The UIC thing is absolutely enraging. I like to think that I would not have even issued that first apology. Apologies only validate the theory of the complaint. The complaint was outrageous. These are law students, "fer cryin' out loud!"
We must recognize that even when people are actually offended -- which I strongly doubt in this case; I think it's obvious pretend -- that doesn't mean that the person was right to take offense. A strict liability standard for offense taken, no matter how mistaken, irrational, outside the norms of social interaction, etc., would mean that nobody could ever say anything.
Shame on UIC Law. They should have supported Kilborn and should have told the protesters, in effect, "Nope, none of that, you're wrong, way out of line." The fact that that's unimaginable today is why these incidents keep happening.
Also, re Joe Fournier, I like Chris Jones, but I was dismayed to read his response to his firing on Rob Feder's blog: "We’re just trying now to include a multiplicity of voices (and cartoonists) on the opinion pages." Hmm. Was having two white guys do regular cartoons no longer tenable?
I applaud your tenacity and patience in reporting the details of this saga. However, you seem to expect human beings to be reasonable, rational, objective, and open-minded, which they often aren’t. And based on my experience in HR for 20+ years, lawyers are not the most effective approach in eliminating racism — enforcing the law doesn’t change hearts and minds, as evidenced in Heather Cox’s book, Hiw the South Won the Civil War. I recommend the book, Speaking of Race: Why Everybody Needs To Talk About Racism — And How To Do It, by Celeste Headlee.
So Kilborn submits to attending a re-education camp to keep his job. If he had any self respect he would resign and go teach someplace that isn't run like Oceania in 1984. Universities have become bastions of the truly cowardly and stupid. Thanks to Eric for giving exposure to this.
Since I'm not a person of color it could be argued that I'm not qualified to weigh in here. But while I think it's possible that there's a reasonable discussion to be had about the topic, the use of a term like "mental terrorism" is so histrionic that it shuts off that possibility. And I wonder how these future lawyers can learn to battle racial discrimination if they're not willing to discuss it with realistic context.
Eric, I found Jenny C's comments about your "dust up with Amy" profoundly enlightening to me. Her advise about the word/concept choice options available to make the same point coincides
with my concerns about communication of opinion and its effectiveness in being heard, as win-win versus win-lose. I find myself in often agreement with how you approach issues, and find your opinion landing spot. I've confirmed that with a paid subscription to PS. However, there are times when I "squint" a bit with how you speak to your conclusions. I personally suffer the same issues Jenny points out in her critique of your response to Ms Dickinson. As example, I frequently forward to my close family the Picayune, suggesting a deep read on things you opine on that make a point I want to talk more about. Occasionally, I find myself reframing your approach wording to get the conversation over the initial emotion that the reader has that never occurred to me. Up until this moment, the importance of that was not front of mind. I bring this up because in the times we live in, it seems so much of our discord goes unheard and constantly leaves us in discussions of who wins and who loses. The content of the Sentinel goes a long way in helping those of us who want to close the gap in our critical thinking and actions. Thanks
As odious as it may be -- without a law degree to confuse the matter -- is this false justice? It appears to be a retaliatory, racially motivated social attack on Professor Kilborn, his character, and his job: Do his opponents’ mob-justice tactics assume that attacking Kilborn is a civil virtue? If so, that seems to carry an impression of injustice toward Kilborn, delivered by the affected students, faculty, and public. What does a common sense reading of the 1st Amendment say? The professor's use of racially charged language on the exam was (strategically?) condemned as "racist"; it may have been poor judgment, but was it in any sense truly illegal or was it just unpopular and uncivil? Is Kilborn subsequently abused in his job and his social image?
“ You’d think this would have been the end of it — unintentional offense, sincere apology, time for everyone to move on.”. I realize this is rhetorical, and that in particular YOU don’t think this anymore. Everyone should understand that this is not how such episodes are going to play out these days. Especially in an academic or media organization.
I hope that when these future UIC lawyers hang out their shingles, they make it clear that they can't handle bad words and mean people. As a potential client, I wouldn't want to inadvertently freak them out by describing a problem to them and expose myself to their legal rath. Since they have no problem repeating and embellishing the traumatic events that they couldn't have described to them.
I am guessing that Kinsinger is teeing up a run for President, which opens doors to VP or cabinet posts, even if he falls short. Not to mention punditry. No reason to waste time on the lame state GOP or an uphill run for state office, where a loss makes him look like a weak candidate.
The 'Canada must prepare' opinion piece was pretty funny. After 40 paragraphs of terrifying predictions of a fascist US, creating an existential crisis for Canada, his recommendation was to form a committee.
A couple thoughts regarding the UIC controversy involving Professor Kilbourn...
First, this is a classic example of the fascist tactics employed by the left to persecute anyone for any perceived slight or offense whether intended or not. And particularly by black leftists to militarize allegations of racism with which to bludgeon people and demand and end to their careers and reputation. And it is a further shameful display of capitulation by our institutions of higher learning out of terror of being labeled insufficiently woke.
Second, there needs to be a dose of reason injected into controversy over the use of the n-word. (Or am I now immediately branded a racist for daring to employ the term "n-word?) Wow presumably virtually everyone will readily agree this is an offensive term that hearkens from slavery, I am deeply offended by the bifurcation in the rules whereby non-blacks are strictly forbidden from ever employing the word in any way, but it remains in very common usage within the black community. It is commonly employed in rap music lyrics, and by many blacks in addressing each other. If the word is that offensive, it should simply be banned from use in all segments of our society. But to say that one group can speak a word and another group cannot with the groups defined solely by the color of their skin is in fact the very definition of racism.
Regarding Representative Kinzinger, of course those of you on the left adore him and see him as a man of high principle, similar to your high regard for Representative Liz Cheney and previously for Senator John McCain. Just so you know, we on the right similarly hold Senators Manchin and Sinema in the same high regard. Isn't it interesting how we find virtue in those who are instrumental in aiding our particular agenda? Just trying to help you see it both ways.
Finally, the case of Sullivan who murdered Sergeant Rittmanic certainly does give pause to many who in general oppose the death penalty in every instance. However, I believe there is another aspect to this tragic case which deserves consideration. Just speculation on my part, but I believe it is highly likely that Sullivan has a lengthy criminal record including repeated violent crimes and involving firearms. It begs the question - why was Sullivan and many other similar repeat violent offenders still out on the streets where they can harm and in this case murder a police sergeant? The social justice prosecutors like Kim Foxx who believe their primary objective is to reduce the number of offenders who are charged, prosecuted and incarcerated our instrumental in dangerous career criminals like this being on the street and harming others, instead of locked away from society where they belong. As I earlier caveat, I am at this point speculating on Sullivan's prior offense record, but it certainly fits the profile.
Eric, thanks for pulling this story back into the light.
Can you provide a link to an African American writer or commenter who is arguing for what you are arguing for here?
The UIC thing is absolutely enraging. I like to think that I would not have even issued that first apology. Apologies only validate the theory of the complaint. The complaint was outrageous. These are law students, "fer cryin' out loud!"
We must recognize that even when people are actually offended -- which I strongly doubt in this case; I think it's obvious pretend -- that doesn't mean that the person was right to take offense. A strict liability standard for offense taken, no matter how mistaken, irrational, outside the norms of social interaction, etc., would mean that nobody could ever say anything.
Shame on UIC Law. They should have supported Kilborn and should have told the protesters, in effect, "Nope, none of that, you're wrong, way out of line." The fact that that's unimaginable today is why these incidents keep happening.
Also, re Joe Fournier, I like Chris Jones, but I was dismayed to read his response to his firing on Rob Feder's blog: "We’re just trying now to include a multiplicity of voices (and cartoonists) on the opinion pages." Hmm. Was having two white guys do regular cartoons no longer tenable?
I applaud your tenacity and patience in reporting the details of this saga. However, you seem to expect human beings to be reasonable, rational, objective, and open-minded, which they often aren’t. And based on my experience in HR for 20+ years, lawyers are not the most effective approach in eliminating racism — enforcing the law doesn’t change hearts and minds, as evidenced in Heather Cox’s book, Hiw the South Won the Civil War. I recommend the book, Speaking of Race: Why Everybody Needs To Talk About Racism — And How To Do It, by Celeste Headlee.
So Kilborn submits to attending a re-education camp to keep his job. If he had any self respect he would resign and go teach someplace that isn't run like Oceania in 1984. Universities have become bastions of the truly cowardly and stupid. Thanks to Eric for giving exposure to this.
Since I'm not a person of color it could be argued that I'm not qualified to weigh in here. But while I think it's possible that there's a reasonable discussion to be had about the topic, the use of a term like "mental terrorism" is so histrionic that it shuts off that possibility. And I wonder how these future lawyers can learn to battle racial discrimination if they're not willing to discuss it with realistic context.
Eric, I found Jenny C's comments about your "dust up with Amy" profoundly enlightening to me. Her advise about the word/concept choice options available to make the same point coincides
with my concerns about communication of opinion and its effectiveness in being heard, as win-win versus win-lose. I find myself in often agreement with how you approach issues, and find your opinion landing spot. I've confirmed that with a paid subscription to PS. However, there are times when I "squint" a bit with how you speak to your conclusions. I personally suffer the same issues Jenny points out in her critique of your response to Ms Dickinson. As example, I frequently forward to my close family the Picayune, suggesting a deep read on things you opine on that make a point I want to talk more about. Occasionally, I find myself reframing your approach wording to get the conversation over the initial emotion that the reader has that never occurred to me. Up until this moment, the importance of that was not front of mind. I bring this up because in the times we live in, it seems so much of our discord goes unheard and constantly leaves us in discussions of who wins and who loses. The content of the Sentinel goes a long way in helping those of us who want to close the gap in our critical thinking and actions. Thanks
I find the saga of the UIC professor to be alarming.
As odious as it may be -- without a law degree to confuse the matter -- is this false justice? It appears to be a retaliatory, racially motivated social attack on Professor Kilborn, his character, and his job: Do his opponents’ mob-justice tactics assume that attacking Kilborn is a civil virtue? If so, that seems to carry an impression of injustice toward Kilborn, delivered by the affected students, faculty, and public. What does a common sense reading of the 1st Amendment say? The professor's use of racially charged language on the exam was (strategically?) condemned as "racist"; it may have been poor judgment, but was it in any sense truly illegal or was it just unpopular and uncivil? Is Kilborn subsequently abused in his job and his social image?
“ You’d think this would have been the end of it — unintentional offense, sincere apology, time for everyone to move on.”. I realize this is rhetorical, and that in particular YOU don’t think this anymore. Everyone should understand that this is not how such episodes are going to play out these days. Especially in an academic or media organization.
Regarding UIC, I wonder if this story would be pertinent when it’s time for their reaccreditation?
I hope that when these future UIC lawyers hang out their shingles, they make it clear that they can't handle bad words and mean people. As a potential client, I wouldn't want to inadvertently freak them out by describing a problem to them and expose myself to their legal rath. Since they have no problem repeating and embellishing the traumatic events that they couldn't have described to them.
I am guessing that Kinsinger is teeing up a run for President, which opens doors to VP or cabinet posts, even if he falls short. Not to mention punditry. No reason to waste time on the lame state GOP or an uphill run for state office, where a loss makes him look like a weak candidate.
I found the story of the professor at UIC very scary! Thank you for your insightful look at it.
The 'Canada must prepare' opinion piece was pretty funny. After 40 paragraphs of terrifying predictions of a fascist US, creating an existential crisis for Canada, his recommendation was to form a committee.
A couple thoughts regarding the UIC controversy involving Professor Kilbourn...
First, this is a classic example of the fascist tactics employed by the left to persecute anyone for any perceived slight or offense whether intended or not. And particularly by black leftists to militarize allegations of racism with which to bludgeon people and demand and end to their careers and reputation. And it is a further shameful display of capitulation by our institutions of higher learning out of terror of being labeled insufficiently woke.
Second, there needs to be a dose of reason injected into controversy over the use of the n-word. (Or am I now immediately branded a racist for daring to employ the term "n-word?) Wow presumably virtually everyone will readily agree this is an offensive term that hearkens from slavery, I am deeply offended by the bifurcation in the rules whereby non-blacks are strictly forbidden from ever employing the word in any way, but it remains in very common usage within the black community. It is commonly employed in rap music lyrics, and by many blacks in addressing each other. If the word is that offensive, it should simply be banned from use in all segments of our society. But to say that one group can speak a word and another group cannot with the groups defined solely by the color of their skin is in fact the very definition of racism.
Regarding Representative Kinzinger, of course those of you on the left adore him and see him as a man of high principle, similar to your high regard for Representative Liz Cheney and previously for Senator John McCain. Just so you know, we on the right similarly hold Senators Manchin and Sinema in the same high regard. Isn't it interesting how we find virtue in those who are instrumental in aiding our particular agenda? Just trying to help you see it both ways.
Finally, the case of Sullivan who murdered Sergeant Rittmanic certainly does give pause to many who in general oppose the death penalty in every instance. However, I believe there is another aspect to this tragic case which deserves consideration. Just speculation on my part, but I believe it is highly likely that Sullivan has a lengthy criminal record including repeated violent crimes and involving firearms. It begs the question - why was Sullivan and many other similar repeat violent offenders still out on the streets where they can harm and in this case murder a police sergeant? The social justice prosecutors like Kim Foxx who believe their primary objective is to reduce the number of offenders who are charged, prosecuted and incarcerated our instrumental in dangerous career criminals like this being on the street and harming others, instead of locked away from society where they belong. As I earlier caveat, I am at this point speculating on Sullivan's prior offense record, but it certainly fits the profile.
I'm surprised at UIC bowing to pressure, making Kilborn a political pariah.