Talk:Erica Jackson

Weird. Very weird.  − Reaganaut  04:25, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

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. 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 make fun of me. As one of the people who actually deserved to be there and had many talents to contribute, I was 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 portrayed as "self-aggrandizing," it would be seen as normal. If women studies and politics taught me anything, it's that normal, healthy egos in women and minorities are seen as abhorrations 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 an outside 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.

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!). If the writing were any good (much of it wasn't, although I kept a policy of focusing on the positives in a 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. Would that they spent that amount of time on their own creative writing, so I didn't have to wade through their trite and trivial dreck and try 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 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 the hate and invective 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 model, 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 waste on you.