Like I said, I think she is less at fault than the professors that seek to target students for speaking a foreign language in a lounge/break room. If anything, her crime is enabling intolerance; she is not protecting anyone by sending this e-mail while not taking any steps to address the discriminatory attitudes of the professors in the department (there is not an invisible "they," faculty members actually complained to her directly). This is not an either-or scenario, this is more about the method chosen to address the situation; rather than treat the students' behavior as the problem to address, the behavior of these professors should be the thing to address. Nonetheless, she might welcome going back to regular work because most people hate the position of program director or department head as it usually involves listening to other faculty members whine/complain... like about hearing students speaking a foreign language and wanting to blacklist them.
I agree with most of what you said but I disagree with there not being an evil "they". If there were no nameless faceless "they" then those professors wouldn't have felt comfortable enough to approach her about those students and assimilating a list. That shows that the "evil they" environment exists. Sure, you can put a name and a face to "some" of them... but definitely not all of them...
You are right though, yes, those professors are definitely at fault but where I hedge and waiver on is what the professor could have actually done...
Bear with me, my thoughts on this subject are unrefined as this will be my first attempt trying to articulate them. So I'll be raw and honest. I'll also make some assumptions and deductions.
Lets assume that this professor-- Neely-- is not racist and wants the best for her students. I also assume that there is a culture of discrimination but the discrimination has more to do with "assimilation" than it does race. As long as you assimilate you are fine, but if you don't then the discrimination kicks in in the form of a blacklist and glass ceiling.
This culture/atmosphere/environment is systemic and amorphous, it has no singular leader or focal point, it is just kinda there in one of those "always been here will always be here" states of being.
How can Neely fight that? Changing this sort of culture takes time and societal pressure (which has been happening) but what about her students in the here and now? Similarly, how much risk to her career and standings should Neely accept? Should she be willing to get ostracized by her peers? Should she charge in to board meetings like a rampaging gorilla blasting everyone for their wrongful views? Or should she try to gently and subtly change the environment over time with a nudge here and a nudge there as the opportunities arise?
What about trying to help the students in another way? What about giving them a warning and letting them know the situation and offering solutions to protect themselves?
In the end, I don't like the end result here. I would assume there are other non-racist types within this system and all of these types have now seen what happens when you try to "help". So next time something happens, what's the likelihood of non-racists getting involved knowing that just getting involved will probably be the end of their careers as it was for Neely?
that is what I'm uneasy about. Ultimately, Neely tried to help and in return she is getting flamed, blamed, and punished. So how likely is it that the next person will help when they see something wrong?
