International students--Did Trump's election deter you from applying in the US?

[andrewlavignio]

I'm an MA student in Canada waiting on 15 applications submitted to American PhD philosophy programmes. Since room for international students is typically limited, I'm curious whether there are any non-American students who were intending to apply to American schools but didn't, or who applied to fewer American schools than intended, with the surprise "election" of a living rape whistle to the office of POTUS.

 

[TakeruK]

11 hours ago, rphilos said:

0% by conservative Republicans. I don't think you need to worry about the typical Trump voters.

First, I think it's a little presumptuous to go around telling strangers to not worry about X. We don't know every aspect of other people's lives and what they have to worry about. So, why don't we let each person decide for themselves what to worry about?

Second, I do feel like I have my guard up around all Trump voters. Trump ran a campaign based on hatred and represented the antithesis of many ideals that are important to me. I recognize that Trump's campaign has some aspects that are not terrible that might appeal to some people. However, from my point of view, the people who voted for him only for these issues and claim to not support his racist/sexist/homophobic/anti-science/etc. stance are basically saying that they care more about their own issues than the basic human rights of other people in this country and on this planet. 

To me, people with this mindset scare me because if they are willing to put their own concerns ahead of other humans like this, even though they are not currently targeting me and my identity (Asian male) right now, why wouldn't they do so in the future? And while I may not fear for my own safety this instant, I care about my friends and loved ones who do identify as groups targeted by Trump's policies.

[TakeruK]

1 hour ago, rphilos said:

@TakeruK, please read the thread more carefully. I did not presume to know what a stranger has to worry about. I asked DBear what she was worried about--why she would feel she would need to be more vigilant of her surroundings in the light of Trump's election. She responded by saying that there has been an uptick in hate crimes against people of color, and she feels that she would be an easy target as an Asian female. I pointed out that (1) there has not been an uptick in hate crimes and (2) hate crimes against Asians are overwhelmingly not committed by Trump voters.

I would encourage you, as an Asian, to reconsider whether liberals or conservatives care more about your "basic human rights." I went to one of the most liberal colleges in arguably the most liberal city in the US. Hate crimes were regularly committed by blacks against Asians. The liberals on campus always refused to recognize these as "hate crimes" no matter how obvious it was that race was a factor. When an Asian student was chased into the street and killed (by a black person), there was an article in the student newspaper saying that we shouldn't judge the perpetrator harshly, and he didn't really mean to do what he did. One night a group of blacks walked down the street attacking every Asian they came across, and the liberals refused to call it a hate crime.

I did read what you wrote carefully. In fact, I read it several times and also this reply several times to ensure I don't misunderstand. I'm glad to hear more clarifications though.

However, I didn't say you "presumed" to know what a stranger has to worry about. I said your actions were "presumptuous", meaning that I thought it was inappropriate or arrogant for you to declare that a stranger did not have to worry about X when you are not living their life. To be clear, I believe there is a difference in stating what your experience has been (not presumptuous at all) but I thought it did not make sense for you to then go on and tell a stranger what they should worry about based on your experiences only and not considering their experience.

In your second paragraph, you continued to do the same thing to me, another stranger. This time, you are indeed presuming that I haven't already considered the things you are saying. I'm not saying that one viewpoint is perfect and that one side is pure evil and the other is pure good. In addition, picking out individual cases that prove your point doesn't always show the big picture. On the other hand, in terms of basic human rights and threats to me and my loved ones, I see a lot more danger in the actual planned policy and actions of the current administration than the incident you mention. I will just give one example: the current plans to repeal ACA without a replacement** will kill tens of thousands of people. (**Yes, the platform is "repeal and replace", however, I see action taken on the "repeal" part but not on "replace", especially not whether the replacement will have the important aspects of ACA).

[TakeruK]

4 hours ago, rphilos said:

TakeruK, I don't understand--are you saying that I'm not supposed to disagree with someone who is a stranger? If I disagree with a stranger then I am guilty of presuming that they didn't consider what I'm saying? Can't I say exactly the same thing when you disagree with me?

Suppose someone says that he is afraid of flying on airplanes, and because of this fear he travels by car whenever possible. Then I would point out that, per mile, flying on an airplane is much safer than driving in a car. I would say this even though I am not "living [his] life" or experiencing his irrational fear.

Let's take your airplane example and break it down. Here's the difference, in my opinion:

What I'd consider a reasonable response when one disagrees with a stranger:
Person A: I don't like flying on airplanes because I fear for my safety, so I prefer to travel by car whenever possible.
Person B: Here, look at this statistic that shows there are less fatalities per passenger-mile in a plane than in a car. What do you think? (or Person B can say something like "This is why I feel safer on an airplane" etc.)

What I'd consider an unreasonable/inappropriate response when one disagrees with a stranger:
Person A: I don't like flying on airplanes because I fear for my safety, so I prefer to travel by car whenever possible.
Person B: Here, look at this statistic that shows there are less fatalities per passenger-mile in a plane than in a car. Therefore, you have nothing to worry about when traveling on an airplane.

What if Person A feels claustrophobic on an airplane due to tight spaces? What if they have a fear of that feeling you get during take-off and landing? Or maybe they had a really bad previous experience on a plane (extreme case: they survived a plane crash). There are a lot of things that Person B doesn't know about Person A's experience, so why would Person B feel they have the authority to deem that Person A does not need to worry. Person A can decide for themselves whether or not they need to worry about their safety.

[TakeruK]

I am a Canadian who has been in America since 2012. I would say that a big part of my comfort of moving to the US for my PhD was that Obama's first term showed me that the US can be a very different country from what I knew about it in the past. 

I'm not applying to schools now but I'm about to finish my PhD and I'm applying to postdocs. To be honest, I still don't know if I would be comfortable staying in the US for a postdoc. I applied to equal numbers of US and Canadian positions. Although I do not yet have any offers in hand (the majority of things I applied to will be deciding soon though), I have not ruled out the possibility of leaving the field if I can't find a Canadian position (rather than accepting a US position). Also, there are some US positions at locations I would have been comfortable in if the election went the other way, but now I'm much less interested under President Trump. Note: It's not that they were in red states but that they are far from my family in Canada and I don't think I would want the double combination of living in a Trump USA plus inconvenience of being close to home.

All of my application deadlines for US schools were before the election, and most Canadian applications were after the election. In some ways, I am grateful that the deadlines fell this way, because I did not reduce any application based on the outcome of the election (if anything, I was more motivated to work hard on my Canadian applications after Nov 8). 

While my field is growing significantly in Canada, the US research community has far more funding, people and resources than Canada. It is frustrating that I have to choose between pursuing my field and my own safety/welfare**.

** As a male person, I am definitely less affected by the Trump Administration than others so I know there are others with much more at stake than me. I am potentially affected by Trump in other ways though (skin colour, minority group membership, citizenship status, health, etc.) And, I also feel a little bit of responsibility to be back in Canada and campaign against Trump-like policies for the 2019 election. 

[Quelq'un]

I am Syrian, I knew trump will ban me but still applied.

This is something that I have dedicated my life to. I could not be discouraged.

[stereopticons]

9 minutes ago, rphilos said:

stereopticons: (1) When I claimed that there was no uptick in hate crimes, I linked to a source with empirical data. (2) DBear did not say that she had experienced racism in the US after Trump's election--she is currently in Korea. So I did not deny her experience. (3) Clearly, certain concerns are not valid. If someone says that he is concerned (e.g.) that Jews are controlling the government, he needs to provide evidence to justify this. Otherwise, we would say that his "concern" is morally unjustified. Similarly, if someone claims to have "fears" or "concerns" about 63 million Trump voters, they should provide evidence to justify those feelings.

You linked to a blog. A blog is not an empirical source. Try https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch

We do, in fact, have evidence. And it's the subset of Trump supporters who now feel it's acceptable to commit hate crimes that we are afraid of. 

You keep insisting that hate crimes against Asians are commited only by black people but you've only provided anecdotal evidence. And tbh, is pretty racist in itself.  

[TakeruK]

9 hours ago, rphilos said:

TakeruK, your case 2 is not analogous to my exchange with DBear. The following would be analogous:

Person A: I'm afraid of flying on airplanes.

Person B: Why are you afraid of flying on airplanes?

Person A: I am afraid because I believe that airplanes are more dangerous than driving.

Person B: If that's why you don't like flying on airplanes, your fear is unjustified because airplanes are safer than cars.

TakeruK to Person B: "It's a little presumptuous to go around telling strangers to not worry about X....So, why don't we let each person decide for themselves what to worry about?"

I see two differences in your version of the events than what I read.
i) I read Person A's response as not feeling safe or not feeling comfortable on a plane, not that they believe planes are more dangerous
ii) Person B actually said, "I don't think you need to worry about the typical Trump voters" not "If X is the reason you don't like flying on airplanes, then your fear is unjustified"

However, let's move away from the specifics of the discussion and focus on your version of the analogy, because it seems like we are now debating why I responded the way I did and I can still explain that with your version of the analogy.

In your analogy, I'd focus on Person B's second statement (specifically, the phrase "your fear is unjustified..."). Why does Person B feel that they are able to say whether another person's fears are justified or not. Here are the reasons why I would think Person B is presumptuous/arrogant in their response:

1. Person A is a stranger and might not have provided all the information necessary to determine whether or not their fear is justified.
2. Person B is basically telling Person A how they should feel, when Person A has the right to decide for themselves how they should feel. I think it's very arrogant for Person B to make statements like this and basically claim to know what's best for Person A, even though Person B does not know Person A. 

To be clear, I'm not saying that you should not argue or debate. Person B makes logical and correct statements (assuming that Person B actually defines what they mean by "safer", whether it is in terms of fatalities per passenger-mile or whatever, but you left that out for brevity). However, being logical and correct is not mutually exclusive with being presumptuous and arrogant. In your analogy, if Person B's second line was "Oh, well I feel safe on airplanes because of [[insert statistics or facts that support their feeling of safety]]", then I think Person B has made a logical argument without being arrogant. Obviously, being arrogant isn't a crime and Person B can make these statements if they want. But other people will likely call Person B out on it.

[Beals]

I had originally intended to apply to 5 US programs, and 1 Canadian program. After Nov 8, I decided on 3 US programs and 2 Canadian. So yes, it did reduce the number of applications to US schools I made.

The 3 US programs are all in very blue areas, and though I'd be a queer, female foreigner living in the US I don't really anticipate that I'd personally have problems (being white, normatively feminine and part of a privileged institution). However, even if I'm not overly worried about my physical safety I don't know that I want to put myself in that environment.

So I genuinely don't know what decision I will make, assuming I'm accepted to any schools in the US. 

[stereopticons]

12 minutes ago, rphilos said:

@TakeruK, please read the thread more carefully. I did not presume to know what a stranger has to worry about. I asked DBear what she was worried about--why she would feel she would need to be more vigilant of her surroundings in the light of Trump's election. She responded by saying that there has been an uptick in hate crimes against people of color, and she feels that she would be an easy target as an Asian female. I pointed out that (1) there has not been an uptick in hate crimes and (2) hate crimes against Asians are overwhelmingly not committed by Trump voters.

I would encourage you, as an Asian, to reconsider whether liberals or conservatives care more about your "basic human rights." I went to one of the most liberal colleges in arguably the most liberal city in the US. Hate crimes were regularly committed by blacks against Asians. The liberals on campus always refused to recognize these as "hate crimes" no matter how obvious it was that race was a factor. When an Asian student was chased into the street and killed (by a black person), there was an article in the student newspaper saying that we shouldn't judge the perpetrator harshly, and he didn't really mean to do what he did. One night a group of blacks walked down the street attacking every Asian they came across, and the liberals refused to call it a hate crime.

Personal anecdotes =|= evidence. Just because you had this experience does not mean others fears, concerns, or experiences are invalid. 

[muskratsam]

@rphilos  http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/uw-shooting/  Shooter had a MAGA hat, was there to see Milo Yiannopoulos, and his Facebook page says he is a Trump supporter.  The guy who was shot was there to protest the Yiannopoulos event.

[GreenEyedTrombonist]

Since this seems to have become a debate, here are a few articles about the issue:

http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/11/15/13628200/trump-hate-crimes-racism 

This article focuses on the data being released by the FBI showing an uptick in hate crime in 2015 (report released Nov 2016), but how, because of poor reporting methods, it's impossible to know if this is an actual uptick or if the FBI just got a little bit better data that year.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/11/12/post-election-spate-hate-crimes-worse-than-post-911-experts-say/93681294/

This article depends on reports from at least 2 non-profits interested in the protection of marginalized groups. Both groups are saying the number of reported incidents has severely increased since Trump's election. 

http://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/2016/11/hate-crimes-social-media-and-rise-hoax-hoax

This article is concerned with getting people thinking critically about what they read on social media. What I like most about it is the data released from a conservative site saying false hate crime reports average out to 10 per year. Considering one of the groups in the previous article is reporting 200 reports of hate crime in the week or so following the election, that 10 per year would seem to indicate that not all of these reports are fake. It also cautions against individuals who claim hate crime reported on social media is fake and warns that, though you should do your research on the hate crime if something seems hinky, you should also do your research on the people calling it out as a lie.

So, is America any more unsafe for marginalized groups than it was prior to the election? The answer is we don't know and, even when the FBI releases their report for 2016, due to their previous bad collection of data there is no way to know if hate crime has increased across the country. 

Is hate crime happening? Yes. There is no way around this. There are several credible stories of people being attacked because of their marginalized status. We don't know if the number of attacks has increased, but we have seen a dramatic increase in reported attacks.

Are people justified in being fearful of what could happen to them in America right now? Yes. None of the articles I read (much more than these three) makes any claim that hate crime has gone down. Whether the election has caused a rise in hate crime or not, the truth is that there is quite a bit of hate crime occurring (though we have no way of knowing if this is an increase from previous years). Due to the larger number of reported incidents, the rise in hate crime seen could easily just be a more accurate representation of hate crime in this country. That does not mean we having nothing to fear, but does mean we didn't know all we had to fear before.

The fear people are feeling is the result of a larger number of hate crimes being reported and reported on, but this does not, in my opinion, prove that their fear is unjustified or irrational. I think all it really proves is that the bubble burst for those of us living in/who only visit urban areas with liberal tendencies. We can no longer pretend hate crime is not happening here. Whether it's increased or not, I find the occurrence of hate crime unacceptable. I'm not going to say "well, it's the same as before so we don't have a problem." We have a problem. 

 

This turned into much more of an essay than I intended, haha. One last note about the articles: I realize different news sources often put their own spin on things. That is why I tried to include different sources which, rather than saying an grandiose statements, focused on what is being reported from the government and NGO's and also cautioned against believing everything you read on the internet. In the end, I think the biggest lesson here is to go to more than one news source, think critically, and decide for yourself what you're comfortable with once you have as many of the facts as possible.

[DBear]

As an Asian female, I appreciate @TakeruK's endnote. I'm applying as an international student but grew up in the U.S. and did my first MA and interned in CA toward the tail end of the Bush administration. I always intended to return for my PhD and the election outcome did not change that. However, I made a conscious choice to exclude a bunch of states from my list. There are states I would have included had the election outcome differed. I had conversations with classmates in Korea who about this earlier this year. Though none of them changed their minds about applying to programs in the U.S., I know that some also applied to schools in Europe and Canada, something they may not have done in a different situation since U.S. degrees are pretty much the standard here. I'm still hopeful that things will be okay, but definitely going to be more vigilant and aware of my surroundings should I get in this time around and actually go back for school.

[GreenEyedTrombonist]

I'm a US citizen and I'm also wrestling with this. I only applied to one school outside the US and I struggle with wondering if getting out will be good or bad. Yes, I'd be outside the US, but if the situation continues to deteriorate, I could end up stuck somewhere, have funding rescinded, visa denied, etc and basically be sol. I only applied to schools in urban areas that are considered fairly to highly diverse (I actually didn't choose based on this info, more that the programs I am interested in happen to occur in higher frequency in major urban hubs than anywhere else), but I'm still concerned with what's going to happen over the next 4 years and the impact they will have, not only on my education, but the lives of everyone around me.

[rphilos]

20 hours ago, DBear said:

As an Asian female, I appreciate @TakeruK's endnote. I'm applying as an international student but grew up in the U.S. and did my first MA and interned in CA toward the tail end of the Bush administration. I always intended to return for my PhD and the election outcome did not change that. However, I made a conscious choice to exclude a bunch of states from my list. There are states I would have included had the election outcome differed. I had conversations with classmates in Korea who about this earlier this year. Though none of them changed their minds about applying to programs in the U.S., I know that some also applied to schools in Europe and Canada, something they may not have done in a different situation since U.S. degrees are pretty much the standard here. I'm still hopeful that things will be okay, but definitely going to be more vigilant and aware of my surroundings should I get in this time around and actually go back for school.

DBear, 대전에서 인사드립니다. If you don't mind me asking, why would you "be more vigilant and aware of [your] surroundings" in light of Trump's election?

[DBear]

7 hours ago, rphilos said:

DBear, 대전에서 인사드립니다. If you don't mind me asking, why would you "be more vigilant and aware of [your] surroundings" in light of Trump's election?

반갑습니다! There has been an uptick in hate crimes and I have heard from differ friends about some unfortunate incidents they've witnessed or gone through as a person of color. It seems some people feel emboldened under the new administration to act on their racism and being an Asian female, I'm a pretty easy target. I may be overreacting but in general, it seems that more people are concerned. When I told friends that I'm not completely comfortable going to the south years ago, they'd mostly say things like "it's actually really nice, you don't have to worry". More recently, the response to the same statement is met with "I understand". 

@Beals out of curiosity, may I ask, do you think the current atmosphere would affect how open you are about being a member of the queer community? 

[AAdAAm]

9 minutes ago, DBear said:

반갑습니다! There has been an uptick in hate crimes and I have heard from differ friends about some unfortunate incidents they've witnessed or gone through as a person of color. It seems some people feel emboldened under the new administration to act on their racism and being an Asian female, I'm a pretty easy target. I may be overreacting but in general, it seems that more people are concerned. When I told friends that I'm not completely comfortable going to the south years ago, they'd mostly say things like "it's actually really nice, you don't have to worry". More recently, the response to the same statement is met with "I understand". 

@Beals out of curiosity, may I ask, do you think the current atmosphere would affect how open you are about being a member of the queer community? 

I don't think you're overreacting at all. I've also been first witness of incidents of racism/open discrimination both on campus and outside of it. I never thought I'd ever do it but I've been seriously considering buying a firearm lately and learning how to use it properly. 

[Beals]

47 minutes ago, DBear said:

반갑습니다! There has been an uptick in hate crimes and I have heard from differ friends about some unfortunate incidents they've witnessed or gone through as a person of color. It seems some people feel emboldened under the new administration to act on their racism and being an Asian female, I'm a pretty easy target. I may be overreacting but in general, it seems that more people are concerned. When I told friends that I'm not completely comfortable going to the south years ago, they'd mostly say things like "it's actually really nice, you don't have to worry". More recently, the response to the same statement is met with "I understand". 

@Beals out of curiosity, may I ask, do you think the current atmosphere would affect how open you are about being a member of the queer community? 

Im really sorry that youre having to factor in safety when youre thinking about where to go.  That's unfair and shitty and I'm just sad that it's 2017 and this is the world we live in.

To your question- yes, and no.  I'm very open and conscientiously choose to be so because I shouldn't have to hide it, and also because I'm in a position where I can take the stupid bigoted comments I get with minimal damage (and hope that by being out and drawing a bit of heat I can make it easier for the next queer person who might be in a less privileged position). So politically and personally, it's important for me to be open.

However, I value my personal safety, so should I end up in a place where it feels unsafe to be out- hell no, I'm dragging a blanket into the closet and moving to Narnia. I don't see that really happening though- as I said, I've applied to schools in very blue areas so I'm not super concerned about physical violence resulting from being out on campus/at work. I live in a major city in Canada (the supposedly liberal bastion of north america) and I still have to deal with bi-phobic comments with some regularity, so if that's all I have to contend with, fine. 

It's a fairly different situation from what you experience, DBear, based on visibility. Coming out is a process that literally never ends because you have to do it again every single time you meet a new person (NB: as I said, I'm a cis woman and normatively-femme, so I don't get the flack and assumptions that gender non-conforming people do), whereas being a visible minority, you can't really pick and choose the scenario.... I really hope you end up somewhere safe, anyhow. 

[muskratsam]

A Trump supporter shot a protester on the UW campus in Seattle this week. 

[GreenEyedTrombonist]

I live in a very liberal, urban area. After the election results were announced, there was an uptick of hate crime on my campus. Someone grabbed a women's hijab from the back as she was walking, another followed a student of an ethnic minority around a building and told them to go home, etc all within a couple of days of the results. There was also a marked increase in sexual assaults on campus in 2016. I won't hold it against anyone if they think twice about attending school in the US right now.

[rphilos]

1 hour ago, muskratsam said:

A Trump supporter shot a protester on the UW campus in Seattle this week. 

@mushkratsam, according to police the University of Washington shooter was an Asian man who said he fired in self-defense. According to some sources the shooter said he thought the guy he shot was a white supremacist. Do you know any details about this that haven't been reported?

[DBear]

2 hours ago, rphilos said:

Hi @DBear

I think it's very questionable that there has been an uptick in hate crimes since Trump's election. See here.

I grew up and went to college in a very liberal city in a very liberal state in the US. I know of dozens of anti-Asian hate crimes committed at or around my college, including one that led to a death (several years ago a young Asian student was chased into the street and hit by a car). 100% of these crimes were committed by black people, 0% by conservative Republicans. I don't think you need to worry about the typical Trump voters.

Well, I'm glad to hear that your experience with race related crime has been some what limited to particular circumstances. I'm also assuming by the way you stated your response that you the liberal city and state you grew up and went to college in is not the city you are currently residing in (also since you said you're in 대전). I'm still not letting my guard down as I know how different things like this play out in different locations at different times, even barring gender-specific issues. I, too, lived in and went to school in a VERY blue city. One of the universities there had reports of women in hijabs being harassed and white supremacist groups posted propaganda posters on campus shortly after the election. This is a school where you're more likely to run into a pot-smoking vegan surfer than a Republican. There are reports from valid sources on the increase in hate-crimes (sorry I can't be bothered to link them) and I'm sure you're basing your considerations on equally valid sources and an educated opinion based on facts and your own experiences, but my trepidation is also based on having lived in the U.S. for a long enough time to have experienced various political and social turmoil, and based on my experience and what I've read, I'm definitely going to be a bit more smiley and polite when I pass INS at the airport and definitely going to be vigilant when walking around by myself (which as a female, I am already) 

[andrewlavignio]

rphilos, I really did not mean this to be about Trump or his supporters. Calling him a "living rape whistle" was meant to signal the obvious danger he poses both to particular women whom hes encountered and women in general. There is tons of evidence that he is a sexual predator, and without a doubt the Republican party is a danger to women. Going around questioning others' philosophical bona fides, which appears to be all you've done in this thread, is not helpful.

To everyone else, thanks for your input.

[rphilos]

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 1:52 PM, andrewlavignio said:

rphilos, I really did not mean this to be about Trump or his supporters. Calling him a "living rape whistle" was meant to signal the obvious danger he poses both to particular women whom hes encountered and women in general. There is tons of evidence that he is a sexual predator, and without a doubt the Republican party is a danger to women. Going around questioning others' philosophical bona fides, which appears to be all you've done in this thread, is not helpful.

To everyone else, thanks for your input.

andrewlavignio, "Going around questioning others' philosophical bona fides, which appears to be all you've done in this thread..." - If you read any of my posts, you would see that I presented arguments and evidence for all my claims. The only time I questioned someone's philosophical bona fides was in my response to you, because you hold yourself up as a student of philosophy. But even then I presented an argument. If you prefer to just assert your beliefs and seek out people who already agree with you to bond over your shared ignorance, maybe you should reconsider trying to be a philosopher.

[TakeruK]

9 hours ago, rphilos said:

TakeruK, there is a moral dimension to this that isn't captured by the fear of flying analogy. We are talking about whether someone is justified in fearing 63 million people (the people who voted for Trump) based on incorrect information. As I suggested to someone else in this thread, suppose someone claims to fear Jewish control of the government. In saying that he fears Jewish control, the person is painting a group of people (Jews) in a negative light. I think it would be fair to ask him to explain why he has this fear, to justify smearing a group of people. If he cites facts that I think are false, I would present him with information that I believe is correct. There may be some cases where "being logical and correct is not mutually exclusive with being presumptuous and arrogant," as you say, but this does not seem to be such a case.

I agree with you that the flying analogy misses the moral dimension. I also agree that if you were having a conversation with someone about an important decision that affects other people then you would be morally justified to challenge someone on their beliefs. For example, if you and I were on a hiring committee, then I don't think you would be wrong to force me to examine my beliefs and ensure that I am not unjustifiable (and immorally) smearing a group of people.

There are many that are also concerned about safety in the United States, so I will make this next part about a general person instead of involving another user that might not want to be part of this conversation. Our discussion was about a person's personal belief about their own safety. It was only about their own concerns for their choice of where to attend graduate school. It is not a decision that involves you or will cause an immoral thing to happen. That's why I chose the flying analogy, to remove the moral dimension, because I don't think it applies.

[rphilos]

1 hour ago, GreenEyedTrombonist said:

http://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/2016/11/hate-crimes-social-media-and-rise-hoax-hoax

This article is concerned with getting people thinking critically about what they read on social media. What I like most about it is the data released from a conservative site saying false hate crime reports average out to 10 per year. Considering one of the groups in the previous article is reporting 200 reports of hate crime in the week or so following the election, that 10 per year would seem to indicate that not all of these reports are fake. It also cautions against individuals who claim hate crime reported on social media is fake and warns that, though you should do your research on the hate crime if something seems hinky, you should also do your research on the people calling it out as a lie.

Hi GreenEyedTrombonist

The New Statesman article does claim that Breitbart, a conservative outlet, "concludes that there have been 100 in the last ten years, a remarkably low rate of ten a year." But note that the New Statesman doesn't include a link to the source being cited, which is strange since it includes links for all its other sources. The reason may be because it is misrepresenting the Breitbart article, which you can see here. Breitbart examined only "high-profile hate crimes that turned out to be frauds." It did not estimate what percentage of hate crimes that are reported to police are fake, though it speculated, for reasons given in the article, that "the number is high."