More Race and PC problems at Harvard

[Seventh Pup]

Yes.

So do you think that racism doesn't exist? Or that it is not harmful if it does?

[Solmyr]

So do you think that racism doesn't exist? Or that it is not harmful if it does?

I dislike going into the whole racism topic,

nor being dragged into it.

[Guest Raidne]

I think the leak of this email and subsequent maligning of this student should really be actionable in tort. To me, it does seem like a huge privacy violation. Unfortunately, and I'm not sure, but I don't think she has the option of pursuing defamation charges because it's clearly true that she said those things. Nevertheless they are clearly being taken out of context and blown out of proportion. I think there is some little-known tort/privacy cause of action that would apply to this, but I can't remember exactly what it is.

Anyway, apparently I think leaking the email was completely wrong, since I seem to think doing so should be illegal in some cases.

ETA: I also think that people should be able to have an honest conversation and free exchange of ideas about whatever in a private context, but that public figures like Summers should be more cognizant of the implications of their positions. I also think academic papers should be able to address whatever subject the author wants, but that the authors of the Bell Curve were a little unseemingly in their publicity blitz and capitalization on racial tension.

[Seventh Pup]

I agree with the above.

If it is true that this email became public knowledge because of some "love triangle" as the original post implies, I also think this is a serious invasion of privacy and that giving it a lot of media attention is simply wrong. The media (or Harvard) shouldn't be getting involved in helping a spurned lover get back at a private citizen, no matter what the opinions involved are. By paying attention to this, people are implicity saying that they think it's OK to live in a world where anybody's private communications are fair game for becoming tabloid fodder. I really don't want to live in such a world myself.

I do. Though I guess I would need a better description of what OK is to you.

I will say it again I think this was really tacky. I also think that this should not cost the woman her job.

However I do think things like freedom of speech, and freedom of press (the right of who ever forwarded the email, the right of who ever posted the email) are more important in this case then the right of the person who sent the email is to privacy. That is not saying that people now have the right to harass or threaten the author of the email.

But the freedom to share information is one of the things that make this country great even though it comes at a price. Again if this email had been leaked in an official manner it's a game changer. But by private citizens it's an expression of their freedom.

I also think it was appropriate for the Dean to comment of this. Of course it would have been better if the email had been kept private, but the fact is that it wasn't. It was garnering a lot of attention and for the dean to pretend that it didn't exist would in my mind be inappropriate.

nor being dragged into it.

Which make your post on this thread confusing. If you don't like discussing racism why did you?

[Datepalm]

However I do think things like freedom of speech, and freedom of press (the right of who ever forwarded the email, the right of who ever posted the email) are more important in this case then the right of the person who sent the email is to privacy. That is not saying that people now have the right to harass or threaten the author of the email.

That seems a bit contradictory - its ok for private correspondance to come out in public, but its not ok for anyone to act on the information that it contains? I mean, either there was information there that it was somehow important for the public to know, more important than her right to privacy, or there wasn't.

[Happy Ent]

I also think academic papers should be able to address whatever subject the author wants, but that the authors of the Bell Curve were a little unseemingly in their publicity blitz and capitalization on racial tension.

Could you expand on that? The chapter about race and intelligence are chapters 13 and 14 in the book. Do you feel that Herrnstein and Murray drew too much attention to those chapters in the post-release publicity? (I have no idea about the publication history of that book.)

I had the feeling, at least from Murray’s later work, that in retrospect he’d have been happy to leave those chapters out of the book because of the attention they gained, and the ensuing skew of focus. I could be wrong.

[Happy Ent]

I do not understand the Larry Summers reference in the original email could someone more knowledgable explain it to me?

That would probably derail the thread. I linked to Summer’s Wikipedia article upthread. If you want more, just google “summers controversy.”

[IheartTesla]

She should just have walked down the street and talked with Pinker who would have given his opinion: that the genetic gap between whites and blacks in the US does not have a genetic component. And human beings are violent....(this is my opinion now) if you correct for socioeconomic factors a lot of the differences between various groups melts away to a significant extent.

But apart from that, this whole diclosure of e-mail business is really tawdry. I'm not sure what the Dean was thinking either.

[DrownedCrow]

I think the leak of this email and subsequent maligning of this student should really be actionable in tort. To me, it does seem like a huge privacy violation. Unfortunately, and I'm not sure, but I don't think she has the option of pursuing defamation charges because it's clearly true that she said those things. Nevertheless they are clearly being taken out of context and blown out of proportion. I think there is some little-known tort/privacy cause of action that would apply to this, but I can't remember exactly what it is.

I really hope that's true. The cowardice and hypocrisy with which institutions such as Harvard approach the issue of freedom of speech never ceases to amaze me.

[Seventh Pup]

That seems a bit contradictory - its ok for private correspondance to come out in public, but its not ok for anyone to act on the information that it contains?

Yes, I do not understand where the contradiction is. Its okay to share information; unless there is a relationship the expressly forbids sharing of information such a doctor, lawyer, etc. That doesn't make it okay to threaten someone. It's should be legal to one, not legal to do the other.

I mean, either there was information there that it was somehow important for the public to know, more important than her right to privacy, or there wasn't.

But who decides what is and what is not important? Should all conversation between friends be treated like state secrets?

ETA

That would probably derail the thread. I linked to Summer’s Wikipedia article upthread. If you want more, just google “summers controversy.”

I actually started to read it but my mind is bit mush at the moment. I was hoping for a quick one or two line explanation from someone, but if it will derail the thread I will wait until I am more rested to read up on it.

[Altherion]

I think thats the aspect i'm finding squickiest, to be honest, and i'm bothered by the collapse of the distinction between public and private life. Employers checking out employees facebook photos is apparently already legit, now maliciously leaked emails about random conversations are too? What next, dinner conversations themselves? Be careful what jokes you make becuase someone is listening? Its all a bit totalitarian.

That was the first thing that came to my mind. Did you know that Harvard used to be referred to as "Kremlin on the Charles" during the Cold War? It's a joke, but there is some truth to it.

I do not understand the Larry Summers reference in the original email could someone more knowledgable explain it to me?

She is referring to the fact that Larry Summers (who was then president of Harvard) made some comments about how the differences between the numbers of men and women in higher math and sciences that depend heavily on higher math may be genetic rather than cultural. The comments were widely publicized and this (among with many other things) got him kicked out. Don't worry about him though, he went on to bigger and better things.

[Ormond]

Yes, I do not understand where the contradiction is. Its okay to share information; unless there is a relationship the expressly forbids sharing of information such a doctor, lawyer, etc. That doesn't make it okay to threaten someone. It's should be legal to one, not legal to do the other.

I am not sure whether or not it is practical to make this illegal. I'll leave that for lawyers like Raidne to figure out.

However, there are plenty of things which I think are immoral and unethical which it would be impractical or wrong to make illegal. "Legal" and "morally right" are not synonyms. Whether or not publishing this email is legal, I still think it was morally wrong to do it.

[Seventh Pup]

I am not sure whether or not it is practical to make this illegal. I'll leave that for lawyers like Raidne to figure out.

However, there are plenty of things which I think are immoral and unethical which it would be impractical or wrong to make illegal. "Legal" and "morally right" are not synonyms. Whether or not publishing this email is legal, I still think it was morally wrong to do it.

I agree. Not everything that is immoral should be illegal. I think it was that it was repugnant of who ever forwarded this email to have done so.

To better clarify my stance… I feel like there should always very compelling reasons to suppress information. I also do believe strongly in a persons right to privacy.

However in this case the woman was not recorded with out her knowledge. She knowingly provided someone with a hard copy of information, giving them the power to then share the information. Which they did. That makes them a vile friend and a jerk, but I still think they had more of a right to share it, then she did to privacy at that point.

[Guest Raidne]

However I do think things like freedom of speech, and freedom of press (the right of who ever forwarded the email, the right of who ever posted the email) are more important in this case then the right of the person who sent the email is to privacy. That is not saying that people now have the right to harass or threaten the author of the email.

See, here's the thing for me - there's a great analysis to slap on this issue in the defamation context, but here it doesn't really apply because it's true that the person said those things. I think. I could be wrong about this.

At any rate, it works like this: public figures really have hardly any privacy rights against freedom of speech. Hence Larry Flynt's cartoon implying that Jerry Falwell has sex with his mother or whatever is fine. And then, beyond that, some people are public figures for a limited purpose. The President of a school board is a public figure for school issues. So, you know, if you were a victim of a terrorist attack, say, and said something incredibly offensive about Muslims, it would be okay to publish that because you're a public figure for that purpose. Freedom of speech trumps privacy. But people can't speculate in an untrue and offensive manner about your sex life in a newspaper because you became famous due to being a victim of a terrorist attack.

I think we should just extend that rule a little bit more, so that an email is private when the person is not a public figure on that issue. The President of Harvard is a public figure, both generally and particularly on these types of issues given his interaction with race-based issues in that position. And Larry Summers will always be a public figure in regard to gender issues, and, probably, generally. But this random law student is a private person, and her private emails shouldn't be broadcast anymore than people should record her private phone conversations without her knowledge or permission on subjects for which her personal opinion has no larger public significance.

The more I think about it, it has to be illegal, because reporters can't do that. Ugh, I wish my computer wasn't on the fritz and I could access my notes.

Could you expand on that? The chapter about race and intelligence are chapters 13 and 14 in the book. Do you feel that Herrnstein and Murray drew too much attention to those chapters in the post-release publicity? (I have no idea about the publication history of that book.)

I had the feeling, at least from Murray’s later work, that in retrospect he’d have been happy to leave those chapters out of the book because of the attention they gained, and the ensuing skew of focus. I could be wrong.

Oh well, in all fairness, now that you mention it, it was no doubt at the behest of the publisher, I'm sure. So I guess I should say the publisher was unseemly about sensationalizing the racial aspects of the book.

However, there are plenty of things which I think are immoral and unethical which it would be impractical or wrong to make illegal. "Legal" and "morally right" are not synonyms. Whether or not publishing this email is legal, I still think it was morally wrong to do it.

To elaborate on this, philosophy of law is a subset of moral philosophy. So, the law should always be moral, or the law is bad, but there are things that are unethical that the law certainly shouldn't get into, certainly. Or, you could say, there are things that it would be immoral for the law to get into, because of privacy concerns, etc., if you see privacy as a moral issue.

Whether something should be illegal in civil law would basically center around whether the person faced some kind of tangible damages because of the unethical act committed against her. And certainly she did. And then I, at least, think, we should also ask whether it's practical to have law on that issue, or if any generally applicable rule would be over and/or underinclusive. That's probably the concern here? It's valid. Privacy/free speech conflicts are nuanced, unpredictable, and expensive to litigate.

At the same time, I'd still be on Board because this person's livelihood and reputation really was incredibly damaged by a repugnant violation of their privacy motivated by malice.

Oh, any by the way, even if the person IS a public figure, you can still win a defamation suit if you can show actual malice, so the motive is definitely relevant also.

[Datepalm]

Yes, I do not understand where the contradiction is. Its okay to share information; unless there is a relationship the expressly forbids sharing of information such a doctor, lawyer, etc. That doesn't make it okay to threaten someone. It's should be legal to one, not legal to do the other.

But who decides what is and what is not important? Should all conversation between friends be treated like state secrets?

Well....somewhat, yes. Ok, if Alice tells Betty she dosen't like black people* and then Betty tells Cindy what Alice said and Cindy decides to stop being Alices friend, thats fine, but neither of them have any right to go tell Alice's boss, since if Alice showed up to a job interview making racist comments, we would expect and possibly demand that the boss take them into consideration. You can't put out private information and expect it to not change the way people act towards a person, or there wouldn't be a point to privacy.

*I don't think that this is whats implied by the original letter, btw.

ETA-reading the linked article more closely, it was a mass email, to everyone at the dinner. I suppose it might depend on the exact nature of the dinner, but that could be more of a public statement.

[kairparavel]

I agree. Not everything that is immoral should be illegal. I think it was that it was repugnant of who ever forwarded this email to have done so.

To better clarify my stance… I feel like there should always very compelling reasons to suppress information. I also do believe strongly in a person’s right to privacy.

However in this case the woman was not recorded with out her knowledge. She knowingly provided someone with a hard copy of information, giving them the power to then share the information. Which they did. That makes them a vile friend and a jerk, but I still think they had more of a right to share it, then she did to privacy at that point.

You're essentially saying that people have the right to privacy, as long as they don't share anything with anyone.

She wrote an email to one person. She didn't broadcast it over the Harvard network, or post her thoughts on a discussion board. How does this become the receiver's right to share? Every email, every conversation, every mumble is public domain? Everything said in haste, or under duress or under the influence is fair game to be broadcast to a much wider audience than it was intended, just because we have the means to do so? That is repugnant. At what point do people just stop talking to each other, because they can't trust the people they're talking to? Even if she had said let's keep this to ourselves or something to that effect, given the spiteful circumstances of it's forwarding, it still most likely might have happened. This is the country you want to live in? You're really ok with that? I hope you never make a en errant communication gaffe.

[Tempra]

Wow, i'll be honest, when I wrote this email last night I didn't expect this reception. I'm very happy to eat my words on this one.

The part that I find very dangerous, besides the invasion of privacy aspect, is how reliant people were on a single email. As Professor Orin Kerr stated:

The problem is that individual e-mails generally are not freestanding. They are snippets of an ongoing conversation, and that conversation normally will have a context. As outsiders, though, we just don’t know the context. We don’t know the ongoing conversation; we don’t know the person’s background; we don’t know what assumptions were being made that were a part of the e-mail we’re seeing. We don’t know what other e-mails were sent that might clarify or apologize for an earlier statement. We don’t know the sender’s state of mind. And when it comes to an e-mail sent right after dinner, we also don’t know how much they had to drink at dinner that night. All we have is that one snippet that is the single e-mail.

Anyways, she is very lucky that she will be clerking for Judge Kozinski who is an outspoken supporter of free speech.

[Tempra]

ETA-reading the linked article more closely, it was a mass email, to everyone at the dinner. I suppose it might depend on the exact nature of the dinner, but that could be more of a public statement.

.

I don't think we know whether that email was to 2 or 500 people. From what I have read, it was a private gathering and not part of any public function. Even if it was a larger party, she may have discussed it with the 3-8 people sitting next to her at dinner. Regardless, apparently it wasn't objectionable until 6 months after the fact.

[kairparavel]

I don't think we know whether that email was to 2 or 500 people. From what I have read, it was a private gathering and not part of any public function. Even if it was a larger party, she may have discussed it with the 3-8 people sitting next to her at dinner. Regardless, apparently it wasn't objectionable until 6 months after the fact.

It was a private dinner conversation among three friends. The topic: affirmative action and race. The debate presumably was passionate, given the divergent opinions of the Harvard Law School students. [...] The lengthy e-mail, sent to her two dinner companions six months ago, ignited an Internet firestorm this week when it was leaked and first reported Wednesday by the legal blog abovethelaw.com, followed by other websites.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/04/30/e_mail_on_race_sparks_a_furor_at_harvard_law/

So it was addressed to two people, not one, as I had mistakenly thought. But one, two, ten, it still doesn't change what I originally said.

The final statement of the linked article:

In her statement yesterday, Minow called the incident “sad and unfortunate’’ but said she was heartened by the student’s apology. She added: “We seek to encourage freedom of expression, but freedom of speech should be accompanied by responsibility.’’

How about a little responsibility exhibited by the person who made this private email public domain?

[Happy Ent]

Oh well, in all fairness, now that you mention it, it was no doubt at the behest of the publisher, I'm sure. So I guess I should say the publisher was unseemly about sensationalizing the racial aspects of the book.

I’d never heard of that. All I can find on the net is part of the the publisher’s blurb on the 1st edition, which doesn’t even mention race. (The paperback, published after the book “exploded”, does mention ethnicity in the publisher’s description.)