Jessica Krug

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Her SIL sounds like a piece of work? Really, Jessica. Try harder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

But wha criteria did she not meet by virtue of being white? Why was her lie material? Can any professor be fired for telling any lie, even if it’s not relevant to their position?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

But wha criteria did she not meet by virtue of being white? Why was her lie material? Can any professor be fired for telling any lie, even if it’s not relevant to their position?

Stop being purposely obtuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

But wha criteria did she not meet by virtue of being white? Why was her lie material? Can any professor be fired for telling any lie, even if it’s not relevant to their position?

This +1000 exactly this. Yes, she certainly lied, but how is this relevant to her position? What if she lied and said she was an eskimo? Would we be having this discussion right now?

[Anonymous]

Remember, imitation is the highest form of flattery

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://nypost.com/2020/09/03/professor-who-lied-about-being-black-ripped-white-new-yorkers/

She sounds more like Jersey trash than any ethnicity.

NYer here. That accent is horrible. No one talks like that. It sounds so forced. How did she fool people?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

But wha criteria did she not meet by virtue of being white? Why was her lie material? Can any professor be fired for telling any lie, even if it’s not relevant to their position?

This +1000 exactly this. Yes, she certainly lied, but how is this relevant to her position? What if she lied and said she was an eskimo? Would we be having this discussion right now?

Besides what she said in the classroom, she went around participating on panels and giving speeches discussing how hard it was growing up black with a constant fear of cops, living in poverty, and similar. Those engagement invitations were a direct result of her position and and fake posture. It was not just checking a box on an application.

[Anonymous]

This. It’s why the lies are relevant to her position and shows a lack of integrity.

[Anonymous]

Honest question. What difference does it make if she identifies as Black? Is this not the same as females who identify as males? Males who identify as females?

It seems hypocritical to me as a society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honest question. What difference does it make if she identifies as Black? Is this not the same as females who identify as males? Males who identify as females?

It seems hypocritical to me as a society.

Are you really this dense?

She traded on the discrimination that she supposedly faced. She used her overcoming of “adversity” to further her career. See also: stolen valor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question. What difference does it make if she identifies as Black? Is this not the same as females who identify as males? Males who identify as females?

It seems hypocritical to me as a society.

Are you really this dense?

She traded on the discrimination that she supposedly faced. She used her overcoming of “adversity” to further her career. See also: stolen valor.

It is hypocritical. For some reason we can’t discuss this topic on here though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question. What difference does it make if she identifies as Black? Is this not the same as females who identify as males? Males who identify as females?

It seems hypocritical to me as a society.

Are you really this dense?

She traded on the discrimination that she supposedly faced. She used her overcoming of “adversity” to further her career. See also: stolen valor.

It is hypocritical. For some reason we can’t discuss this topic on here though.

Did you actually read and understand the above? Or are you just randomly asserting that it’s hypocritical because of… reasons….

If you want discussion, try engaging with the logical arguments presented to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honest question. What difference does it make if she identifies as Black? Is this not the same as females who identify as males? Males who identify as females?

It seems hypocritical to me as a society.

Cause she’s pushing a lie.
Outside of the paid professional entertainment industry most trans men/trans women ain’t fooling nobody.
We see that 5 o’clock shadow and those masculine shoulders we know damn well your ass wasn’t born a woman.
BUT...despite knowing that Awww respect the fact that you aren’t passing to make things easier you are actually running headfirst into more drama and struggle because people are going to reject you.
That teacher bitch didn’t run headfirst towards struggle all those years she was hiding.
Now her bitch ass is gonna experience some struggle in life for a change and I hope it comes ten fold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question. What difference does it make if she identifies as Black? Is this not the same as females who identify as males? Males who identify as females?

It seems hypocritical to me as a society.

Cause she’s pushing a lie.
Outside of the paid professional entertainment industry most trans men/trans women ain’t fooling nobody.
We see that 5 o’clock shadow and those masculine shoulders we know damn well your ass wasn’t born a woman.
BUT...despite knowing that Awww respect the fact that you aren’t passing to make things easier you are actually running headfirst into more drama and struggle because people are going to reject you.
That teacher bitch didn’t run headfirst towards struggle all those years she was hiding.
Now her bitch ass is gonna experience some struggle in life for a change and I hope it comes ten fold.

Do some research. They may not be fooling anyone, but they are taking full advantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question. What difference does it make if she identifies as Black? Is this not the same as females who identify as males? Males who identify as females?

It seems hypocritical to me as a society.

Cause she’s pushing a lie.
Outside of the paid professional entertainment industry most trans men/trans women ain’t fooling nobody.
We see that 5 o’clock shadow and those masculine shoulders we know damn well your ass wasn’t born a woman.
BUT...despite knowing that Awww respect the fact that you aren’t passing to make things easier you are actually running headfirst into more drama and struggle because people are going to reject you.
That teacher bitch didn’t run headfirst towards struggle all those years she was hiding.
Now her bitch ass is gonna experience some struggle in life for a change and I hope it comes ten fold.

Do some research. They may not be fooling anyone, but they are taking full advantage.

And trans persons are out here getting killed for taking advantage of it. That’s running headfirst into struggle this tired bitch with a bad accent has been running FROM struggle her whole mixed up life and pretending to have so much knowledge of struggle but all the while the sad bitch was hiding in fear and shame from struggle. She’s a c*** I hope somebody whups her ass.