Timeline for How to tell speakers that their English is terrible?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 9, 2017 at 17:30 | comment | added | Dilworth | There's no equivalency. That's an analogy. Both are legal and legitimate actions, in the spectrum of aggressive actions. One is on the extreme end of the spectrum and the other is hurtful, and damaging but not as extreme. Still, both damage the interest of the individual in order to serve a larger goal. The first reprehesion and deterrence of criminals in order to provide social order, the other to distribute academic capital and resources based on merit. | |
| Oct 9, 2017 at 13:31 | comment | added | David Richerby | I'm sorry but there's no equivalency between executing somebody and rejecting their paper. | |
| Oct 9, 2017 at 11:16 | comment | added | Dilworth | You seem not to understand the term "aggression". This concept refers to many different kinds of hostile and forceful actions against a person. For example, executing criminals is a kind of aggression some countries have in their power. The act of executing a person is an aggressive act irrespective of the procedure and moral justification given to this act. Same, though much lesser in measure of aggresivity, goes to firing someone, or rejecting one's paper. Both are actions acutely going against essential interests of a person, causing them pain and suffering. Irrespective of the reasons | |
| Oct 9, 2017 at 11:01 | comment | added | David Richerby | Please look up "aggression" in a dictionary and tell me which part of saying "No, we won't publish your paper" meets that definition. Also, note that your job in no way depends on any individual piece of student feedback. | |
| Oct 9, 2017 at 10:44 | comment | added | Dilworth | I believe that you can rationalize every norm, the way you do, so that it sounds as if it is actually devoid of any negative ethical consequences. But the reality is that society is structured and organized following quite aggressive rules. | |
| Oct 9, 2017 at 10:42 | comment | added | Dilworth | No, I disagree. There is a very clear ethical equivalence (and I'm being conservative here in your favor), between job-detrimental anonymous feedback solicited by administrators, or editors, and a naïve, authentic, and clumsy anonymous email of a listener that have no consequence on the career of the speaker. Notice that usually the reviewer is kept anonymous from the authors although they are by no means under the author's direct position of power. A rejection is an act of aggression, by definition, and it causes to all of us hurt and harsh feelings. That is the reality. | |
| Oct 9, 2017 at 10:34 | comment | added | David Richerby | ... classes, that is unacceptable and you should complain about it. (Anonymously, if necessary, because, again, you are complaining to somebody with direct power over you and may wish to avoid retribution.) | |
| Oct 9, 2017 at 10:33 | comment | added | David Richerby | I'm sorry, but there is no moral equivalency whatsoever between allowing students and peer reviewers to make anonymous feedback and sending anonymous nastygrams about somebody's accent. Note, in particular, that student feedback is anonymous to prevent retribution (the teacher is in a direct position of power over their students) and peer review is only anonymous to the ultimate recipient but the editor knows exactly who the reviewers are. Individual reviews might, unfortunately, be aggressive but the editor's decision is not. If your employer is aggressive in handling feedback on your... | |
| Oct 9, 2017 at 10:27 | comment | added | Dilworth | No. The fact that you are aware that someone forces you to accept anonymous feedback, in order for you to keep your job, puts the feedback you get as a lecturer precisely in the same ethical status as an anonymous email about one's accent. If at all, students feedback is more daunting as it has consequence on your job security. Also, every rejection is a form of an aggressive action, by definition. And if you didn't get an aggressively written review, well, then I'd say you're lucky. | |
| Oct 9, 2017 at 8:26 | comment | added | David Richerby | When you give a class, you know that the admins will be soliciting anonymous feedback from the students; depending on institutional policies, it might even be you who hands out the forms and asks the students to fill them in. When you submit a paper, you know the editors will be soliciting feedback and passing it to you anonymously. All of this is solicited by someone and expected by the person who receives the feedback. So, no, my point isn't remotely moot. And I've never heard of an "aggressive" rejection letter. | |
| Oct 9, 2017 at 7:25 | comment | added | Dilworth | @DavidRicherby, actually almost none of the anonymous feedback in the academia is solicited by the person the feedback is about. When students give anonymous feedback in my classes, I'm not soliciting this. It's an administrator decision. The same with other feedback. So your point is moot. Academia is full of anonymous feedback solicited mostly by third parties who wish to regulate and even punish you based on the feedback. A rejection by a journal or a sanction against you due to a negative feedback is more "aggressive" than an email about accent that has nor repercussions. | |
| Oct 7, 2017 at 18:48 | comment | added | David Richerby | Academia is full of solicited anonymous feedback. Anonymous, unsolicited, critical emails feel threatening and aggressive. Why does the email have to be anonymous at all? | |
| Oct 7, 2017 at 12:29 | history | edited | Dilworth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 82 characters in body
|
| Oct 7, 2017 at 11:25 | history | edited | Dilworth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 680 characters in body
|
| Oct 4, 2017 at 12:54 | history | answered | Dilworth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |