> So, to readers here, I can assure you that caste had absolutely nothing to do with OPs election/non-election as a faculty member
That's a strong claim to make for someone who was not at all involved in the process.
back
1 comments
Quite a shallow argument.
For starters, the guy did get his tenure, which implies that caste did not have a negative impact in the decision.
You're right, yours is a very shallow argument.
Unless you can reveal anything about the inner workings of the tenure board, you are taking your impression of a broad organisation and applying it to a specific department, a management structure and a board for which you are ignorant.
Please don't make sweeping generalisations and minimise the position of the author unless you have actual knowledge that might let you walk in his shoes.
If we are being pedantic, the burden of proof does not lie on me.
I didn't publish AND promote a blog post where I feared not getting my current job because of some social dynamic that happens to exist 12,500km from where I am right now.
You should ask OP to provide evidence of caste discrimination in Canada, at this particular University.
You:
> I can assure you that caste had absolutely nothing to do with OPs election/non-election
Also you:
> the burden of proof does not lie on me
You made very strong claims in your opening post. Asking you to provide some proof to support those claims is perfectly valid.
Read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)
>In a legal dispute, one party has the burden of proof to show that they are correct, while the other party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct.
>(emphasis) while the other party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct
>The burden of proof is usually on the person who brings a claim in a dispute.
In case it's not clear, I'm not OP, I did not write TFA.
But you are also making your own claim, by asserting with absolute confidence that caste-based discrimination doesn't exist. If you were just questioning the reasoning of the author, then sure, the burden of proof would be with them.
Also, this is not a courtroom.
>(emphasis) while the other party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct
Posting this sentence for the third time. I am on the "presumably correct" side.
>Also, this is not a courtroom.
Why is that important?