OK, she is (I think) essentially saying, 'this person had a Jewish name and looked Jewish and therefore I was surprised to learn that he wasn't Jewish'. (Tbf to Clanchy I have simplified it in order to explore the point I'm interested in.) Yes, I think we can all see why that would alienate people. But I have two questions - and they are genuine, good faith questions.
1: She is relying on appearances and stereotypes to draw a conclusion here - but the conclusion is not a value judgement, it is not hostile or linking a physical stereotype to anything derogatory. Obviously it goes without saying that 'he had a Jewish nose and therefore I was surprised that he was generous with his money' would be deeply, deeply offensive. But a lot of our feminism is based on the argument that physical differences do not translate to behaviour, and that noticing someone's real body does not mean that you are making assumptions about their minds, personalities, capabilities, etc. So if this is offensive (and clearly to some people it is, extremely) how do we analyse that offence? Is it recognising that someone embodies a particular stereotype - i.e., the involuntary combination of seeing their real body and being familiar with the stereotype? Is it the idea that noticing that a combination of factors hint at a certain ethnicity must be wrong? Is it different in some way from being surprised that Sven Hogland with his height and blond hair denies any Scandinavian connection? Or that a pupil has dark skin and an Afro and denies any African heritage? Unless we accept that 'Jewish' is a derogatory or imaginary term in itself (which seems to me much worse than what Clanchy is doing here), I would (genuinely) like someone to explain which part of this process is the bit that should be avoided. (And don't say, "she shouldn't care if he's Jewish!" because in context it is clear she doesn't give a damn, except to be curious about how the community at large appears to reject multiculturalism.)
2 (and I think this is the bit that concerns me more, in the context of Clanchy's punishment): OK, let's agree for argument's sake that it was a racist thought process, and move on. So. If we notice prejudice in ourselves, and want to think aloud about how it works and how we combat it, what needs to change? In this example, what should Clanchy do differently? Basically she has four options: a) make sure she does not notice her pupils' physicality; b) make sure she is as unfamiliar as possible with stereotypes and racism; c) lie about what went through her head, and maintain the pretence that it is as easy to defeat prejudice in your thoughts as it is to defeat it in speech; d) never talk about it, and give up on the problem, because it is better to pretend it doesn't exist. If she is not allowed to admit to racism, ever, even in order to analyse it, then isn't she being asked to pretend 'she never sees race, only people'? - that claim which is rightfully lampooned by activists (including feminists, if you replace 'race' with 'sex').
Given that I have only asked questions, and in good faith, it is weird and significant, I think, that I feel so uncomfortable about writing this. There is a huge pressure to pretend (even on an anonymous forum, where the stakes are very low) that when it comes to racism, and social justice, etc etc, you already get it. That your thinking is perfectly enlightened, or at least that when you slip up you are enlightened enough not to labour the point, so that if you don't quite get it you abdicate all responsibility to someone who claims very confidently that they are the authority. All you have to do is shut up and - no, not even #bekind, but #bowdown. Because saying, yes, but why? is stupid or malicious or apologist.*
But that doesn't work. I support Clanchy because she is talking about it, because she is honest, and because her book inspires people (including me) to ask these questions and really want to know the answers. For all those reasons (and others that I won't repeat), it is wrong to punish her.
*(I will not get into the Catch-22 of being told you cannot speak unless you listen to X's experiences, and defer to them, but also that it is definitely not X's job to educate you. It may not be fair, but if X insists they are the only people who can do it - rightly or wrongly - then by definition it is X's job.)