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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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)?

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.

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.