[smallgovt]

I think it's important to note that nowhere in the article (nor anywhere else I can find) does it state that the professor was "suspended". Rather, it only says that the professor will "no longer be teaching this class for the remainder of the semester".

I think this is an important distinction because it leaves the door open to the possibility that: 1) the professor voluntarily stepped down 2) the professor will return after the semester is over 3) the professor is being paid during this leave and will suffer no real professional consequences.

In other words, there's a real possibility that the Dean had the following conversation with the professor: "Hey, I know this wasn't intentional on your part, but this is quickly becoming a PR nightmare and I'd like to nip it in the bud. Would you mind stepping down from your post for just this semester until this dies down and I can get a handle on it? This will make everyone's life easier & you'll still get paid anyways."

In this light, there's less reason to be outraged at the Dean.

[vanusa]

I think it's important to note that nowhere in the article (nor anywhere else I can find) does it state that the professor was "suspended".

The action was asymptotically close to a suspension (so in attempting to draw a distinction, you're basically splitting hairs).

In other words, there's a real possibility that the Dean had the following conversation with the professor:

More likely that conversation went like this:

"Hey, I know this wasn't intentional on your part, but this is quickly becoming a PR nightmare and I'd like to nip it in the bud. If we were to go by common sense and the basic ethical and intellectual principles this institution claims to uphold, we'd simply explain to the student that (being young and naive as they are) they're clearly jumping the gun and not seeing the forest for the trees -- and are doing themselves way, way, way more harm in delusionally believing themselves to have been 'microaggressed' by what happened, than by even the worst case version of what they fantasize as having happened. But that would require a modicum of ethical integrity and backbone on my own part, which, being the stuffed shirt that I am, you know I don't come even close to possessing. So to make my life simpler, would you mind taking the hit, stepping down from your post and basically allowing everyone to believe you were an insensitive ass (if not in fact an outright racist) for a while? BTW you'll still get paid - and this being USC, that's all anyone really expects you to care about anyways."

[ImprobableTruth]

Even if that was the case, have you actually read the letter? It alone is so ridiculous that it's worth condemning.

Hell, I think this bit does it alone:

"It is simply unacceptable for faculty to use words in class that can marginalize, hurt and harm the psychological safety of our students"

Like, what? Are they going to outright ban all foreign words that could potentially be misunderstood as offensive? Will Kant need a rebranding to be allowed in class again?

It's unbelievable ethnocentrism and the fact that they actually have the gall to claim that they're doing it as a part of addressing systemic racism has to be the cherry on top. This is literally the same line of thought that leads to asking others to anglicize their name because it is offensive.

[smallgovt]

I agree with you. My claim is that there's "less reason to be outraged at the Dean".

If the professor was executed for this, for most people, there's reason to go to war.

If the professor was fired, for most people, there's reason to be outraged.

If the professor was voluntarily placed on leave with pay, well, maybe you still find reason to be outraged, but less so than the aforementioned scenarios.

In any case, most people in this thread are assuming the professor was fired, and that's incorrect.

[unwoundmouse]

PR nightmare is a bit extreme. A few students emailed the dean is all. I feel as though in these situations, you have a moral obligation not to back down if you did nothing wrong. Otherwise the bounds of what one is allowed to say gradually erodes away. Sort of like the “first they came for...” poem

[anonu]

Completely disagree. The professor did nothing wrong and shouldn't have to take the fall for anyone.

It's ultimately a question of ethics if the scenario is as you play it out. Is it ethical to effectively declare your guilt when you are innocent.

[smallgovt]

We don't disagree on your point. I'm just pointing out that the degree of punishment enacted on the professor could be much less severe than most people are imagining.

[crc32]

I disagree with the assertion, prior to your edit, that the complaint was necessarily unwarranted.

But regardless, the reactions in the comments here are verging on hysterical - references to McCarthy, and even Stalin and Mao.