I only met Richard twice, so I can't claim to know him deeply.
But he struck me as a genuine and kind person who cared about people.
When I heard the heartbreaking news, I was disappointed that the lessons of his death were discussed much more robustly outside our borders than here in his home country.
I also noted that, very quickly, the story was framed in the news into a cynical narrative that overlooked the human side of his story, and diminished the significance of his dedicated contributions to a humane society.
Thank you for taking up the efforts to help us move to a better place in which we treat each other as human beings first, not identities.
When he died there was much talk about the abuse the deceased was subjected to by the "diversity educator", as the primary source of his distress. But I've recently been reading "Gay Shame" by Gareth Roberts, and I incline toward the belief, myself, that he may have been gay-bullied to death. https://swiftpress.com/book/gay-shame/ . He was obviously feisty enough to stand up and do a bunch of things opposing the pursuit of "equity at the expense of everybody", quite vigorously, but two solid years of bullying could still do a sensitive person in.
Possibly, but to an extent it's also irrelevant. If her conduct was the lever that pushed him over the edge (and everything I've seen appears to indicate it was), the primary responsibility lies with her, and by extension the organization that sponsored her purported training and failed to act when he reported problems. But of course she can wrap herself in the cloak of righteousness and escape all scrutiny. Introspection is not a character trait valued by the DEI crowd.
I think you say my speculation is irrelevant, but then claim it's false. So I think you think it is relevant. I know from experience that getting one nasty treatment from strangers, even in an institutional or public setting is nothing to getting protracted abuse from people who you kind of thought would at least bother to take the trouble to try to understand why you thought the way you did, instead of immediately demonstrating that they had been so brainwashed that the fact that you had taken a different stance from the approved one immediately branded you as a member of the bigot tribe in their eyes. It unsettles and depresses and undermines in the way that one incident of abuse from a relative stranger shouldn't possibly be able to.
You'll notice I said "to an extent" when commenting on the wider scale. And irrelevant doesn't mean false. Your post feels like you're attempting in some way to shift responsibility away from his own organization and the moron they hired to "educate" staff and onto a wider concept, which I feel is a mistake. Individuals, especially those who claim to be interested in diversity and inclusion, MUST be held accountable when they commit travesties like this.
That's your concern, but not my purpose. A Diversity stranger abusing you can be treated as an enemy, if you have the guts, and the deceased had the guts and conviction as one can tell by his subsequent actions over the next few years. When your "friends" turn on you, that's a tougher thing to deal with. Graham Linehan, most of whose colleagues turned on him in a similar situation, discusses this perceptively in his memoir "Tough Crowd".
Maybe you should write your own essay on the subject, then. The purpose of this essay as I read it was to remind us that organizations and people in positions of authority need to be held accountable for their misdeeds and failures to protect their own staff. Your purpose has validity, but distracts for the purpose here.
The bulk of the story, by inches, is about the partial and posthumous success of his anti-equity efforts, and is a rallying cry to keep up the good work. I'm glad of the success, because the dogma of equity is pernicious. I respect his courage and vigor in confronting the people and ideology he opposed.
But the story that he turned into a wet noodle when a DEI "educator" said nasty things to him is not consistent with his conduct subsequently. It seems sentimental and unrealistic to me to carry that story around perpetually. It would be better to be realistic about the extent and variety of the adversity he likely had to deal with in the few years after that event and before he died, partly because people everywhere are still dealing with the same adversity even if some of the more obvious excesses have been shelved temporarily.
I only met Richard twice, so I can't claim to know him deeply.
But he struck me as a genuine and kind person who cared about people.
When I heard the heartbreaking news, I was disappointed that the lessons of his death were discussed much more robustly outside our borders than here in his home country.
I also noted that, very quickly, the story was framed in the news into a cynical narrative that overlooked the human side of his story, and diminished the significance of his dedicated contributions to a humane society.
Thank you for taking up the efforts to help us move to a better place in which we treat each other as human beings first, not identities.
Thank you for this tribute and for your continued efforts to keep Richard’s memory and legacy alive.
Thank you.
It is progress. God bless Richard.
When he died there was much talk about the abuse the deceased was subjected to by the "diversity educator", as the primary source of his distress. But I've recently been reading "Gay Shame" by Gareth Roberts, and I incline toward the belief, myself, that he may have been gay-bullied to death. https://swiftpress.com/book/gay-shame/ . He was obviously feisty enough to stand up and do a bunch of things opposing the pursuit of "equity at the expense of everybody", quite vigorously, but two solid years of bullying could still do a sensitive person in.
Possibly, but to an extent it's also irrelevant. If her conduct was the lever that pushed him over the edge (and everything I've seen appears to indicate it was), the primary responsibility lies with her, and by extension the organization that sponsored her purported training and failed to act when he reported problems. But of course she can wrap herself in the cloak of righteousness and escape all scrutiny. Introspection is not a character trait valued by the DEI crowd.
I think you say my speculation is irrelevant, but then claim it's false. So I think you think it is relevant. I know from experience that getting one nasty treatment from strangers, even in an institutional or public setting is nothing to getting protracted abuse from people who you kind of thought would at least bother to take the trouble to try to understand why you thought the way you did, instead of immediately demonstrating that they had been so brainwashed that the fact that you had taken a different stance from the approved one immediately branded you as a member of the bigot tribe in their eyes. It unsettles and depresses and undermines in the way that one incident of abuse from a relative stranger shouldn't possibly be able to.
You'll notice I said "to an extent" when commenting on the wider scale. And irrelevant doesn't mean false. Your post feels like you're attempting in some way to shift responsibility away from his own organization and the moron they hired to "educate" staff and onto a wider concept, which I feel is a mistake. Individuals, especially those who claim to be interested in diversity and inclusion, MUST be held accountable when they commit travesties like this.
That's your concern, but not my purpose. A Diversity stranger abusing you can be treated as an enemy, if you have the guts, and the deceased had the guts and conviction as one can tell by his subsequent actions over the next few years. When your "friends" turn on you, that's a tougher thing to deal with. Graham Linehan, most of whose colleagues turned on him in a similar situation, discusses this perceptively in his memoir "Tough Crowd".
Maybe you should write your own essay on the subject, then. The purpose of this essay as I read it was to remind us that organizations and people in positions of authority need to be held accountable for their misdeeds and failures to protect their own staff. Your purpose has validity, but distracts for the purpose here.
The bulk of the story, by inches, is about the partial and posthumous success of his anti-equity efforts, and is a rallying cry to keep up the good work. I'm glad of the success, because the dogma of equity is pernicious. I respect his courage and vigor in confronting the people and ideology he opposed.
But the story that he turned into a wet noodle when a DEI "educator" said nasty things to him is not consistent with his conduct subsequently. It seems sentimental and unrealistic to me to carry that story around perpetually. It would be better to be realistic about the extent and variety of the adversity he likely had to deal with in the few years after that event and before he died, partly because people everywhere are still dealing with the same adversity even if some of the more obvious excesses have been shelved temporarily.