students to do well and was frustrated that her black students were performing poorly. In her own words, her black students "drive her crazy". This doesn't mean she is consciously racist against her black students (although it's likely she has unconscious biases). Yet it does mean that she lacks DEI skills, which is becoming a requirement for professorships. I'm not sure if the University gave her due process or pressured her to resign (she said she resigned voluntarily). As well, she was an adjunct professor on a short contract teaching a side law class. There are literally hundreds of applicants that have knowledge of law and DEI skills. It makes no sense to continue investing in a professor that lacks these skills and is totally oblivious that she lacks these skills. One could criticize the University that they should be providing DEI training for faculty members - which is a good idea. Yet in today's age, this is becoming a requirement. My institution requires all applicants write a DEI statement and we evaluate the statement to make sure the candidate is culturally competent and can teach diverse students - beyond just race. I have to teach students on the autism spectrum, anxiety disorders etc. Being "colorblind" was good enough in 2005, yet it's not enough for 2021.

It's not the word. People are getting stuck on a single word and missing the larger context. It's not about one word or whether black students are performing poorly at her institution. It's about a professor's relationship with black students and if they can be an effective educator. A professor may be knowledgeable in law, yet if they suck at DEI they won't be a good professor.

How many of her black students came to her defense? Zero. I've taught over 1,000 students as a professor. Minority students know which white professors "don't get it".

Here, bringing up the issue with black students can be good or bad. It depends on the professor's relationship with the issue. A good professor: "I noticed that black students are performing poorly in my courses. How can I resolve this issue? Are black students only doing poorly in my courses? In only science courses or all their courses? . . The good professor looks up data and notices that it isn't only in his courses - it is all biology courses. This means that the problem isn't specifically me, it is a departmental problem. At the next faculty meeting, the good professor brings up the issue to the science department and a good science department starts to address this. Why are the black students underperforming, what can I do as a professor to improve, what can the students do to improve and how can the science department improve? Perhaps we look at data if the black students are arriving to college underprepared - if so, we can provide resources for them. We could offer basic level pre-science courses to help prepare them. How are we teaching our courses? Are we only showing old white guys as intelligent science professors? . . Perhaps we can hire an independent coaching group to give us suggestions for improvement. A bad professor: "The blacks in my courses are low ones (eye roll). I wish I didn't have to teach low blacks - they drive me crazy". It is obvious when someone genuinely cares about another person and wants to solve and problem because they are oriented toward helping them and solving the problem. The marginalization comes in when a professor does not give equal access to all students. This can be very subtle. When a professor sees black students as "low ones" they can pick up on the vibe. Students of color can sense which professors "get it" and which professors are their allies. I have high confidence that her black students did not feel comfortable going to her office hours asking for extra help. I would bet money on it. This gives greater access to her white "high ones" students. As well, the "low ones" get treated like "low ones". This creates a feedback loop that makes things worse. And it's a combination between student and teacher. If a student believes they are a "low one" and the teacher treats them like a "low one" this reinforces that they are a "low one" and makes it harder for them to succeed. About 10 years ago, this type of stuff started to be seriously addressed in colleges and Universities. Especially has the number of minority students and minority faculty has increased. In some ways it's still "progressive" - yet for faculty that is aware of these dynamics - its super basic. A lot of professors just want to teach the material. They love teaching the concepts, especially to students that are motivated, engaged and intelligent. Yet part of the job is also giving attention to students that are performing poorly. Many professors don't like this. They find it burdensome and annoying. This seems like an older professor. It's possible that her courses had traditionally been filled with affluent white students that were prepared and the institution shifted to recruiting lower income students of color to diversify. This would be a hard change for a lot of professors.

@Derek White Oh my!! Crazy videos. I totally understand getting annoyed with some students. Some students are unmotivated, uninterested, disruptive and make up all kinds of excuses. I've been manipulated by students trying to get extensions and make-up exams. I tend to be softer with students and that isn't always the best method. Sometimes tough love is better. It can depend on the school and what they value. At major research institutions, research grants and publications is most important. The professors are more interested in research, yet they often have to teach. I've known a lot of researchers that saw teaching as a burden and they had apathy for all students. My postdoc advisor would hide in the lab during his office hours to avoid students. He would even tell us not to tell any students he is around. Yet other schools have much higher expectations for their teachers. I also think it's important that students are paying 30k or more per year for these courses. Even the "low ones" are paying huge tuition fees for these classes. Occasionally, I pause in class and think "each person here is paying $3,000 dollars for this course. From a financial perspective, that means I need to provide good service to every student.

Malice of intent is not needed to be a shitty professor. If I don't show up to class for two weeks, there is no malice of intent - yet I'm still a shitty professor because I don't give a shit. There are certain levels of apathy that are too much. I find this extremely unlikely. People that have concern for others struggling want to help them. Imagine your boyfriend got into a serious car accident and was in the hospital. If you had concern for him, you wouldn't be on zoom saying he is a "low one" and rolling your eyes in annoyance. If you cared about him, you would be talking about how best to help him. You would be texting him support, you would be visiting him, you would be calling your friends and family to give them updates. You would be asking questions like "what can be done to help him". It would be totally obvious that you care about him and want him to successfully recover. A professor that cares about the success of their students will be oriented toward helping their students to be successful. If such a professor addresses how some students are doing poorly, the next questions are "why are they performing poorly and what can we do to help them succeed". This is how good professors are hardwired. Just like a good doctor is hardwired to heal people. I'm not saying she is a bad person or that her attitude deserves punishment in other contexts. I'm saying that being a professor involves a lot of different skills - one of the skills of an educator is to connect with students, including students that are struggling. In this area, she is a shitty professor. Yet she may be an awesome professor in other ways. No. If this was her mindset, she would have expressed it. In this moment and in her classes. If she had this attitude, she would have been contacting her poorly performing students. She would have been encouraging these students to come to office hours, she would have been holding help sessions for students, she would have been announcing resources in class for extra help, like tutor hours. If she truly cared about her students, a whole bunch of students would be coming to her defense. Her black students would be rising up defending her. Students LOVE teachers that actually care about them and they will stand up for a good teacher that is being misconstrued. If none of her students are standing up for her, it says A LOT about her relationship with her students. As well, she goes beyond simply apathy. Simple apathy would be like "Yea, some of my students perform poorly - but that's part of the job". She goes one step further. She has a vibe that she finds them annoying and wishes the "low ones" weren't in her class so she can teach at a higher level. I totally understand this. It can feel like a drag explaining simple concepts to students that don't get it. Especially students that seem unmotivated and don't want to be there. Yet marginalizing them is inappropriate for a teacher. A lot of people are focusing too much on a specific word or if the phenomena is correct. She may have made a 100% accurate statement - the black students in her courses may be performing poorly. It's not about the phenomena - it's about her mindset about it. Marginalizing a group of students, decreases access to her time, attention and education. She will not offer the same access and attention to them she offers her "high ones". It is a form of "playing favorites". As well, it will affect the way that she treats her black students and grades them. She will have unconscious biases. In this area of teaching, she fails. Yet she could be an awesome teacher in other areas.

That involves "synaptic plasticity". The structure of synapses is such that they are "plastic" and can be "remolded". In terms of learning, it is called "long term potentiation". At a cellular level, synaptic modelers like neurotrophic factors, AMPA/NMDA pathways and glial cells can alter the structure of synapses and when/what neurons fire. For example, in the image below notice how NMDA/AMPA receptor activity (red and green receptors) alters synaptic structure. Three forms of restructuring are shown on the right: The presynaptic neuron can produce more neurotransmitter (red dots, top right image), or new synaptic connections can form (middle right) or the postsynaptic membrane can produce more receptors (bottom right). These three examples all show increases in synaptic strength. Synaptic remoldeling also involves decreases in synaptic strength. As well, AMPA/NMDA signaling is common in synaptic remodeling, yet there are also many other remodeling factors.

I'm not trying to defend a particular narrative. You posted a video of Michael Yeadon and I pointed out that he has been absurdly wrong about the coronavirus in the past and to take what he says with a grain of salt. You then respond with a long list criticizing Dr. Fauci. To me, this seems like a mindset defending a particular position they are attached to. Yet I'm not taking the opposite position. Imagine pointing out that a sports forecaster has been absurdly wrong about predicting winners and the other person responds "Oh yea? Well, what about Mike Williams? That guy is sooooooo wrong. Here is a list of every time Mike made a wrong pick. I'd take what Mike says with a grain of salt". To me, this would reflect someone that is attached to a position and their higher interest is to defend that position - not how to improve predictive models of sports forecasting. From a meta perspective, there is many more nuances than A vs. B. From what I've seen of Michael Yeadon, he seems to have some scientific knowledge / experience and nuggets of truth. Yet those nuggets of truth are wrapped within a bunch of nonsense and BS. People can be a mixture of insights and BS, yet it can be annoying to sift through a bunch of distortions, manipulations to find the nuggets of truth. As well, it can take some expertise. I'm a trained cellular biologist and I speak that language fluently. It's easy for me to see when people are distorting science to mold to their pre-conceived beliefs / agenda. Yet it's harder for people that don't speak science. They may see someone like Yeadon and think "Oh, he is a scientist". And then when Yeadon speaks sciencey, it all seems valid and confirms their view. As well, the context of information relative to time is super important. Yeadon made his comment that covid was over in OCTOBER. We had a ton of information at that time. That is why his prognosis is so absurd. The comments by Fauci you make were made in Jan-March when we had much less information. Imagine that soccer team A is down 3 goals with 2 minutes left in the game. That is A LOT of information to make a prediction. It would be absurd to say the team will when. That is very different than if the score is tied at the start of the game. Here we don't have much information about either team and it is much more difficult to make a prediction. If someone must make a prediction, predicting team A will win is not so absurd at this stage of the game.

I agree. Yet I also think this is a difficult skill and training is involved. People that are oriented toward "kicking their ass" as a hyper aggressive desires or a catharsis for their own repressed issues, should be screened out from being cops. Yet being a cop has inherent dangers and serious risks to a cop's health. It takes skill to be able to make fast judgements and resolve a situation with minimal harm. I'd say training is needed. I watched a documentary showing a training method that involves hooding cops. The cop stands with a hood over their head. They can't see anything and are in a vulnerable position. They have a virtual gun. Then a scenario outside of them is created. It could be a large man with a knife about to stab them, a person with a cell phone, a person reaching out to grab them - etc. All sorts of scenarios with different threat levels. Then the hood is lifted and the cop has a split second to react. At first, most cops shoot quickly which may be expected. The demo is also very real. It may look like a real madman about to stab you. And the guns sound real and if you shoot, blood is all over and the person really looks like they have been shot and are dying. One thing I found interesting is that a lot of cops in training were really shaken up by the demo. As well, some seemed to genuinely believe they were threatened. One woman gunned down an actor - she shot him like five times until he was motionless. Afterwards, she was in another room in distress. They asked her to explain what happened. She said when the hood was lifted, there was an armed man about to shoot her, so he fired. She said after 1-2 shots he still had his gun and was pointing it at her. The training officers told her it was actually a man with a cell phone. When she shot him, he reached his arm out begging for his life. The officer could not believe this and thought they were lying to her. She was adamant he was armed and trying to shoot her. And she seemed 100% genuine. Then they showed her the replay video. She started shaking and was in extreme distress. She considered dropping out of being a cop. Yet she went through a few months of this training and got better and better. By the end, she was responding with great judgement.

One of the witnesses in the Chauvin trial yesterday (Seth Stoughton) was an expert on reasonable force standards in policing. He has been a police officer, detective and law professor specializing in police force. He offered interesting models based on 1) threat of xyz, 2) opportunity, 3) ability and 4) foreseeable outcomes. As well, he made distinctions about threat vs. risk, training vs. acceptable standards and how a "reasonable officer" would perceive a situation based on the information at the time. I often think of these things as being highly subjective, yet he was super objective. I've never seen anyone describe reasonable force standards so objectively before.

The youtube reaction could very well have leveraged the situation. It is a very bad look for administration, which could induce a knee jerk reaction. Yet we also need to consider that she is a shitty professor that has failed in a key area of education. If she is tenured, I would support having her go through an institutional review process where they look at her track record with minority students and perhaps taking into consideration that she is an older professor. I suppose giving her DEI training. Yet it's hard to train professors who don't give a shit to give a shit. I can see having a judicial process, yet I can also see drawing a line in the sand. The institution is sending a very clear, strong statement that they have a zero tolerance policy for not giving a shit. I think it's important that the institution makes clear that this is about the ethos of education and it is unacceptable to marginalize any group of students in their path of education.

Exactly. Part of the problem is that the professor is not acknowledging such factors. What you write is basic awareness for a professor in today's day and age. It is the bare bones minimum awareness a professor should have. Students struggle for a variety of reasons and part of a professor's job is to help students through certain challenges. There is a certain amount they need to reach out to students. And for many reasons, students keep it inside and are afraid to speak about it. Last semester, one of my students performance dropped. Rather than categorizing her as a "lower one" Hispanic student, I asked to speak with her. She knew I cared about her and wanted her to succeed. I knew something was going on, yet she couldn't share it with anyone. . . It turns out that she is a first generation college student. Her parents moved her to the U.S. from Mexico. Her family does not believe women should get degrees and pressured her to stay at home to have children and raise them. Yet she wants to be a medical student. Recently, her father's kidney disease worsened and he is now on dialysis. It's the the week before finals and the student asked her family if she could communicate with them via Zoom and return home in a couple weeks after finals. Her family shamed and guilt tripped her, saying that she doesn't love the family and told her she isn't welcomed home. This had an enormous emotional impact on her. She hasn't been able to eat, sleep or concentrate. As well, she didn't want to tell anyone because she was afraid her family would find out that she told people to make them look bad. And she didn't want people thinking she wanted a "handout" or "special treatment" because she is a minority. There are a lot of reasons students struggle and part of a professors job is to be accessible and helpful. A professor that doesn't give a shit about "lower ones" is a shitty professor.

This is not a mob reaction. This professor is a failure in a very important aspect of teaching. If she is tenure track, she deserves to lose her job due to incompetence in DEI pedagogy. Imagine a cardiologist saying he doesn't like treating patients with high blood pressure - he sees those patients as annoying and allows there health to fail. If his mindset was revealed, he should be fired because he is an incompetent doctor in this area.

I agree. This is more on the administration side. They are much more oriented toward image and "branding". So they may recruit students form disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds to show diverse numbers, yet the school doesn't have the infrastructure to support new issues which will arise. For example, my institution had been 90%+ affluent white for over 100 years. Ten years ago, the admin. started recruiting lower income, first generation, minorities etc. From an admin. perspective, it looked great to go from 10% to 35% under-represented students. Yet we didn't have the support infrastructure to address new student issues that would arise. The problem with the professor in the OP is that she is marginalizing these students relative to how she wants to teach her courses. Rather than adapt to the demographics in her course, she is annoyed that she can't keep teaching like back in the "good old days". There is a larger context than simply the term "Black" and that black students are underperforming. The larger issue is her mindset regarding this issue. Her mindset is not aligned with the ethos of academia and being an effective professor. Her mindset is marginalizing a group of people. Notice how annoyed she is that she has these "lower ones" black students in her class. She sees them as a hindrance. I've been working with professors in academia for 30 years. There are a percentage of students that underperform and it can be a drag. It takes extra work and quite often the students are unmotivated, miss class etc. It's so much more enjoyable to teach students that are curious, motivated, work hard, attend class everyday and are intelligent. We can get into some fun nuances of content. I totally understand how slower students can feel like a drag, yet as professors we can't categorize and marginalize a these students, which she wants to do. She wants prepared, motivated, smart, achieving students in her courses and I totally get that. Yet marginalizing students because they are a hindrance and annoyance is unacceptable. And her mindset will affect her relationship with students. The students she considers "lower" get marginalized in her mind. She will not encourage them to come to her office hours for extra help and these students will not feel comfortable going to her office. As well, her mindset will influence how she treats "lower ones" and how she grades them. I handle this situation very differently. I have students in my courses that underperform, yet rather than marginalize them as "lower ones" that are a hindrance to me, I ask how can we be more inclusive to these students. How can we better prepare them? How can we better engage them in class? How can I better encourage them to feel comfortable visiting my office for extra help? How can we better empower underperforming students? This is the opposite mindset of the professor above. And if black students, in particular, are underperforming it is important data so we can better address the issue. Yet, she doesn't want to address the issue. She doesn't want to deal with them. She sees these students as an annoyance and is marginalizing them. THAT is the problem. NOT the word she used or that black students are underperforming. The type of mindset used to fly under the radar. Yet it's not going to fly now. It is unacceptable for a professor to marginalize a group of students. I predict with high confidence that this professor was not fully accessible to black students. I confident she was not working her ass off to help her black students to succeed. She was not emailing her black students encouraging them to come to her office hours. She was not offering extra review sessions for the struggling students in her courses. She was not working toward developing pedagogy and resources to more effectively help her "lower ones". She may have been successful in other areas of law, such as her research - yet she failed as a teacher in this area. And there are over 100+ applicants that are qualified to teach diverse students. This is pretty much a requirement to be a professor these days.

Saying "Black people", "White people", "Hispanic people" etc. adds a human component. A more de-humanizing term would be "The Blacks". This often has a derogatory tone. Saying "The Black students in my courses are performing poorly" has a different connotation than "The Blacks in my courses perform poorly". In the context of the OP video, her usage of "The Blacks" was in a derogatory tone and mindset. It's not like people are splitting hairs because she didn't say "Black people".

@Boethius I agree with a lot of what you write. Yet I see it as a combination. Competition can be a motivating force for a lot of students. It can increase chances of reaching potential. I think a good analogy is with a sports team. In some contexts, competition can be fun - yet context is important. As well, I would make a distinction between intra-group competition and inter-group competition. Here, the focus is for one team to compete against an opposing team. Coaches know the importance of teamwork and have mantras like "There is no 'I" in team", "Always Us" etc. I would say a small amount of intra-team competition can be good, yet the majority of energy should be encouraging, supporting each other within the team - and have the competition directed against the other team. Competition against the other team can be healthy, yet can also be toxic. A team might be so over-competitive that they intentionally injure the other team. How might this apply in the classroom? The "intra-team" would be the students in the class. We could have some fun classroom competition, yet in a way that still focuses on the "team". Who may be the "other team" we compete against? The other team could be students from other schools. For example, we could introduce the idea that the pre-health students in our course is a team competing against other students in other schools to get into med school. There is also the idea of competing against oneself. For example, a runner could compete against their race time from last year. They could compete for a personal best. I would say competition can be potent and should be used strategically and sparingly. As well, most competition is oriented toward extrinsic rewards. Intrinsic rewards are really important for deeper learning, satisfaction and fulfillment. I also think "model B" is becoming more popular, especially younger faculty. That is, setting specific standards and students get the grade representing the standard they meet. I.e. "Learning Objectives". A pure "model A" competitive curve can actually be an anti-curve. Imagine the average grade meets 85% according to standards, yet the professor deducts a 10%, to force the average to be 75%.

I'm a professor in academia and describe the issue above. It is not just due to her usage of the term "blacks". It is her mindset regarding her black students. Her mindset is counter to the ethos of academia and the ability to educate. Some people in this thread are seeing this in the context of behavior on forum communities. A classroom in academia is a very different environment and professors should be held to high standards (myself included).

The phenomena is not the problem. It is her mindset about the phenomena. At my institution, we have data that students of color are underperforming and dropping out of our science majors. The person who brought forth this data has not been villified as a racist - they have been supported because of their attitude. There attitude is that we have a problem that we need to address and are trying to create solutions. For example, do we provide enough assistance to underprepared students? Are we presenting material that will connect with students from a diverse backgrounds? Do we only show old white guys as examples of intelligent, successful scientists and poc as examples of crime, poverty and disease? . . . However, this professor in the OP has a very different attitude about the phenomena. Her attitude is that students of color are a inferior, a hindrance and an annoyance to her teaching and research. Personally, I would not want to have a colleague with that mindset - it is against the ethos of pedagogy and education. Imagine a doctor notice that a community had a higher frequency of high blood pressure. The phenomena is not the issue, it's the attitude toward the phenomena at issue. A good attitude is "We have an issue in this community with high blood pressure, how can we address this issue to better help our patients". A toxic attitude toward the phenomena is "These people with high blood pressure are so annoying and I wish I didn't have to care for them".

Nothing like this has happened since I've been at my college (13 years). However, there are some more subtle racist overtones by older faculty, yet nothing this overt. If this happened at my institution, there would be a very strong counter respond. She clearly undermines the direction of our college. There are a lot of faculty members that are putting in a lot of effort to remove barriers for all disadvantaged students (including various socio-economic, racial, gender etc. barriers). She undercuts those efforts and other faculty will not like that. The white boomers might give her a pass, yet minority and young progressive white faculty will not. We do not want to work at an institution with people that have that mindset. My reaction is to first put this in context. In particular, what is her underlying mindset and was this simply an awkward way to phrase things. I've been in a couple situations in which I inadvertently misused a term like "intersectionality", however my underling mindset was not racist. For those in the thread saying "She said what was true", you are missing an important distinction and why here attitude is harmful to the mission of educating students. It may very well be true that black students are performing poorly in her courses, yet that is a separate issue from her attitude about it. For example, in our biology department the data indicate that students of color disproportionalty do poorly in our bio courses and drop out of being a science major. Yet our department has a completely different attitude. We are now asking "Why is this so? And how can we address this issue to better educate all of our students?". For example, we are looking into student preparation. Are these students adequately prepared from high school? Should we offer college prep courses to underprepared students? Are there enough tutors? Are we advertising and encouraging students to access tutors? Are we showing diverse examples in the sciences or are all the examples we show of successful scientists old white guys?. . . This is a very different mindset than the woman in the video that sees her black students as inferior, a hindrance and annoying. As well, the way she perceives her black students has an impact on her relationship and biases with students. I guarantee that black students have picked up on her vibe and they were not shocked by this video. Students know when they are being looked down upon and even if it is subconscious, it has an impact. For example, she does not offer equal access of her time to all students. She has clearly stated that her black students are a hindrance and annoyance to her teaching and research. Black students will not feel comfortable going to her office hours with questions. And even if they do come to office hours, the profs attitude is that they are a hindrance and annoyance. As well, the professor's mindset will be a bias toward grading. Even if it's unconscious. Don't think that grading is 100% objective. There are a lot of short answer and essays. A professor with an attitude that black students are inherently inferior will bias their lens when they are reading and grading papers. If she is tenure-track, she should be toast. She lacks skills necessary in the ethos of education. There is no reason to invest in such a professor when there are hundreds of qualified applicants. If she is tenured, it would get trickier. The spirit of tenure is to protect a teacher in their academic exploration, teaching and research. For example, I started teaching about potential value of psychedelics in neuroscience and therapy years ago when it was much more controversial today. Tenure protects me in doing that. Yet I don't think tenure should protect professors from behavior that harms students and hinders an institutions ability to educate. For example, if a professor sleeps with a student. Technically, it's not illegal - yet it is highly disruptive to student-teacher relations and an educative environment.