She was right to step down. Had she not, she should have been removed. She was in a leadership role for a culturally diverse graduate program - it’s not coincidence that the article author put a photo of the department grad students at the beginning of the article. She should have gotten to the bottom of why faculty were asking for students names - were they truly concerned about how well the grad students could serve as TAs because of English skills, or were they annoyed and discriminating. If volume was the issue - stick to that and that alone. Nonetheless, was a leader that would be expected to set the tone for the department for faculty and students (graduate and undergraduate). She was more than just a messenger and deserved to be “shot” for her actions.
Also, while I agree that many people send many foolish emails, the issue isn’t that “they shouldn’t put it in writing.” The issue is that they shouldn’t think or act in such ways. If someone has to fear putting their thoughts in writing or into words, it’s the thoughts that are the real problem; the writing or the words just reveal and document their biases and get them in trouble (appropriately).
According to the article, faculty members were concerned that they might have communication problems with some students working with them on their research. Whether or not it is a legitimate concern may be a tangential issue.
Faculty can figure out pretty quickly what the English skills are of a student they are considering working with. All they have to do is have a conversation.
Your link requires a registration, @1NJParent. Is there another link?
@mathmom - I am just sharing what they said was the reason the profs felt some of the students might not be good candidates for their lab. They seemed to be claiming that the students could improve their English if they spoke it more frequently, which may be true to some extent. And in a person’s lab, can they require the students to speak to each other in English when the professor is in there so the professor understands the discussion? That might not be unreasonable. Would it be reasonable to consider one equally qualified candidate over another if one’s communication skills in English are better than the other’s?
To me, the meta message seemed to be that the faculty members whose offices were near the main kitchen/lounge where the students were hanging out (instead of the student kitchen/lounge) and were being disturbed by the loud conversations were annoyed by the students who seemed to not be responding to previous requests to be quieter or use the other kitchen/lounge. These faculty members and the chair should have met with the involved students privately to address the issue. If that had already occurred previously (don’t know) and the students chose to continue their behavior and ignore the faculty members’ requests, thats another story.
I read this as using the profs’ threat as an example of how they could be perceived by not speaking English, not as something that actually happened. She’s a poor writer, but one that appears to be honestly trying to guide the students around potential pitfalls. This isn’t racist so much as clumsy and naive (and ironic if you consider her warning on poorly considered communication to be her downfall.) When you’re at the office you’re going to be examined in that context, and the student lounge in the dept is just like one at any other workplace. There are people who will judge them, fairly or unfairly, and as the director of the program she was just helping them keep their guard up to avoid negative consequences in the future.
However, the fact that she’s done the same sort of thing before and still can’t get the email right is probably a sign that she needs to be moved away from leadership. She’s probably a fine teacher, but leading requires different skills and clear communication is one of them.
@damon30 - what are your thoughts on the article and the issue being discussed? Appreciate the apology @damon30 for perhaps misreading/not reading the article (?) and accusing the thread title of being inflammatory and misleading, when it was merely referencing the article in discussion. Maybe this is an example of the benefits of good communication
@StPaulDad - I believe the article said they were not in the student lounge (as perhaps they should have been) but were in some main lounge, that was closer/within earshot of the professors’ offices. Perhaps the previous recommendation that they use the student lounge was too subtle and not understood as meaning it was probably more than a polite suggestion. Maybe the faculty should have been clearer; maybe the communication issues were part of the problem. In my day, opportunities to work in and/or get funded by a professors research lab were prized situations, and the professor was free to select who they thought was the best fit for their lab, and they likely took many variables into consideration- not just subject matter knowledge.
@jym626 The site is free but does require registration, unfortunately. And AFAIK, it doesn’t spam.
On the issue itself, there’s clearly some insensitivity involved on both sides. Whatever language they use, students should have kept their voices down near professors’ offices. The former director should have just put out a sign in the lounge asking anyone there not to talk in loud voices and I’m sure these students would have complied. It’s just an etiquette issue, at least originally. Etiquette varies from culture to culture.
Email itself clearly shows insensitivity, and perhaps some bias, but I wouldn’t call it racism without further evidences. The actions of the other two professors, if they were true (I’m not convinced that they weren’t made up), are certainly more troubling.
Why would she make up the actions of the other professors? Can’t imagine she would put herself in that situation. Agree that a sign in the kitchen/common area would have been a good start.
@jym626 If that’s the case then it reinforces the point that she was trying to make: if you’re at work then be aware that others will be watching and judging you. This really feels like a poor job of communicating and some clickbait coverage, which is not typical of the BBC.
What are you referring to, @StPaulDad ? The idea that a sign to remind people to keep volume down in the common area means people are “watching/judging you” or the fact that the faculty members are annoyed by some students failing to be mindful that their volume is disturbing others. If they have been asked previously to hold it down and/or use the other kitchen/lounge and they have ignored this request, then yes, maybe they are being judged a bit. Someone upthread said different cultures have different thoughts about what is considered “polite behavior” (or words to that effect). Perhaps that underscores the importance of being clear with what they are asking/telling students to do.
The fact that the 2 professors were mentioned and wanted the offending students names so as to be mindful of them when selecting research assistants (or what have you) was incredibly stupid and unnecessary. Its likely that its easy to figure out whose offices are near the lounge, and AKA who is complaining, and thereby those professors would in turn be judged as well. Maybe grad students wont want to work in their labs. The consequences can go both ways.
@jym626 I wsa responding to “I believe the article said they were not in the student lounge (as perhaps they should have been) but were in some main lounge, that was closer/within earshot of the professors’ offices.”
Wonder how many times these professors might have asked students in the lounge to keep the volume down. This should have been the issue, and the only issue- that students should use the student lounge/kitchen and keep their voices down so as not to disturb others. Period.
Something similar happened in my office (all English speakers) where a coworker complained about two others because they were “too loud.” I sit in the same area and have had no problems with the “loud” coworkers. The accused said that the complainer always felt left out of their conversations and would try to eavesdrop when they spoke quietly. My point is that some people do get offended if they can’t hear/understand everything that’s going on.
I’m not sure that, taken at face value, the email is racist. If it were, I would think that ALL Asian students would be left out of opportunities rather than the students identified. However, there may be some undercurrents of racism that extend beyond the email, and we aren’t privy to that information. If the other faculty members are not figments of Neely’s imagination, then that is a far greater problem. But, regardless, the email is definitely insensitive, and the problem(s) should have been handled face-to-face to gauge nonverbal feedback.
^LOL @SatchelSF . In my field we refer to the difference between one’s inside voice and one’s outside voice. What you think vs. what you say. There are certainly instances where what one thinks is completely justified, but what they say outward needs to be tempered diplomatically.
