Jessica Krug

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Life for suburban white Jewish women in suburban Kansas City in the 1980s wasn't exactly easy. Jewish people were barred from country clubs. In 1990 Tom Watson famously resigned from the Kansas City Country Club over its refusal to admit billionaire H&R Block founder Henry Bloch. We didn't have our first Jewish mayor, Mayor Richard Berkley, until the 1979. He was a Republican.

How is this equivalent to being, say, lynched, or shot in the course of a traffic stop, or for being in the wrong neighborhood?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in KCMO. I am white, but I did in truth live in a diverse inner city neighborhood with a high crime rate.

Life for suburban white Jewish women in suburban Kansas City in the 1980s wasn't exactly easy. Jewish people were barred from country clubs. In 1990 Tom Watson famously resigned from the Kansas City Country Club over its refusal to admit billionaire H&R Block founder Henry Bloch. We didn't have our first Jewish mayor, Mayor Richard Berkley, until the 1979. He was a Republican.

Jessica Krug could have had an academic career in her field of study without claiming to be black.

On the one hand, I definitely agree. Everyone knows there’s rampant anti-Semitism in this country and it’s not really going anywhere. We take one step forward and two steps back when it comes to prejudice against Jews. On the other hand, academia is horrendous when it comes to left wing anti-Semitism. It’s honestly awful. It’s probably easier to be a fake Black Puerto Rican child of addicts from the ‘hood then it is to be a Jewish scholar in academia.

[Anonymous]

How did she convince anyone she was Puerto Rican. Does she even speak Spanish (I know not all US-born PR folks do, or speak Spanglish, but still seems hard to pull off if you’re a white woman from Kansas)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How did she convince anyone she was Puerto Rican. Does she even speak Spanish (I know not all US-born PR folks do, or speak Spanglish, but still seems hard to pull off if you’re a white woman from Kansas)?

She had some crappy accent. Watch the interview of her in NY. The accent and word choice is interesting in retrospect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Life for suburban white Jewish women in suburban Kansas City in the 1980s wasn't exactly easy. Jewish people were barred from country clubs. In 1990 Tom Watson famously resigned from the Kansas City Country Club over its refusal to admit billionaire H&R Block founder Henry Bloch. We didn't have our first Jewish mayor, Mayor Richard Berkley, until the 1979. He was a Republican.

How is this equivalent to being, say, lynched, or shot in the course of a traffic stop, or for being in the wrong neighborhood?

Hush now. Let someone share of the pain of a billionaire not joining a country club 40 years ago while black Americans today still can’t get equal pay, let alone red tapes remove to make joining said country clubs as fair as the other man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Life for suburban white Jewish women in suburban Kansas City in the 1980s wasn't exactly easy. Jewish people were barred from country clubs. In 1990 Tom Watson famously resigned from the Kansas City Country Club over its refusal to admit billionaire H&R Block founder Henry Bloch. We didn't have our first Jewish mayor, Mayor Richard Berkley, until the 1979. He was a Republican.

How is this equivalent to being, say, lynched, or shot in the course of a traffic stop, or for being in the wrong neighborhood?

I don't think pretending to be a black woman helped her chances of joining the county club.

[Anonymous]

Getting a tenure-track job in history has been insanely competitive for a long time. I saw on Twitter the other day that an estimated 900 PhDs in History will be awarded this year and there are currently a total of 12 tenure-track jobs being advertised. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Jessica Krug had to have seen some professional advantage in misrepresenting herself. But from the way her behavior is described, it sounds like she is sociopathic or simply deranged in addition to being very opportunitistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in KCMO. I am white, but I did in truth live in a diverse inner city neighborhood with a high crime rate.

Life for suburban white Jewish women in suburban Kansas City in the 1980s wasn't exactly easy. Jewish people were barred from country clubs. In 1990 Tom Watson famously resigned from the Kansas City Country Club over its refusal to admit billionaire H&R Block founder Henry Bloch. We didn't have our first Jewish mayor, Mayor Richard Berkley, until the 1979. He was a Republican.

Jessica Krug could have had an academic career in her field of study without claiming to be black.

On the one hand, I definitely agree. Everyone knows there’s rampant anti-Semitism in this country and it’s not really going anywhere. We take one step forward and two steps back when it comes to prejudice against Jews. On the other hand, academia is horrendous when it comes to left wing anti-Semitism. It’s honestly awful. It’s probably easier to be a fake Black Puerto Rican child of addicts from the ‘hood then it is to be a Jewish scholar in academia.

DP but all racism faces this type of “growth”, “pace of dissolution”, whatever you want to call it. Two steps forward, one step back. It is a game of inches, when it shouldn’t be. We have to dance to the beat of a different drum. That can be said for black, Jewish, Arabic, Hispanic, Asian, or any other minority race that deals with racism. The extent of the mistreatment varies from one constructed race to another, but it is still there.

With Obama, we took 10 steps forward.
With trump at the helm, it has been 50 steps back. And not just with race and social discourse in America. With everything. Oh, except the inflated stock market that is accelerating a potential bankruptcy if all of the gopgrift is left unchecked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in KCMO. I am white, but I did in truth live in a diverse inner city neighborhood with a high crime rate.

Life for suburban white Jewish women in suburban Kansas City in the 1980s wasn't exactly easy. Jewish people were barred from country clubs. In 1990 Tom Watson famously resigned from the Kansas City Country Club over its refusal to admit billionaire H&R Block founder Henry Bloch. We didn't have our first Jewish mayor, Mayor Richard Berkley, until the 1979. He was a Republican.

Jessica Krug could have had an academic career in her field of study without claiming to be black.

On the one hand, I definitely agree. Everyone knows there’s rampant anti-Semitism in this country and it’s not really going anywhere. We take one step forward and two steps back when it comes to prejudice against Jews. On the other hand, academia is horrendous when it comes to left wing anti-Semitism. It’s honestly awful. It’s probably easier to be a fake Black Puerto Rican child of addicts from the ‘hood then it is to be a Jewish scholar in academia.

Uh no, you’re wrong. You really think Jewish people are discriminated against in academia? Lol
Some of the most disgusting anti-Asian - and particularly anti-Chinese - sentiments I’ve heard have come from Jewish-American professors.

[Anonymous]

My ex's mom assumed an ethnic identity when she became a pastor. It's complicated because she pretended to be a Cherokee Indian, raised on a reservation. But prior to that, she claimed to be Canadian. Her son had a job with a TS clearance so his initial paperwork listed her as a foreign national, but when he asked someone involved in his background investigation whether his mom was American, they said yes. Finally someone in the family hired a background investigator to find out where she was from and if her parents were white Americans. Not only was she a basic white American from the midwest, but she actually had a different name than the one she used as an adult.

She's a religious leader. Lol.

[Anonymous]

There used to be a Jewish academic quota in WWII. Not in a good way, in a we have one Jew and only one Jew on staff kind of way. My professor 13 years ago was 92 when he gave an interview to record his story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People on this thread (and elsewhere) are suggesting that she should lose her tenure & be fired. To do that, doesn’t GW have to admit that she wouldn’t have gotten tenure as a white Jewish woman? Otherwise her “lie” is immaterial.

No. The consequence would be due to lying, not being the wrong race.

Was she not qualified for the position though? Race shouldn’t even play a role, it’s irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People on this thread (and elsewhere) are suggesting that she should lose her tenure & be fired. To do that, doesn’t GW have to admit that she wouldn’t have gotten tenure as a white Jewish woman? Otherwise her “lie” is immaterial.

No. The consequence would be due to lying, not being the wrong race.

Was she not qualified for the position though? Race shouldn’t even play a role, it’s irrelevant.

Apples and oranges. She could be qualified but also have committed fraud that should result in being fired. Imagine she were African-American and claimed to be Jewish so she could go on birthright. She literally took research funding and other opportunities from people who met a criteria she did not. Shouldn’t she still lose her position? Shouldn’t otherwise qualified men, like the tiger mom lady’s husband, who sexually harassed women lose their positions?

[Anonymous]

Aside from any grants she accepted b/c she lied about being a POC, the main issue as an academic is the lack of integrity. Lying repeatedly about who you are puts into question her research. These weren’t “little white lies.”

[Anonymous]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8702277/White-GWU-professor-seen-time-controversy-erupted.html

Seems like she’s still standing, for those who are worried. Her SIL sounds like a real piece of work, but I think I saw in another article that her close family said they would take her back.