Thread: Black Studies Professors demand Firing of conservative writer on Education ASAP

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11  
    Ancient Fire Breather Retread's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I came to Texas as soon as I could
    Posts
    3,863
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    ................... Do you understand that by doing that, you make no friends, and really piss off people who might otherwise have some common ground with you in other areas?
    Novatwit doesn't do common ground - just aggravation and attempted, though unsuccessful, oneupmanship.
    It's not how old you are, it's how you got here.
    It's been a long road and not all of it was paved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post

    Look, we get that you don't believe in religion, really. It doesn't have to come up every time that you post. If you'd stopped where I inserted my comment, you'd have gotten considerable agreement here, but you just had to dig at the believers, didn't you? Do you understand that by doing that, you make no friends, and really piss off people who might otherwise have some common ground with you in other areas?
    He just can't help himself.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    These are just BAs in BS. Unless a Women's Studies program is producing OB-GYNs, it's a sham.



    Look, we get that you don't believe in religion, really. It doesn't have to come up every time that you post. If you'd stopped where I inserted my comment, you'd have gotten considerable agreement here, but you just had to dig at the believers, didn't you? Do you understand that by doing that, you make no friends, and really piss off people who might otherwise have some common ground with you in other areas?
    It would not, however, address the hypocrisy in criticizing schools for offering degrees in similarly scientifically bankrupt disciplines.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    It would not, however, address the hypocrisy in criticizing schools for offering degrees in similarly scientifically bankrupt disciplines.
    It is only hypocritical if you accept your opinion on religion as fact, and all other contrary opinions as, not just falsehoods, but falsehoods to those who pretend to hold them. The vast majority of those who major in divinity go out into the world as ministers or priests, and do not simply end up teaching the next generation of perpetual scholars.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,125
    They fired her!

    http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstor...-readers/46608


    A Note to Readers

    May 7, 2012, 7:21 pm

    By Liz McMillen

    When we published Naomi Schaefer Riley’s blog posting on Brainstorm last week (“The Most Persuasive Case for Eliminating Black Studies? Just Read the Dissertations”), several thousand of you spoke out in outrage and disappointment that The Chronicle had published an article that did not conform to the journalistic standards and civil tone that you expect from us.

    We’ve heard you, and we have taken to heart what you said.

    We now agree that Ms. Riley’s blog posting did not meet The Chronicle’s basic editorial standards for reporting and fairness in opinion articles. As a result, we have asked Ms. Riley to leave the Brainstorm blog.

    Since Brainstorm was created five years ago, we have sought out bloggers representing a range of intellectual and political views, and we have allowed them broad freedom in topics and approach. As part of that freedom, Brainstorm writers were able to post independently; Ms. Riley’s post was not reviewed until after it was posted.

    I realize we have made mistakes. We will thoroughly review our editorial practices on Brainstorm and other blogs and strengthen our guidelines for bloggers.

    In addition, my Editor’s Note last week inviting you to debate the posting also seemed to elevate it to the level of informed opinion, which it was not. I also realize that, as the controversy unfolded last week, our response on Twitter did not accurately convey The Chronicle’s message.

    I sincerely apologize for the distress these incidents have caused our readers and appreciate that so many of you have made your sentiments known to us.

    One theme many of you have sounded is that you felt betrayed by what we published; that you welcome healthy informed debate, but that in this case, we did not live up to the expectations of the community of readers we serve.

    You told us we can do better, and we agree.

    —Liz McMillen, Editor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    They fired her!................
    Now, you didn't really think the "Party of Tolerance and Inclusion" was going to stand by and let someone disagree, did you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Starbuck View Post
    Now, you didn't really think the "Party of Tolerance and Inclusion" was going to stand by and let someone disagree, did you?
    I guess not.

    Here's the NY Post article about it:

    http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capito...H8a0QRFxQcNgMI

    Academics' response to criticism? Fire that racist!


    9:55 AM, May 7, 2012 ι Abby W. Schachter
    As a blogger for the Chronicle of Higher Education Naomi Schaefer Riley is paid to write about what is going on in academia from her perspective. She was doing her job when Riley wrote about the failure of black studies at American universities, citing PhD dissertations as evidence of the weakness of the discipline .

    The response to her post can be summed up as follows: She's a racist and she should be fired.

    "If ever there were a case for eliminating [black studies] .... some of the dissertations being offered by the best and the brightest of black-studies graduate students has made it. What a collection of left-wing victimization claptrap. The best that can be said of these topics is that they’re so irrelevant no one will ever look at them," Riley wrote on April 30.

    Riley proceeded to describe a few recent dissertations on topics like black midwifery and alleged racism in the housing market as exemplifying her point about how empty and useless the discipline of black studies must be if this is the best research it can produce.

    She has now been subjected to what she calls the "absurdity" of the ivory tower, as a petition has been started demanding she be fired from her job and multiple responses on the Chronicle of Higher Education have called her a bigoted racist for deigning to "beat up on" a bunch of "poor" graduate students.

    As Riley noted in her response to this unfair onslaught, "I was never a big fan of the feminist mantra that the “personal is political.” But the corollary–that any political remark must be taken personally–seems in many ways even worse. My last blog post has earned me even more opprobrium than usual among the [blog's] commenters, and it seems that they have decided to take as a personal attack something that is clearly not."

    But personal attacks and false accusations of prejudice are the only things academics can offer in the face of legitimate criticism, it seems. Perhaps Riley should take it as a compliment that not a single one of her critics has managed to defend black studies or the dissertations the field produces on their own merits. That 6,000 lost souls (who've signed the online petition) should support the effort to separate her from her job and on the basis of a racism charge with no foundation in reality, is nothing short of a tragedy.



    Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capito...#ixzz1uFu3fsdG
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,125
    Good comment from AmarWright on Chronicle:

    AmarWright 2 hours ago

    There are at least three possibilities: NSR was terribly wrong, NSR was right, NSR was right but didn't do her homework. Many of the comments focus on #1. Some simply assume - yes assume - that her position is "racist". Many complain that she hadn't read these dissertations. Fair enough.

    Then let's consider this. What if someone does read these dissertations - please decide on a number or percentage that would be adequate - and then concludes many of them are garbage? Would critics of NSR then say, "Oh gosh I need to take that seriously then, because you actually read them"? I rather doubt it.

    What if an African or African-American produced a dissertation that challenges whatever ideology is dominant in black studies programs and dissertations? Would critics of NSR then say, "Well, shucks, I can't call it garbage because that would be racist"? I rather doubt it.

    And how many critics of NSR have read these dissertations? Such that they can say any criticism thereof must be "racist"? And yet we're so sure of that.

    NSR may indeed have messed up. But I don't think this is really about that. It's that she challenged the status quo ( = dominant ideology of academia). And people will use any reason, no matter how ad hoc or unfounded or arguably sound, to condemn, dismiss, and silence her.
    And here's the response. Notice how it deflects from the real issues.



    Joejoe1 1 hour ago in reply to AmarWright

    Amar.

    I'm not really sure why Naomi was fired. The only thing that usually works with businesses like CHE is threats to the bottom line, so I assume the rumors about threats to ad revenue or loss of subscriptions have some truth to them.

    My beef with Naomi was the fact that she hadn't read the dissertations she criticized and then wrote a hit piece calling for the abolishment of African American studies based on the titles of these dissertations alone. Naomi's piece was clearly a reaction to an earlier CHE article on the African American studies program at Northwestern. The original article contained a sidebar where 5 graduate students and their dissertation topics were showcased. The dissertations were unfinished and the descriptions in the sidebar were sketchy.

    Therefore, it was obvious that Naomi had not read the dissertations: they were not finished yet. However, in her title, she implies that she has read them: "The Most Persuasive Case for Eliminating Black Studies? Just Read the Dissertations." People outside CHE might indeed assume Naomi had read these dissertations (as her title suggests) and take her more seriously than she should be taken. Remember, the blog content (where Naomi's posts appeared) is free, but the serious articles (like the one on Northwestern's program) are by subscription only. Therefore, outside readers without subscriptions had no way to reference the original article in its entirety and know that Naomi was being misleading in her title. That is an ethics issue here that bothered a lot of us.

    Since none of the content for Naomi's blog post came from the dissertations, it could only have come from the sketchy information from the original article and from Naomi's own preconceived notions or prejudices. Therefore, her attack on African American Studies was easy to debunk. I wrote a comment at the time debunking her shoddy work and showing her how the three dissertation topics connected to other published research in academia and by HUD. Other commenters highlighted other shortcomings of the piece. It was an easy thing to do. The article had no intellectual weight to it, and was, quite frankly, an embarrassment. Then again, Naomi was known for writing lightweight blog posts seemingly from the hip. She was always easy to debunk as a result and many of us did not take her seriously.

    However, with this post, Naomi pushed a lot of buttons:

    1. Since her opposition to African American studies was clearly uninformed by fact, many decided that this opinion could only have come from her intrinsic dislike (actually disdain) for African American Studies. Many perceive this kind of disdain as stemming from racism.

    2. Naomi's message to African American studies scholars that their entire field is worthless and that they shouldn't be a field at all was experienced by many as the desire to silence the Black voice in academics, which already has a limited place. Most of our academic disciplines are centered on the white experience as the default, with the Black experience (if mentioned at all) being a special case. Essentially, many CHE readers felt that Naomi was in essence telling Blacks academics to "shut up."

    3. Naomi clearly did not understand the kind of research being done in African American Studies departments in general. At the end of her diatribe, Naomi demands that Black scholars should focus more on "high incarceration rates, low graduation rates, and high out-of-wedlock birth rates" and claims, "But it’s clear that they’re not happening in black-studies departments." Of course, this is absolutely factually wrong. Many comments addressed this specific issue and gave references to such work. Once again, a lack of research leads to unsubstantiated claims, or as some might call it, "lies."

    4. Naomi's arrogance in the article is palpable. She feels free not only to dismiss African American Studies but tell Black scholars what they should and should not be researching. The fact that such a wildly uninformed blogger should feel entitled to give orders to an entire academic field smacked of arrogance and privilege, and to many "White privilege" specifically. I can't speak to whether this is Naomi's "whiteness" at work or simply her extremely nasty personality, but this arrogance was one of the major elements of her piece that led to firing. In a follow up post, Naomi arrogantly and proudly admits to having not read the dissertations and not having to read them in order to writing an article. She further claims that she is allowed "as a journalist" to avoid such research. Nonsense, of course, but her arrogance is such that you couldn't even tell her otherwise.

    5. Naomi's argument centered around the titles of graduate student dissertations. For many people here, that was below the belt. Graduate students are just starting out, have no professional networks or long term support built up in a field. Now, Naomi was taking their names and holding these scholars up for contempt and ridicule online. Many expressed fears that Google searches on the names of these scholars would bring up Naomi's article and her horrific "reviews" of their work:

    http://chronicle.com/blogs/bra...

    "The best that can be said of these topics is that they’re so irrelevant no one will ever look at them. That’s what I would say about Ruth Hayes’ dissertation, “‘So I Could
    Be Easeful’: Black Women’s Authoritative Knowledge on Childbirth.” It
    began because she “noticed that nonwhite women’s experiences were
    largely absent from natural-birth literature, which led me to look into
    historical black midwifery.” How could we overlook the nonwhite
    experience in “natural birth literature,” whatever the heck that is?
    It’s scandalous and clearly a sign that racism is alive and well in
    America, not to mention academia."

    "Then there is Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, author of “Race for Profit: Black
    Housing and the Urban Crisis of the 1970s.” Ms. Taylor believes there
    was apparently some kind of conspiracy in the federal government’s
    promotion of single family homes in black neighborhoods after the unrest
    of the 1960s. Single family homes! The audacity!"

    Naomi Implies that the work of these graduate students is irrelevant, silly, and irrational conspiracy theory. A graduate student (and his/her dissertation committee) might rightly fear a Google search. And here again, a future employer searching on Google might read Naomi's title and assume that she had read these dissertations. Future employers might not understand that Naomi's nasty swipes were based on a precious few sentences in a sidebar of another article plus a lot of preconceived notions.

    For many on CHE, this targeting of graduate students and potentially ruining their careers before they even got their degrees in hand was the worst thing Naomi did.

    At any rate, this gives you an idea of why people got so angry. This isn't just about an honest debate on African American Studies. It was about shoddy workmanship, implications that are misleading (lies), preconceived notions about Blacks and African American Studies, unmitigated arrogance and a sense of entitlement, and, finally, an attack on the vulnerable to score political points.

    Naomi's leaving is not the end of it. I am hoping that the graduate students are exploring their legal and media options for the time when Naomi's article hits Fox News. (It's already hit some mainstream conservative papers). Being called a conspiracy theorist, for example, needs to be countered directly.

    Amar, this post is long, but I want you to see how many different facets this issue has. This was not a simple case of a disagreement over ideas
    Last edited by Elspeth; 05-08-2012 at 02:55 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •