Show of Hands

That's simply not true at all.

I wondered that, too. I'll have to look up the actual article because obviously there's more to the story than the pic and headline tell us.

This looks like the article in the photo. www.thefederalistpapers.org/education-2/this-ucla-professor-called-racist-for-the-horrible-thing-he-did-to-a-black-student

I don't think this article specifies what the "corrections" were. I did some googling and found other articles that listed only one specific correction; the professor specified that "Indigenous" should not be capitalized. This is why I side with the professor, although I'd really like to see other examples of exactly what he corrected, and maybe more importantly, *how* - that is, did he appear to be racist in his *remarks* about the corrections.

There was also an instance of a methodology a student wanted to use (feminism something something), which he apparently doesn't feel is valid. He stated outright that he handled the situation poorly, so apparently he acknowledges at least ruffling some feathers over that.

Here's another article about it, that has some more details.
www.examiner.com/article/professor-accused-of-racism-for-correcting-grammar-capitalization

Again, I'm not convinced by what I've managed to find that the professor was intentionally racist in his actions or comments. I just think that the situation is nowhere near as simplistic as claiming that it's students were saying it's racist to correct the grammar etc. of a minority student. That's just flat-out wrong, and presents an entirely idiotic picture, which people who don't look farther will carry in their heads as what minorities think.

Yes, there is more to it than a link image can convey. This gives a fair view from both sides – but I still side with the professor.

www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/11/25/ucla-grad-students-stage-sit-during-class-protest-what-they-see-racially-hostile

Thank you! That's an extremely helpful article. It goes into the issue much more deeply than any of the news bits I managed to find, and it seems to be pretty fair to both sides.

That's the kind of thing I had been looking for, as I poked through links in various news pieces, but I just didn't turn it up. As it was, I pretty much had to read between the lines of what I found.

I'm confused.. Why is this suddenly in the news when the article posted is dated 2014?

I don't even know that it's in the news *now,*, and the original story is *over* two years old. Two of the links in this thread (suppressed's and my 2nd one) show the incidents occurred at least as far back as Nov. 2013. The article I linked to first (which is the same one in the poll's link to an imgur photo) doesn't have a date I can find, but mentions that it "happened over a year ago but the story is only now going viral." Which makes it sound as if *that* article itself is at least a year old.

I'm not sure why it's being brought up now (especially without an update so we could see if things got resolved somehow), except, well, to agitate a bit.

Yeah, I saw it on Reddit and assumed that it was in the news now, hence the confusion. Still odd that it just now seems to be a big deal.