Let the Punishment Fit the Crime, Even if the Crime is Imaginary
This can’t be healthy:
Matthew Halls was removed as artistic director of the Oregon Bach Festival following an incident in which he imitated a southern American accent while talking to his longstanding friend, the African-American classical singer Reginald Mobley.
It is understood a white woman who overheard the joke reported it to officials at the University of Oregon, which runs the festival, claiming it amounted to a racial slur.
Here are the mechanics of the process:
But Mobley maintains that while racism should be challenged and ethnic groups made aware of each other’s sensitivities, his friend has been the victim of misunderstanding and overreaction.
Halls and Mobley had been chatting at a reception held last month during this year’s Oregon Bach Festival, when the subject turned to a concert in London in which Mobley had performed.
The singer, who was born and raised in the southern state of Florida, said the concert had an “antebellum” feel to it, of the sort associated with Gone With the Wind and other rose-tinted representations of the pre-Civil War south.
In response Mobley says that Halls “apologised on behalf of England”, before putting on an exaggerated southern accent and joking: “Do you want some grits?”, in a reference to the ground corn dish popular in the south.
“I’m from the deep south and Matthew often makes fun of the southern accent just as I often make fun of his British accent,” said Mobley. “Race was not an issue. He was imitating a southern accent, not putting on a black accent, and there was nothing racist or malicious about it.”
But the singer suspects that a white woman who overheard their conversation and spoke to him moments later went on to report it to the university, alleging Halls had made a racist joke.
An internal inquiry into the incident is understood to have been held as a result of the complaint.
However, Mobley was not invited to give evidence and he says there is a deep irony in the fact the authorities appear to have assumed on his behalf that he would have objected to the joke.
“I’m the subject of a falsified story, without having the chance to have my say,” he said. “My voice has been taken away in a conversation about race that involved me, and technically that’s racist.”
Fortunately, the process is clear and transparent:
Responding to the claims a spokesman for Oregon Bach Festival, said: “The University considers many factors when deciding whether to continue a contract. Regarding Reggie Mobley, it doesn’t appear he was involved in the University’s decision. Having said that, it would be inappropriate for the University to disclose details about a personnel matter.
“While I anticipate that more information will be available soon, I’m afraid that’s all I can say on the matter right now.”
This is reminiscent of the college student who got suspended for rape, despite the fact that the supposed victim kept insisting no rape had occurred.
And so far neither incident involves judges, just stupid administrators.
JackD,
A judge isn’t required to mess up someone’s life.
It doesn’t matter the facts. She got “racism triggered” so someone has to go down. Unfortunately it was a real person, not just a statue.
Nice research,
“Colorado State University-Pueblo has agreed to pay former football player Grant Neal to settle a lawsuit in which he accused the university of falsely claiming he raped his girlfriend, according to a report by The Pueblo Chieftain.”
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/18/grant-neal-agree-to-lawsuit-settlement-csu-pueblo/
I’m thinking the other story will be corrected also, but that wouldn’t make this post a post.
Reports about the reason prior to this story surfaced talk about declining the sales.
I’m not sure I understand the lady making the accusation of racism … since what she says occurred is “hear-say”… she alleges she overheard somebody make a racist slur. There’s no evidence that this occurred however, as the “internal investigation” makes no statement of such evidence being shown or provided to to the internal investigating body.
So as near as I can tell from what has been quoted by what Mr. Kimel as extracted the implication is that the internal investigating body has taken an alleged “hear-say” as true and correct without any evidence of same
However the quoted extracts says:
“An internal inquiry into the incident is understood to have been held as a result of the complaint.”
In plain English that means there no evidence that an internal inquiry actually took place at all. Notice the newspaper specifically took pains to say they have no evidence that an internal inquiry actually occurred at all… “…. is understood” means the newspaper only suspects an inquiry might have occurred but doesn’t in fact know if that is the case or not.
So what we have here is a post by Mr. Kimel of an allegation by a newspaper without a shred of data to support it that somebody was fired because somebody else alleged a racist slur occurred, for which there is no evidence such a slur occurred at all, or that the firing is related to the alleged racist slur.
The net is the entire post is about a fictional possibility .. the newspaper has no knowledge of inquiries or none, and the lady’s hear-say that she overheard a racial slur is also not in evidence from the information posted. The only fact is that the guy was fired. The reason is pure speculation..
Obviously, if the guy was fired unjustly in his opinion he can sue the University or the lady or both … at least that’s the course of action one takes when unjustly accused and there’s reputation and money at stake, yet nothing in the news article even hints that the guy is pursuing or has said he’ll pursue legal action.
On the other hand perhaps the guy was fired for some reason entirely unrelated to the lady’s alleged statement to the University and there’s no evidence that she even said anything to the university… at least not by what’s been stated by the newspaper article.
I find this hilarious though.
Maybe A occurred, and as a result then maybe B occurred, and then then because maybe B occurred, then C may have occurred and then maybe because of each of these alleged occurrences somebody got shafted.
That’s what we call fiction. There’s no relation between the maybe A, maybe B, maybe C and the person getting the ax.
Mr. Kimel, I conclude is promoting fictions as if it’s fact, simply because a newspaper writes a series of allegations by others with no evidence that any of the allegations occurred in fact:
A. The lady is alleged to have said she overheard a racial slur. There’s no evidence that she has ever said she overheard a racial slur.
B. The lady is alleged to have spoken to the University. There’s no statement that she did speak to the university.
C. The university is alleged to have made an internal inquiry into the lady allegedly having spoken to the University about a racial slur.. There’s no evidence that any inquiry occurred at all.
The newspaper cites no statement form the lady. It cites no statement from the university related to a racial slur inquiry. And in fact the University says “it doesn’t appear he [Mobley] was involved in the University’s decision.”
If the University’s statement is true then the lady didn’t report a racial slur having been made to Mr. Mobley. And if the lady didn’t report such a slur then there’s no reason to believe she overhead a racial slur… e.g. she overhead a statement that she didn’t understand to be a racial slur, and thus no reason to report anything with respect to what she overheard. Hence there would be no reason for the University to have an internal inquiry into anything related to a racial slur.
In other words the only facts reported by the newspaper was the University’s statement and the fact that the guy was fired. Everything else is made up out of whole cloth…. hidden behind “it is understood”…. which in and of itself begs the question “by whom is it understood”… which wasn’t ever disclosed. That means it is in the newspapers or somebody else’s own imagination what “is understood”.
So I suppose the point of Mr. Kimel’s post is that the human imagination can come up with any number of fictional possibilities and this is worthy of posting.. Or is it perhaps that Mr. Kimel finds imaginative fiction on race something worthy of posting?