Kind of creating an "advising moment" for vulnerable educators who surely don't need this particular lesson at this particular moment

True. I'm seeing responses that redirect the negation to a different audience:

Frame: This instructor graded in a discriminatory way
Negation: The instructor's standards were fair but she should have known better than to apply them to this type of student--and you, reader, should know better too

It's interesting to watch people who were collectively so impressed by the message discipline displayed by a currently ascendant leftist politician so utterly fail not to waltz into an obvious trap

And 2) "The empty brain: Your brain does not process information, retrieve knowledge or store memories. In short: your brain is not a computer"

But it’s also, frankly, extremely NYT for these writers and their editor not to have proceeded in this particular instance from a basic principle of editorial necessity coupled with a duty to preserve these highly vulnerable interviewees’ dignity. 9/9

NYT's stylebook apparently doesn’t include guidance on this area (as many style guides do when it comes to when it’s appropriate or necessary to mention a subject’s gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.). 8/

That this info is publicly accessible through DOCCS is beside the point: this particular story is just a completely inappropriate and distortive rhetorical context for reporting this information. And privacy is all about when, how, and by whom something lived becomes information. 7/

It’s basically ensuring that the first Google result a potential employer pulls up will be a story in the paper of record that includes a conviction history. More broadly, it proceeds from and guarantees the notion that incarcerated people are not entitled to privacy. 6/

While some papers are doing important work with the “right to be forgotten”—fielding requests by people with arrest records to remove their names from archived stories about their arrest—others like the NYT are pulling this harmful, retrograde shit. 5/

The upshot here is not just that an incarceration history is sufficient to disqualify someone as a plausible victim of violence in the eyes of “readers” but that it’s actually a token of journalistic responsibility to proceed from this grossly discriminatory framework. 4/

“Why somebody is locked up is one of the first things to address when assessing credibility…. The pattern of accusations against this prison administrator certainly bolsters each accusation, but we’d be keeping important context from readers if we didn’t explain why a prisoner was in prison.” 3/

I reached out to journalists a few years ago about this issue in a similar story of CO abuse and was told: 2/

Not exactly the same thing but I saw this post right after yours

@mohadajayab.bsky.social
@satwatr.bsky.social
@mommunism.bsky.social

New York AG James said she's received complaints of stores in her state refusing EBT cards and has already sent out several cease and desist letters. Stores are not allowed to refuse SNAP benefits. If this happens to you, call the AG's hotline to report at 1-800-771-7755.