Weird. Very weird. − Reaganaut 04:25, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
- A dissertation-length written catfight. Only on WikiCU. Ttan 18:43, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
- WOW Nateoxford 01:28, 23 February 2010 (EST)
Indeed it is weird...
That three people are so obsessed with me they posted a bunch of lies and half truths about me and spent so much time reading my website to find 3 typos. Thanks for drawing attention to some of my most salient social commentary. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but really, this character assassination is. It's amazing how important I still am in your life, 18 months after I graduated (by the way, that's class of '06 and I've never been an English major - my first BA is in Political Science/Women's Studies, thus the subjects of the pulled quotes, and the second, from Columbia, is Literature-Writing).
- Hmm, as one of the three people "so obsessed" with her, I feel obligated to do a bit of self-reflection because I don't really consider myself to be a mean person, nor do I like to mock people for the sake of mocking them. That said, if I expected Erica to actually read her own article on here, I perhaps would have been a bit more hesitant to write. My view on this whole site is that it's a resource to collect information on everything campus-related, including "campus characters". I've never met or heard of Erica outside of comments on Bwog, which described her as self-aggrandizing, hypocritical, and overly critical of other writers. When I saw someone post a link to her site, I read through it, including the blog and it did seem to resemble the caricature painted on bwog. I posted quotes from her blog, not because they were syntactically incorrect, but because they were indicative of the fact that there was some substance behind the comments on bwog (the fact that there were spelling and grammatical errors I just thought was funny). So thinking about it, I agree with her that inaccurate information should not be posted, nor should personal judgments, but as she is a writer, I feel like she would agree that a writer should stand behind the words they publish. I don't feel that quoting her was out of line.
- As for the edits she made to her page, I feel like she's missing the point. In response to an article that mocks her, she makes edits that confirm exactly the qualities being mocked. She responded to the claim that she's self-congratulatory by making multiple references to her charity work. She responds to the claim that she can't let go of Columbia by posting an article about her returning to Columbia after graduating to organize a thesis reading. She responds to the claim that she broadcasts her poverty by... broadcasting her poverty. Is there some sort of intentional irony here that I'm not giving her enough credit for? In any case, if she sincerely thinks the article is funny, then this is a mutually beneficial situation, because I too am pretty amused by all of this, though I am going to correct the - I guess "vandalism" she added to the article. --Nonsensical 22:51, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
I did not and will not edit the entry in any way. The logs will bear that out. Unlike some, I possess reading comprehension and noted the rule against editing an entry about oneself (heaven forfend an entry about a GS student or alum contain any factual or positive information). Perhaps if you people could find better uses for Daddy's money than anonymously slandering strangers online, you would understand that people I've mentored for 2-3 years (that is, who actually know me) were stunned by the inaccuracies of the entry and decided individually to either correct or spoof the ridiculous "article." I notice that in "correcting" the entry, you (some anonymous child who does not even know me) took out facts, such as the truth about my "comfortable" living conditions, the fact that I am biracial (and thus anti-white sentiment is a ridiculous allegation), and the fact that I have mentored countless students. I also made friends there, many of whom have not yet graduated, thus all the Erica Jackson sightings on campus. I've never, in 20 years of work, had anyone note on the internet that I visited colleagues from a former job. If you knew me at all, you'd know that I make and keep friends everywhere I go. Yes, even at Columbia, even within CC.
If anything, this entire farce only illustrates why my experience with Columbia was so complex -- I went there to meet smart people, but encountered far too many like those who have nothing better to do with their time than put me down because I did not fit their idea of what someone who looks like me should be. As one of the people who actually deserved to be there and had many talents to contribute, I was rarely appreciated or recognized for my contriutions, but, rather, subject to race, sex, class and college-based discrimination and harassment on a daily basis by people who were not nearly as smart or special as they had been lead to believe all their short lives. If a white, male person mentioned their student activities, intelligence or current writing projects, they would not be perceived as "self-aggrandizing," they would be seen as normal. If women studies and political science taught me anything, it's that normal, healthy egos in women and minorities are regarded as suspect and that agents of the status quo will work tirelessly to keep us in our place. If I display any seriousness, sense of self or expectation to be treated fairly, the problem is me and not society (thanks for pulling quotes from my writing that address these sociopolitical questions).
I don't suppose any of you ever stopped to question why I had to organize a literary reading for GS students. The writing department refused to include GS students (the only students who could major in Writing until recently) in its annual reading. We were told no one would come, that we had no audience (despite our audience covering not just Morningside Heights, but all 5 boroughs and NJ). Our 7 readers attracted more people than the 21 non-majors from CC did last year. Yet the department continued its discriminatory practice, so I organized the reading again this year. Thank goodness The History Channel doesn't share the bigotry of our own administration. Despite my experiences at Columbia, or perhaps because of them, I don't think GS students who come after me should be denied a reading.
I agree that writers should stand behind their writing, and that goes double for formal writing, such as that of writing workshops. If one cannot take constructive criticism (a typical example is, "great dialogue, but work on making the non-lead characters more three-dimensional" - so harsh!), they don't belong in a writing workshop and certainly won't survive as writers. If the writing were any good (much of it wasn't, although I kept a policy of focusing on the positives in any writer's work, despite the frequent dearth thereof), these anonymous people wouldn't be on a bulletin board complaining that I was "harsh" on their writing and hiding behind the excuse that they are white and male. Assholes and bad writers come in every color and both sexes. Would that they so much time on their own creative writing, so I didn't have to wade through their trite and trivial dreck and strain to find nice things to say, so as not to bruise the ego of some little prince who never heard more than "yes sir" from the only brown people in their life prior to attending Columbia -- the nanny and the maid. I, however, am accustomed to white men, and people of every description, treating me with respect and usually intellectual curiosity.
Hey, I understand your discomfort and obsession with me. If I had been told that I was superior from birth, if I had a wealthy father who gave me every opportunity to get into and through an Ivy League university -- I would be terribly threatened to see that someone like me -- descendent of slaves and poor whites (Andrew's poor relations) -- can do just as well at Columbia, without parental preparation or assistance, prep school and money and while daily enduring hate and invective similar to that displayed on these boards from not only classmates, but teachers and certain administrators. I worked hard for decades to get to the same place on my own, rather than have it handed to me. In such a comparison, who is the truly extraordinary person?
Get a job, do some volunteer work for those less fortunate than yourselves (that is, almost anyone), then maybe I won't be such an important presence in your little lives. But if bad-mouthing someone you don't know -- who puts tremendous time and effort into turning a negative experience into a positive outcome by helping others -- is the best you can do with your lives, then all that privilege is truly wasted on you.
- I did not and will not edit the entry in any way. The logs will bear that out.
- The edits occurred within hours of you commenting as yourself on the Talk page and an anonymous user from a NYC IP address posting personal details about your living conditions and your family. I don't think it was such a leap to assume it was you (I'm still not really convinced it wasn't).
- Unlike some, I possess reading comprehension and noted the rule against editing an entry about oneself
- What? Where does it say that? As far as I know, you're free to correct inaccuracies in your article if you see fit.
- I notice that in "correcting" the entry, you... took out facts
- The edits contained a lot of garbage that was either irrelevant or embellishment. I took out the part about you being biracial because it wasn't even clear to me from the context that you are (I believe it offhandedly mentioned you had a "'white' side" of your family that didn't like you). I took out the part about you living in a small room, but I also took out the part about you falsely claiming to be poor.
- If a white, male person mentioned their student activities, intelligence or current writing projects, they would not be perceived as "self-aggrandizing," they would be seen as normal.
- No. See Szabla, Chris, although I used the word "masturbatory" rather than "self-aggrandizing".
- I don't suppose any of you ever stopped to question why I had to organize a literary reading for GS students.
- No, I just didn't think it was interesting or relevant.
- Hey, I understand your discomfort and obsession with me.
- Look, nobody's "obsessed" with you. We just write articles about school related subjects, including campus characters, which you are. You came up on a Bwog thread so someone added an entry about you that night, but you're one article out of 1,500+. I spent no more time editing your article than I did the Chess club and I'm not obsessed with them. It's not like we registered www.wehateericajackson.com and threw a party to talk about all of your negative qualities. I don't even have anything against you. It's not like I skimmed through your blog and thought "Argh! Curses, Jackson! You've infuriated me once more!" No, I just thought, "Hey, this is pretty funny. I see what the Bwog commenters mean."
- ...I kept a policy of focusing on the positives in any writer's work...
- The article doesn't say that you are or aren't harsh on people's writing; it says that commenters on Bwog describe you as being harsh, which is true.
- Would that they so much time on their own creative writing, [???] so I didn't have to wade through their trite and trivial dreck and strain to find nice things to say, so as not to bruise the ego of some little prince who never heard more than "yes sir" from the only brown people in their life prior to attending Columbia -- the nanny and the maid.
- I really don't understand where people are getting the idea that you bear hostility towards white males. I'm actually really relieved to see a non-white person who finally "gets" white people. You're right, it's hard for us rich white Columbia students to cope at Columbia since most of us had never seen a person of color except on our weekly trips to soup kitchens to piss on poor people and minorities, as is proud tradition among all suburban white families (especially those whose children attend Ivy League schools).
- Look, I'm not denying that racism is a huge problem, but I certainly don't think it's reasonable to assume that it's every problem. Really? You're sure the reason people don't like your writing is because you're not a white male? Is it possible that you're... I don't know, not a very good writer? I have no idea what your writing's like, but I think it's ridiculous that you're so certain the only thing holding you back is the fact that you're not a white male. Also, don't you feel like you're encouraging exactly that behavior when you immediately assume that because I picked out funny excerpts from you that I'm white and therefore rich (unemployed for some reason?) and have never done any volunteer work? Perhaps I'm not white, not rich, not unemployed, and have done lots of charity work, though people aren't aware of it because it's not every third word out of my mouth.
- --Nonsensical 14:11, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
I'm the one who posted the info about her living conditions and biracial heritage. Since I live in NC, I find it odd that my IP address would locate me in NY... It was anonymous because I didn't feel the need to create an account to prove anything to anyone. However, I did have to create an account to add to this discussion. That said, I am still at a loss as to why anyone would take the time to post second and third hand information about someone they don't know. I thought Wikipedia was an open source website devoted to actual information, not speculative supposition against people who would not be given a chance to answer the charges held against them unless the site was pointed out to them. What is even funnier is that the person who originally spotted it removed the gossipy items but was asked by Erica to put it back. So far, I have lost about 5 minutes of my time that I will never get back just to take credit for something that I wrote that was actually true. -Kristina