'Public Mistreatment'

At Neo-Neocon, "More on the Abramson story: what’s this “public mistreatment” bit?":

To me, the most curious phrase in the newest Sulzberger statement about Jill Abramson is this one [italics mine]:

During [Abramson's] tenure, I heard repeatedly from her newsroom colleagues, women and men, about a series of issues, including arbitrary decision-making, a failure to consult and bring colleagues with her, inadequate communication and the public mistreatment of colleagues…

So, did Abramson put some writer or editor in the stocks? Institute public floggings at the Times? Did she administer a series of public tongue-lashings? Or just criticisms? Is there a rule at the Times that, in order to avoid offending egos and tender sensibilities, an executive can only say negative things about an employee in private? And if this “mistreatment” perpetrated by Abramson was indeed, “public,” could Sulzberger mention more specifically (without naming the recipient of the mistreatment) what she allegedly said or did, so we could get an idea of what sort of offense he might be talking about? ...

Kinda funny, but the notion of "public mistreatment" isn't obscure on college campuses. Indeed, if a professor wants to discipline a student, it's best to do it away from the rest of the class, because any "public" humiliation could be grounds for a civil rights complaint. Some of my white male colleagues have totally given up on the idea of classroom discipline at all, lest they be attacked as "racist."

It's out of control.

PREVIOUSLY: "Why Student Behavior Matters."