Re: The "racism" episode at the SCS conference

It sounds like she was treated with extreme incivility, but (according to her version of events) she did in fact say something explicitly racist to a colleague on the panel with her. That, too, was extremely uncivil. Anyone who can claim to be a Cicero fan must understand the fallacy of _ad hominem_ arguments and the rhetorical force of _praeteritio_.

Re the _damnatio memoriae_ that people are recommending towards problematic figures in the history of classical culture (e.g. Gildersleeve): urgh. This is a difficult problem indeed that doesn’t lend itself to easy solutions. I guess “cancel culture” is what this stuff is being called nowadays: someone convicted of a sufficiently hideous crime (e.g. Bill Cosby) gets dropped down a memory hole. It’s easier with some figures than others. I can avoid using Gildersleeve and Lodge as a Latin grammar, because there are a lot of options, but maybe Gildersleeve’s Pindar commentary really is vital. (I have no idea, Pindar not being a favorite of mine. But if we’re not talking about Gildersleeve on Pindar, we’ll still need to talk about someone else on someone else.)

Besides the abrupt shout of “you’re cancelled!”, nowadays there is also the concept of the “problematic fave”. We might do well to come to terms with the fact that all faves are problematic, and if we’re going to sustain and pass on this cultural heritage, we should pay at least some attention to how and why our faves are problematic.

JMP(“preterite perfect”)


> On Feb 27, 2019, at 3:23 PM, John Lauritsen <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 	In an ugly episode at the annual conference of
> the Society for Classical Studies, last January, classics
> scholar Mary Frances Williams was expelled from the
> conference for allegedly making a racist attack on the
> classicist of color, Dan-el Padilla Peralta.  In official
> statements, from small classics departments to Princetown
> University, Dr. Williams was condemned and vilified.  She
> was fired from her job.  Now truth is beginning to emerge.
> The condemnations of Williams were based on faulty
> recollections and lies.  She was treated unjustly.
>    Williams gives a lucid account of what happened
> an an article, "How I was Kicked Out of the Society for
> Classical Studies Annual Meeting":
> 
> 
link deleted to keep safelink from going crazy

>    
> 
>    The veracity of her story is born out by the
> video that was made of the panel, "The Future of Classics".

link deleted to keep safelink from going crazy

>    The three leading characters in this drama are
> Mary Frances Williams (MFW), Sarah Bond (SB), and Dan-el
> Padilla Peralta (DPP).  Sarah Bond starts her talk at about
> 12:00; Peralta, at about 31:20; and Mary Frances Williams,
> at about 45:00.
>    Attached is a transcript of the key episode, prepared
> by Mark Miner, a classics scholar.  I have edited the transcript
> by deleting a few of Miner's comments and adding some of
> my own.  My comments are in curly brackets; Miner's are
> in square brackets.  I wanted to make it clear that Bond
> was silencing Williams through interruptions.
>    The talks by Bond and Peralta make it clear that they
> are "social justice warriors" (SJWs) who are hostile to
> whites, males, Western Civilization, Ancient Greece and
> Rome, and in general, the classics.
>    To me some important points are:
>    1. As shown in "Who Killed Homer?", the classics are
> being destroyed largely by SJW classicists within.
>    2. Sarah Bond was the main offender.  As soon as Williams
> said "Western Civilization", having spoken only a little over
> one minute, Bond interrupted her, and continued to interrupt,
> again and again, thus preventing Williams from making a
> coherent statement.  It was an unequal contest: Williams is
> not a forceful public speaker, whereas Bond is an proficient
> interrupter.
>    3. It is hazardous even to hint that someone might
> have benefited from Affirmative Action.
> 
> 
> John Lauritsen, Independent Scholar