Why did you remove the posts on Subject: Underwhelming appearance by Principal Martin

[Anonymous]

I commented on the OP referring to the principal like this, " by far the least articulated speaker of the group (including students). She sounded hesitant and non-articulated". The OP then referred to the race of the audience and the principal is a person of color. I objected to the word having a racist subtext. See this article describing the subtext of articulate and inarticulate as it relates to black people. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/weekinreview/04clemetson.html?referer=

Why did you delete my comment?

[jsteele]

As I mentioned earlier in that thread, I didn't think discussion of the Principal's race is appropriate. Therefore, I removed posts that addressed race that were posted after that point. Moreover, I am sure that the vast majority of our users are aware of the particularly sensitive nature of "articulate" and "inarticulate" with regards to black people. The OP later said that she wasn't aware of the Principal's race and it also appears that English may not be the poster's first language, resulting in her own articulation challenges.

Not only is it unfair for an individual to be publicly scrutinized over an issue such as her race, but I also wanted to prevent the discussion from devolving into another unnecessary debate about race.

[Anonymous]

I understand your intention, but when an OP mentions race and uses language with a racial subtext, then is overtly critical of a person of color, isn't it fair and important to allow posters to point out the possible racial bias that might color the OPs view? It was OP who mentioned race, so if we are trying to be evenhanded why not erase the whole thread (which I am not a proponent of by the way, since open dialogue is important.)

It seems odd to allow some posters to mention race and disallow posts mentioning possible racial bias.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I understand your intention, but when an OP mentions race and uses language with a racial subtext, then is overtly critical of a person of color, isn't it fair and important to allow posters to point out the possible racial bias that might color the OPs view? It was OP who mentioned race, so if we are trying to be evenhanded why not erase the whole thread (which I am not a proponent of by the way, since open dialogue is important.)

It seems odd to allow some posters to mention race and disallow posts mentioning possible racial bias.

The "cut off" of posts about race was arbitrary because it was a function of when my post was made (which was delayed because I was away from the computer for several hours). There were multiple posts criticizing the OP on the topic of race prior to that cut-off. I think both sides were well-represented, but neither was really necessary or relevant to the broader topic.