Discussion on answer by Ben: How to move forward after microaggression allegations against my TA

What an obtuse remark.

The comment is obtuse because you are interpreting the Queen-of-Hearts remark far more literally than is obviously intended from the sentences directly before and after it. This is a well-known literary allusion that refers to the injustice of conducting a fact-finding/investigative process in an order that reverses the logical order of key parts, as has been done here. As is already pointed out in this thread, OP makes a number of statements to the effect that he is investigating and considering what potential adverse consequences to TA might or might not be warranted.

Again, I agree that there has not been a sentence, and that is my criticism of you taking that allusion too literally (and ignoring the sentences directly before and after it). The decision process at issue is still problematic in view of having reversed other elements, notwithstanding that it has not proceeded to any punishment. I'm surprised that the position "Don't jump to conclusions" is really that controversial.

@AzorAhai-him- The list of flags is long: The usage of 'microaggression', 'privileged' and 'minoritized', and reducing all parties involved to those two groups. Taking the experience of the 'minoritized' victim as the only measure of right/wrong, (hence) assuming guilt of the 'privileged' person, dismissing the value of 'privileged' people, both the TA and themselves, completely dismissing the agency of the 'minoritized' victim, etc.

@Dawn: Yes, the point is indeed largely, "don't jump to conclusions". I have said that OP may talk to the TA about this, but the problem here is that OP has already jumped to a finding on the behaviour and resolved to "deal with this" --- it is Queen-of-Hearts behaviour: "Sentence first, verdict afterwards!". When I refer to due process here, I refer to the expectation that an investigator should talk to all relevant parties before making and communicating findings.

The concept of academic freedom (like free speech) is meant to protect study and thought from the oppression of powerful government. It should not be used to protect people in a relative position of power (like instructors or TAs) from complaint by those they have power over (students). We should all have a higher standard for how we interact with others than "do whatever I want as long as I can't be legally fired for it". Perhaps it would help to see this as an opportunity for the TA to learn something about how their statements affect others. No one is calling for the TA to be fired here.

@AzorAhai-him- Thank you for your exceptionally mature response.

Oh no, they said "microaggression." the horror I really fail to see how you can read the Q as "reducing all parties involved to those two groups" unless you are actively trying to assume the worst of OP. OP doesn't discount their judgement because they are privileged, they are saying that they trust the student was hurt, even if the same comment directed at them would not have the same impact

@PLL I agree that OP does not seem to think that dismissal is warranted. What troubles me is that OP explicitly leaves the door open to disqualify their own judgement because they are "privileged".

Steeped in identitarian ideology? Huh? I see absolutely no sign of that whatsoever, rather the contrary. Could you clarify?

@AnonymousPhysicist You cannot just ignore the actual content of the student's complaint. Obviously, what OP should do depends partly on that.

@BryanKrause For the OP, firing the TA is definitely an option to be considered: " In my (once again, privileged) opinion, this problem is not serious enough that the TA should be removed..."

@BryanKrause No, the quote illustrates that they do consider the option. They explicitly state that they do not think that option is necessary, with the explicit qualification that their opinion is 'privileged', which here is doublespeak for 'not authoritative'. This means they consider it an option.