Monday, October 17, 2011


Did you aim at questioning one person's behavior or at discussing a pressing phenomenon?

Were you aware that you were making constant, multiple times of legal accusation of one individual throughout a considerable length in a public fashion?

Did you do any fact check before making such accusation besides your own "observation?"

How certain were you that your accusation was correct? How certain are you now?

If not 100%, do you think that you should have made such a strong and constant accusation targeting one person?

You cited a message that was not directly linked to the incident last Saturday. Do you think that might reflect that you were biased before evaluating the incidence?

Were you aware that citing an irrelevant case might cause biased judgment among the message recipients?

Do you remain biased towards the person outside the soccer games? Specifically, do you consider him as a generally violent person, or one with violent tendency?

As the Committee member of the said person, do you agree that you are in the de facto higher level of the hierarchy in any possible interaction with him?

Do you agree that the power structure never really disappear, no mAtter how the context or scenario changes?

If so, do you think as a person with more power in this hierarchy, your accusation may cause unnecessary pressure and stress on the person?

Do you agree therefore you should be more cautious than making an ill-evidenced accusation, which may be a crime that breaches the said person's reputation, at the same time causing a conflict of interest?

Since you are constantly making moral and even legal judgment of the person without factual ground, how certain are you that such personal biases would not interfere with your role as influencing and evaluating the said person's academic performance?

No comments: