Jessica Krug

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I'm going with sociopath or flat out opportunist who needs attention. Her avenue just happened to be US minority-majority politics and social policies.

I was kind of hoping this was a cascading event, where she told one small lie years ago that just snowballed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I'm going with sociopath or flat out opportunist who needs attention. Her avenue just happened to be US minority-majority politics and social policies.

I was kind of hoping this was a cascading event, where she told one small lie years ago that just snowballed.

I think it’s funny someone asks why these lies weren’t revealed on “background checks.” Background checks are when you’ve broken the law. She didn’t do that with the exception of lying on forms and wouldn’t be flagged by a background check.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This scenario feels so Trump’y in its grifter’ness.

She got away with it for so long because white people are the ones who decide who gets tenure, hold the grant purse strings, etc. You think any white person wanted to be the one who said “Hey, we don’t think you’re a real Latina”? No. It was easier to go along to get along. If anything, white people in academic administration were incentivized to hire her because she checked the boxes. The people incident really displays how white academic administration is and how it also needs to diversify.

Most rational people who want to pass as another race/ethnicity would do it quietly. What does she do? She continually doubles down and becomes more egregious. The ridiculous, exaggerated fake accent. Makeup to darken her skin tone. The awful hair dye. Dressing provocatively in a stereotypical manner of an NYC Latina “from the hood.” She leaned into it, trying to get attention and push the boundaries of decency. It feels so Trump-like in its audacity. She was basically trolling polite people to call her out in an effort to paint herself as a victim.

It would not surprise me at all if this woman held hard-right conservative political views and was doing this to just troll POC in academia. It’s too nefarious.

Nope. I ran in some overlapping circles in social media and she seemed to be a true believer. She was a radical and did this on purpose. Heck, she wrote books that demonstrated a sophisticated analysis of these issues. This was deceptive but she actually is smart and sophisticated and a good writer and academic. Let's have a sophisticated conversation about race and deception and why, but she wasn't a Trump style grifter.

So, she is smart and added legitimate content and other contributions to academia in this area, correct?

Had she not lied about her roots, she would have been hailed as a talented academic and author, right?

Did she lie because it was impossible for a white lady to have a voice in African American history and racial justice? If so, what does that say about the US?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This scenario feels so Trump’y in its grifter’ness.

She got away with it for so long because white people are the ones who decide who gets tenure, hold the grant purse strings, etc. You think any white person wanted to be the one who said “Hey, we don’t think you’re a real Latina”? No. It was easier to go along to get along. If anything, white people in academic administration were incentivized to hire her because she checked the boxes. The people incident really displays how white academic administration is and how it also needs to diversify.

Most rational people who want to pass as another race/ethnicity would do it quietly. What does she do? She continually doubles down and becomes more egregious. The ridiculous, exaggerated fake accent. Makeup to darken her skin tone. The awful hair dye. Dressing provocatively in a stereotypical manner of an NYC Latina “from the hood.” She leaned into it, trying to get attention and push the boundaries of decency. It feels so Trump-like in its audacity. She was basically trolling polite people to call her out in an effort to paint herself as a victim.

It would not surprise me at all if this woman held hard-right conservative political views and was doing this to just troll POC in academia. It’s too nefarious.

Nope. I ran in some overlapping circles in social media and she seemed to be a true believer. She was a radical and did this on purpose. Heck, she wrote books that demonstrated a sophisticated analysis of these issues. This was deceptive but she actually is smart and sophisticated and a good writer and academic. Let's have a sophisticated conversation about race and deception and why, but she wasn't a Trump style grifter.

So, she is smart and added legitimate content and other contributions to academia in this area, correct?

Had she not lied about her roots, she would have been hailed as a talented academic and author, right?

Did she lie because it was impossible for a white lady to have a voice in African American history and racial justice? If so, what does that say about the US?

I'm the PP who ran in similar circles. I know a white woman who has done well as a historian who focuses on African American history. I think she could have made it work. But there was something about African American culture she wanted to be part of and something about her own background she hated. Also, in order to hold your head high as an academic who came of age in the 90s, it's a heck of a lot easier to be a woman of color. I do indeed think there's a thing about "White women should sit down" happening.

Also, this article:
https://www.theroot.com/a-white-woman-admits-shes-been-rachel-dolezal-ing-us-fo-1844947838?fbclid=IwAR15mW9cwrjTpIqSSh27cWMzU3gx9psRWv2KCy-F5GxwPMtbFKXgrINhb4A

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, so what if she pretended to be black? It may be considered offensive to some people, but she is far from the only one doing this, Kardashians anyone?! Obviously, she has some deep seated issues, and I find it sad more than anything. She didn’t commit a crime, yes, she lied, but who really cares?

Everyone constantly calls out the Kardashians for cultural appropriation. And they don’t even pretend they’re black - just pick and choose what they like from the culture while talking about their Armenian heritage.

This woman’s actions have taken opportunities from actual minorities.

This. Her faculty position was a diversity spot. She's also won awards meant for POC.

Ok, so what do you suggest? Jail time?

PP. She should lose her ill-gotten tenured faculty position, for starters.

Fine, then just leave her alone. Let her move on and get the help she obviously needs. No point in bullying her.

Oh please, this woman’s an obvious sociopath. She’s probably lying about the mental illness and childhood trauma too. She was writing pieces online pretending to be a black Latina right up until she was about to be exposed earlier this week.

Ok...so what should the consequences be? Fire her. Should she pay a hefty fine? Community service? House arrest? Jail time? Or should we just bully her indefinitely?

She should be removed from her tenure track job, of course, and be forced to pay back any grants she received.

She should be charged with fraud for knowingly applying for and using grants and scholarships that were meant for Black people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, so what if she pretended to be black? It may be considered offensive to some people, but she is far from the only one doing this, Kardashians anyone?! Obviously, she has some deep seated issues, and I find it sad more than anything. She didn’t commit a crime, yes, she lied, but who really cares?

Everyone constantly calls out the Kardashians for cultural appropriation. And they don’t even pretend they’re black - just pick and choose what they like from the culture while talking about their Armenian heritage.

This woman’s actions have taken opportunities from actual minorities.

This. Her faculty position was a diversity spot. She's also won awards meant for POC.

Ok, so what do you suggest? Jail time?

PP. She should lose her ill-gotten tenured faculty position, for starters.

Fine, then just leave her alone. Let her move on and get the help she obviously needs. No point in bullying her.

Oh please, this woman’s an obvious sociopath. She’s probably lying about the mental illness and childhood trauma too. She was writing pieces online pretending to be a black Latina right up until she was about to be exposed earlier this week.

Ok...so what should the consequences be? Fire her. Should she pay a hefty fine? Community service? House arrest? Jail time? Or should we just bully her indefinitely?

I thought she had tenure?

People with tenure can absolutely be fired.

[Anonymous]

People with tenure can definitely be fired. Particularly if this is considered gaining tenure under false pretenses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I'm going with sociopath or flat out opportunist who needs attention. Her avenue just happened to be US minority-majority politics and social policies.

I was kind of hoping this was a cascading event, where she told one small lie years ago that just snowballed.

I think it’s funny someone asks why these lies weren’t revealed on “background checks.” Background checks are when you’ve broken the law. She didn’t do that with the exception of lying on forms and wouldn’t be flagged by a background check.

I think what they mean is how did this not get caught in reference checks, or even through the grapevine, given that these sorts of circles are very small and it’s commonly understood that a person’s professional person and online image may not contain their true reputation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People with tenure can definitely be fired. Particularly if this is considered gaining tenure under false pretenses.

+1 - it’s not the crime that gets ya fired but the coverup ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't we decide in another thread that race is a socially construct, like gender, and you can decide what race you belong to (like Obama, or Elizabeth Warren).

Precisely. So many people are just LARP-ing these days. Affirmative action provides an incentive. People respond to incentives. Now please pass the Pow Wow Chow!

You are gross.

[Anonymous]

How is it that her childhood friends or her family in particular did not out her previously. In this day and age you would think with as public an image as she had somebody would have exposed that she grew up in KS - not NY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This scenario feels so Trump’y in its grifter’ness.

She got away with it for so long because white people are the ones who decide who gets tenure, hold the grant purse strings, etc. You think any white person wanted to be the one who said “Hey, we don’t think you’re a real Latina”? No. It was easier to go along to get along. If anything, white people in academic administration were incentivized to hire her because she checked the boxes. The people incident really displays how white academic administration is and how it also needs to diversify.

Most rational people who want to pass as another race/ethnicity would do it quietly. What does she do? She continually doubles down and becomes more egregious. The ridiculous, exaggerated fake accent. Makeup to darken her skin tone. The awful hair dye. Dressing provocatively in a stereotypical manner of an NYC Latina “from the hood.” She leaned into it, trying to get attention and push the boundaries of decency. It feels so Trump-like in its audacity. She was basically trolling polite people to call her out in an effort to paint herself as a victim.

It would not surprise me at all if this woman held hard-right conservative political views and was doing this to just troll POC in academia. It’s too nefarious.

Nope. I ran in some overlapping circles in social media and she seemed to be a true believer. She was a radical and did this on purpose. Heck, she wrote books that demonstrated a sophisticated analysis of these issues. This was deceptive but she actually is smart and sophisticated and a good writer and academic. Let's have a sophisticated conversation about race and deception and why, but she wasn't a Trump style grifter.

So, she is smart and added legitimate content and other contributions to academia in this area, correct?

Had she not lied about her roots, she would have been hailed as a talented academic and author, right?

Did she lie because it was impossible for a white lady to have a voice in African American history and racial justice? If so, what does that say about the US?

I'm the PP who ran in similar circles. I know a white woman who has done well as a historian who focuses on African American history. I think she could have made it work. But there was something about African American culture she wanted to be part of and something about her own background she hated. Also, in order to hold your head high as an academic who came of age in the 90s, it's a heck of a lot easier to be a woman of color. I do indeed think there's a thing about "White women should sit down" happening.

Also, this article:
https://www.theroot.com/a-white-woman-admits-shes-been-rachel-dolezal-ing-us-fo-1844947838?fbclid=IwAR15mW9cwrjTpIqSSh27cWMzU3gx9psRWv2KCy-F5GxwPMtbFKXgrINhb4A

Oh baloney. I was in college in the early 90s. I had an African studies professor who was a Jewish lesbian. Latin American history professor was a straight, white woman. Krug was obsessed with appropriating cultures; she could have ended up in any profession.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This scenario feels so Trump’y in its grifter’ness.

She got away with it for so long because white people are the ones who decide who gets tenure, hold the grant purse strings, etc. You think any white person wanted to be the one who said “Hey, we don’t think you’re a real Latina”? No. It was easier to go along to get along. If anything, white people in academic administration were incentivized to hire her because she checked the boxes. The people incident really displays how white academic administration is and how it also needs to diversify.

Most rational people who want to pass as another race/ethnicity would do it quietly. What does she do? She continually doubles down and becomes more egregious. The ridiculous, exaggerated fake accent. Makeup to darken her skin tone. The awful hair dye. Dressing provocatively in a stereotypical manner of an NYC Latina “from the hood.” She leaned into it, trying to get attention and push the boundaries of decency. It feels so Trump-like in its audacity. She was basically trolling polite people to call her out in an effort to paint herself as a victim.

It would not surprise me at all if this woman held hard-right conservative political views and was doing this to just troll POC in academia. It’s too nefarious.

Nope. I ran in some overlapping circles in social media and she seemed to be a true believer. She was a radical and did this on purpose. Heck, she wrote books that demonstrated a sophisticated analysis of these issues. This was deceptive but she actually is smart and sophisticated and a good writer and academic. Let's have a sophisticated conversation about race and deception and why, but she wasn't a Trump style grifter.

So, she is smart and added legitimate content and other contributions to academia in this area, correct?

Had she not lied about her roots, she would have been hailed as a talented academic and author, right?

Did she lie because it was impossible for a white lady to have a voice in African American history and racial justice? If so, what does that say about the US?

I'm the PP who ran in similar circles. I know a white woman who has done well as a historian who focuses on African American history. I think she could have made it work. But there was something about African American culture she wanted to be part of and something about her own background she hated. Also, in order to hold your head high as an academic who came of age in the 90s, it's a heck of a lot easier to be a woman of color. I do indeed think there's a thing about "White women should sit down" happening.

Also, this article:
https://www.theroot.com/a-white-woman-admits-shes-been-rachel-dolezal-ing-us-fo-1844947838?fbclid=IwAR15mW9cwrjTpIqSSh27cWMzU3gx9psRWv2KCy-F5GxwPMtbFKXgrINhb4A

Oh baloney. I was in college in the early 90s. I had an African studies professor who was a Jewish lesbian. Latin American history professor was a straight, white woman. Krug was obsessed with appropriating cultures; she could have ended up in any profession.

Exactly. This idea that white people are somehow discriminated against in academia is absurd. She wanted to wear black culture like it was a cute outfit because she saw an opportunity for her to profit. She was very clear about being a trash person, the fact that people are trying to make her victim shows you how deep white privilege goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is it that her childhood friends or her family in particular did not out her previously. In this day and age you would think with as public an image as she had somebody would have exposed that she grew up in KS - not NY.

This is the part I also find so strange. It’s not like she’s 85 and could hide large swaths of her life. This is a woman whose entire adulthood has been in the era of social media, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This scenario feels so Trump’y in its grifter’ness.

She got away with it for so long because white people are the ones who decide who gets tenure, hold the grant purse strings, etc. You think any white person wanted to be the one who said “Hey, we don’t think you’re a real Latina”? No. It was easier to go along to get along. If anything, white people in academic administration were incentivized to hire her because she checked the boxes. The people incident really displays how white academic administration is and how it also needs to diversify.

Most rational people who want to pass as another race/ethnicity would do it quietly. What does she do? She continually doubles down and becomes more egregious. The ridiculous, exaggerated fake accent. Makeup to darken her skin tone. The awful hair dye. Dressing provocatively in a stereotypical manner of an NYC Latina “from the hood.” She leaned into it, trying to get attention and push the boundaries of decency. It feels so Trump-like in its audacity. She was basically trolling polite people to call her out in an effort to paint herself as a victim.

It would not surprise me at all if this woman held hard-right conservative political views and was doing this to just troll POC in academia. It’s too nefarious.

Nope. I ran in some overlapping circles in social media and she seemed to be a true believer. She was a radical and did this on purpose. Heck, she wrote books that demonstrated a sophisticated analysis of these issues. This was deceptive but she actually is smart and sophisticated and a good writer and academic. Let's have a sophisticated conversation about race and deception and why, but she wasn't a Trump style grifter.

So, she is smart and added legitimate content and other contributions to academia in this area, correct?

Had she not lied about her roots, she would have been hailed as a talented academic and author, right?

Did she lie because it was impossible for a white lady to have a voice in African American history and racial justice? If so, what does that say about the US?

I'm the PP who ran in similar circles. I know a white woman who has done well as a historian who focuses on African American history. I think she could have made it work. But there was something about African American culture she wanted to be part of and something about her own background she hated. Also, in order to hold your head high as an academic who came of age in the 90s, it's a heck of a lot easier to be a woman of color. I do indeed think there's a thing about "White women should sit down" happening.

Also, this article:
https://www.theroot.com/a-white-woman-admits-shes-been-rachel-dolezal-ing-us-fo-1844947838?fbclid=IwAR15mW9cwrjTpIqSSh27cWMzU3gx9psRWv2KCy-F5GxwPMtbFKXgrINhb4A

Oh baloney. I was in college in the early 90s. I had an African studies professor who was a Jewish lesbian. Latin American history professor was a straight, white woman. Krug was obsessed with appropriating cultures; she could have ended up in any profession.

Exactly. This idea that white people are somehow discriminated against in academia is absurd. She wanted to wear black culture like it was a cute outfit because she saw an opportunity for her to profit. She was very clear about being a trash person, the fact that people are trying to make her victim shows you how deep white privilege goes.

You're both misreading PP.

Put your glasses on and try again.