You guys, considering how actions impact others is just too much

Judith Shulevitz wrote a piece in the New York Times about how across universities everywhere we’re taking people’s concerns about triggering too seriously. I guess we’re just being too protective. Shulevitz sees it as being in college, but still being under some kind of protective blanket. Her real problem seems to be “safe spaces” which she likens to real world trigger warnings. For her trigger warnings on the syllabus is some kind of personal affront to higher education.

Like many before her Shulevitz doesn’t really know what she’s talking about. She seems to think a warning on the top of a syllabus or a safe space for students to go when a debate on sexual assault is occurring on campus somehow means there will be no discussion. That’s not the case; instead it informs people what they are getting themselves into. She says, “But the notion that ticklish conversations must be scrubbed clean of controversy has a way of leaking out and spreading. Once you designate some spaces as safe, you imply that the rest are unsafe. It follows that they should be made safer.” What the what?

This is one of those false arguments. One does not lead to the other anymore than any slippery slope arguments. Being aware of what a discussion is about doesn’t mean no one is going to have the discussion. But I’m straight up saying things can be made safer and that the places that aren’t designated safe spaces aren’t safe. That’s why we have a rape epidemic on campuses. I also think we can make things safer by addressing why rape occurs and how to prevent it. This is logic, things are unsafe, one in five women are sexually assaulted. Hell, I’d argue safe spaces aren’t always safe, see that male feminist on the west coast who was sexually coercing and assaulting women?

This isn’t about hurting people’s feelings which is what Shulevitz and one of her sources Adam Shapiro assert. But these are people who don’t understand trauma. Trauma from sexual assault or homophobic violence (the examples in the piece) can lead to PTSD, which means you can have a physical reaction to a trigger. For example, a simple action might make someone feel as though they are under attack essentially triggering a panic attack. That is the point of trigger warnings. However, Shulevitz sees this as hyper sensitive and “self-infantalizing”, which leaves the students unprepared for life. I think creating a ruling class of over educated un-empathetic bastards is more harmful, but hey I’m overly sensitive, ask anyone.

Taking into account how someone could react doesn’t mean you can’t say something. You just have to own it upfront. So people write victim-blaming pieces will be accountable and can’t just shrug their shoulders and say people are too sensitive. Responsibility and accountability. No one is being censored by some magical censor fairy.

Heavy, hard, and struggle

The struggle is real you guys. I use this phrase in jest mostly because it had become so overused to describe the most benign of situations. Nicholas Kristof wrote an article over the weekend, and I didn’t hate it. I know, take a minute.

The article, entitled “Is a hard life inherited?” resonated with me, and many of my peers with similar backgrounds. Of course, there was some mockery, after all yes, yes it is. And everyone who came up a certain way knows that. There is a tenuous balance to keep everything going. I’m firmly in the luck camp of things…not everyone is, but you don’t have what you have because you did something to deserve it. You have what you have from the ever interconnecting and competing privileges and oppressions.

Kristof’s article was far from perfect. In fact after reading it, I was like yeah, I agree so what is it that I don’t like about this? Kristof profiles a man from his hometown. It is a good profile, I think Rick—said man—is fine with how he was portrayed. Rick’s story should be told. Everyone’s story should be told if they want to share it. Additionally, Rick faces the struggle; he has a criminal record which prevents him from a lot of employment. Add that to the fall of unions, which a generation ago would have been a strong beneficent force in this community, and of course, we have to acknowledge the importance of a living wage. Finally, we have to witness drug use and those ties to poverty. I guess my problem is Kristof doesn’t acknowledge the privileges Rick has in a substantial way.

I’m not fan of the oppression Olympics, but I think Rick was a strategic choice. A single woman would probably have kids and thus be a welfare mom—Rick has kids, but their mom ran out on him. Will anyone other than the Baltimore Sun write about black men with convictions and heroin addictions? Probably not. Then again, from a storytelling perspective, the white man’s story is still the human story. We’re all supposed to understand and empathize with it.

All that said, the article is good, and you should read it if you haven’t already. But let me tell you about heavy, hard, and struggle. I had to stop recording a 50 year old woman when I was gathering data for my Master’s thesis. She was sobbing about fear of the unknown—well known and unknown. You see she was about to hit the 60 month time limit for TANF in Ohio. She, her husband, and eight children were going to lose the only cash income coming into the house. Fear of loss is known, and the fear of what was coming is the unknown. She described it as a struggle. Not the loss of the benefit, everyday, the existing was the struggle. She said she never cries at home because he husband is disabled, and she doesn’t want to worry him or the kids. I know what it is like to hide my emotions, but that I can’t imagine.

"It's hard" was a refrain with the women I interviewed. But I can hear the women in my family saying it too. I can't think of any examples, but it sounds like something my Nanny would have said, that's what we called my maternal grandmother. And of course, keeping with the depressing family sayings we have: life's hard then you die. The Irish, man. Sometimes I think it is what keeps people getting up and going, knowing that things aren't supposed to be easy. That you have to earn it (LeBron wasn't the first to say it). But living like that, it wears you down. Poor people are always exhausted, part of me thinks it is the goal of capitalism to keep the laborers to exhausted to rise up. 

Heavy are the burdens we bare. I read The Things They Carried by Tim O’Brien when I was a freshman at Carroll. I have trouble remember all of it now. But I remember the physical and emotional burdens in war as presented in text, and remember wondering what the things they carried would be back home. If memory serves, there was also a theme about fear and shame as motivational factors. The women I interviewed, and the men I served, I could tell you what they carried without complaint. And when asked, about trying to find work, with a child under three who needs care, and without reliable transport, a woman would say heavy, hard, and struggle. Finding a job after incarceration and trying to handle your responsibilities? Heavy, hard, and struggle. The shame associated with needing help, taking cash benefits, food from strangers? Heavy, hard, and struggle.

Kristof, per usual, doesn’t address the structural and systematic aspects to poverty. Because, yes, of course, we inherit it from our parents like we inherit all kinds of things like my skin tone and dazzling personality. And there is something to be said for bursting the American myth that if you work just a little more, a little harder than you can win. We don’t get to win. Not the way the game is played now. V and I had this great talk over the weekend about that. You can look forward or backward but not to the side and therefore we can’t imagine what something else would look like so we’re stuck with capitalism, the current criminal justice system, etc. We’ll have to wait for the revolution, and hope those who lead it will be able to look to the side, but I can’t.

So was the New York Times paying Jill Abramson less than Bill Keller?

Well, it definitely is starting to look like it, now whether Abramson’s request to be paid the same led to her dismissal is unknown. Abramson is being replaced by Dean Baquet, the managing editor and first Black man to hold the position. This is a big deal and good for him.

But the rumors going around implies Abramson challenged the paper including Arthur Sulzberger no her salary. It is being reported that she confronted the paper about her pay being considerable less than Bill Keller (both pay and benefits). This resulted in her being characterized as “pushy”. Nothing gendered about that language. So there are some factors that could account for some of the disparity including Sulzberger wanting to cut back on pay and pensions. Also, Abramson had been at The Times for fewer years than Keller.

Eileen Murphy, a spokesperson for The Times, claims Abramson’s compensation as executive editor was “directly comparable to Bill Keller’s,” but it was not the same. Murphy told POLITOCO that , “Jill’s total compensation as executive editors was not less than Bill Keller’s, so that is just incorrect….Her pension benefit, like all Times employees, is based on her years of service and compensation. The pension benefit was frozen in 2009.”

Murphy told Business Insider: “Jill’s total compensation as executive editor was not meaningfully less than Bill Keller’s, so that is just incorrect.” This was via email, “Her pension benefit, like all Times employees, is based on her years of service and compensation. The pension benefit was frozen in 2009.”

Murphy had another statement for Gawker: “There is no discrepancy. Jill’s compensation was directly comparable to Bill’s during their times as executive editor. Not less, not meaningfully less, not considerably less (as reported in the NY’er), directly comparably.”

Sounds legit. Obviously, Dylan Byer’s thinks nothing is wrong because he’s a sexist. But NPR’s David Folkenflik had an amazing rundown on Twitter:

Some key points about the firing of NYT exec ed Jill Abramson by publishing/Chairman Arthur  Sulzberger….

1. Sulzberger had initially been conflicted about picking Abramson-for top slot-AS had long seen Baquet as a future exec editor

1a. Baquet left NYT in 2000 to become LAT managing editor & then top editor; he rejoined in 07 after defying Tribune execs over further cuts

1b. Baquet’s ultimate willingness to defy corp chief on cuts in LA gave business-side execs some agita.

2. Abramson had a relatively high profile as Time exec editor, in significant part because of path-breaking nature of her appointment

2a. Sulzberger didn’t love that profile

2b. This continued in interviews about her role as a “first”-though she tended to tamp such discussions-and her book about her dog.

2c. a significant number of journalists who worked for her-even some in editing ranks-found her brusque to point of rudeness

2d. none of which should discount her ability as a journalist-or Q of whether a male exec editor would find manner so scrutinized

3. Over time, Abramson lost currency with Sulzberger. She told one associate in recent weeks that her job wouldn’t last forever.

4. She also had alienated the still relatively new CEO Mark Thompson, who arrived from tenure atop BBC

4a. Thompson was pushing a video-heavy strategy for NYT’s digital push; Abramson feared would be a diversion of time and energy

4b. Thompson also livid that Abramson sent investigative ed to UK to see if he had any role in BBC’s brewing child abuse coverup scandal

5. Sulzberger’s son Arthur Sulzberger & colleagues wrote report saying NYT had not been bold enough in innovating digitally

5a. Abramson not digital native-but had steeped herself in digital side before taking over; NYT had taken digital strides under her

6. According to New Yorker’s Ken Auletta, final straw was discovery she was being paid considerable less than predecessor @billkellwe2014

6a. Auletta reports she demanded top press pay her comparably (link to New Yorker)

7a. previous departures fit two patterns: Howell Raines unceremoniously dumped amid Jayson Blair plagiarism/fabrication scandal

7b. Keller allowed effectively to pick his time to depart, and a victory lap. This fits neither

8. Abramson’s firing most closely resembles that of former NYT Co CEO Janet Robinson-who oversaw introduction of now-heralded paywall

8a. Robinson paid a monarch’s ransom for severance but essentially ushered out of the building

8b. Brutal for Sulzberger to deny Abramson a chance to address the troops-to relieve her highs and lows as a top editor for 16+ years

9. Even though Abramson’s appointment was based on journalistic merit, figures at Times wonder what role gender ultimately played in ouster.

10. I can now report that I have independently confirmed that Abramson did indeed challenge corporate brass over what she saw as unequal pay.

Everyone seems to agree that Sulzberger and Abramson weren’t going for an after work happy hour, but a lot of media outlets aren’t talking about the alleged pay gap. Can you feel the lawsuit coming on? If this is true, if The New York Times fired a woman for asking for the same pay as her male predecessor, that is insane. It is 2014 after all. All women have to do is lean in and be confident then we’ll be treated equally, isn’t that what all the books and politicians say? Oh, wait there is structural oppression that leads to this. 

**Note there seems to be some discussion about race and Abramson's dismissal. I'm not aware of the issues here because nothing I've read has diminished the qualifications of Mr. Baquet.  However, any such work would be inappropriate and lose credibility in my mind because Abramson's dismissal should be about the paper and he not about the person following her.

More depressing news about student loans!

Why is  all the information I have is always depressing? The New York Times had a piece by Richard Perez-Pena Tuesday morning on student loans coming due immediately if a co-signer dies. I think the logic here is everything and everyone is terrible.

The article discussed the impacts of the death of a co-signer (parent) on the student loan borrower. Borrowers, even those with good payment records, can be forced into default after a demand of full repayment of their loans following the death of their co-signer. Obviously, this is occurring in the private market because we can’t have nice things.

Everyone applying for a private school loan needs a cosigner because the borrower is often young, with little income, and very little credit. Borrowing from the feds usually doesn’t require a cosigner because BIG GOVERNMENT. The Consumer Financial Protections Bureau released a report on Tuesday that pointed to a provision in private loan contracts: “If the co-signer dies or files for bankruptcy, the loan holder can demand complete repayment, even if the borrower’s record is spotless. If the loan is not repaid it is declared to be in default doing damage to the borrower’s credit record that can take years to repair.”

Sounds totally, fair, guys. Also, this is completely legal. At this point, we don’t seem to know how common this practice is, but it appears to be a growing trend based on anecdotal evidence. The loan companies appear to be going through public records of deaths and bankruptcies and then generating letters of repayment and default notices.

The article notes this isn’t exactly in the best interests of the lenders, but we don’t know if someone is winning here…probably. Americans owe about $150 billion in student loans to private lenders. Both private and federal loans are transferred to loan servicing companies. The largest private lender (both of private and federal loans) is Sallie Mae. Sallie Mae wasn’t responding to emails about this earlier in the week.

Some borrowers are able to have their loans released from the co-signer requirement after a few years of demonstrated earnings and credit history. They can also transfer the loans to a new co-signer. However, most borrowers aren’t aware of these options, and the lenders aren’t trying to help them figure this out.

The article concludes by discussing the parallels between the student loan industry and the mortgage industry. There is a bit of, the banks started to take risks on risking borrowers. However, another interpretation of this is the cost of higher education became ridiculously high, and the only way to get an education was to take out risky loans due to social economic inequity. Lenders were predatory leading to the mortgage crisis, and they are being predatory now.